A Comparison
Last Saturday, I attended the so-called "Moderate Sikh" Nagar Keertan/Parade in Vancouver.
The previous Saturday, I attended the so-called "Fundamentalist Sikh" Nagar Keertan in Surrey.
I just wanted to make a couple of observations and draw a couple of comparisons:
- The Vancouver event is noticeably not a religious event. I don't think there's much argument here. This is not to necessarily say that the people in Vancouver are somehow not as good as the people in Surrey, they're just not as religiously devout on average. In fact, I was accompanied by a number of people wearing traditional attire (baanaa) and having open, non-trimmed beards, and we were given weird looks, which is to say that there's even a suspicion of people who follow the rehit or code of conduct as prescribed by traditional Sikh doctrine.
- I'd also say that while I never claim to be fervently religious myself, most of the people in Surrey were obviously not very religious either. Meaning that most of them were not baptized and had no plans to become baptized. So what separates them from the moderate Sikhs? Location maybe? Maybe it's easier to be a "fundamentalist" in Surrey than in Vancouver? Maybe they're just more tolerant and acceptant of traditional Sikh doctrine even though they choose not to follow it themselves? I came up with a different possible answer though...
In 1984, there were no concrete "moderate/fundamentalist" divisions within the community (the media created the division in the late 1990s). Anyways, after 1984, when Sikh shrines were attacked in India, there was universal shock, anger and condemnation from Vancouver's Sikh community, religiously-devoted and religiously-moderate alike. Everyone was shocked. Everyone felt a sense of connection with their people back in Punjab. People felt a sense of outrage as if it was their own brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers who were being butchered and raped by the Indian army. I think, (although I wasn't born at the time) that this was felt all across the community.
What was the consequence of this? Previously non-devout Sikhs became devout. They felt a connection to their people and to their faith. This spanned all different kinds of Sikhs.
I have a feeling, that if another tragedy and injustice was inflicted upon the Sikhs of the Punjab, most moderate Sikhs would no longer feel connected to the tragedy. This is not meant to sound harsh, but I just feel that they're no longer connected to the panth, and they're separating from the Sikh diaspora and are often not even connected to mainstream Canadian society - meaning that they don't really have a nation to call their own.
They would rather buy into the lies of the Government of India and the lies that would be perpetuated through the worldwide media (due to a probable repeat of the media blackout that plagued Punjab in 1984) than to feel sympathy with the injustices carried out in India. Unlike the irreligious people who became religious after 1984, I don't think that phenomenon would once again impact the "moderate" side of the community. It would surely have an effect on the "fundamentalist" side of the community, who at the very least feel a connection to the panth as a whole.
Hmmmmm. I had a few other observations to make, but I'll make them another time. This post has gotten too long.
The previous Saturday, I attended the so-called "Fundamentalist Sikh" Nagar Keertan in Surrey.
I just wanted to make a couple of observations and draw a couple of comparisons:
- The Vancouver event is noticeably not a religious event. I don't think there's much argument here. This is not to necessarily say that the people in Vancouver are somehow not as good as the people in Surrey, they're just not as religiously devout on average. In fact, I was accompanied by a number of people wearing traditional attire (baanaa) and having open, non-trimmed beards, and we were given weird looks, which is to say that there's even a suspicion of people who follow the rehit or code of conduct as prescribed by traditional Sikh doctrine.
- I'd also say that while I never claim to be fervently religious myself, most of the people in Surrey were obviously not very religious either. Meaning that most of them were not baptized and had no plans to become baptized. So what separates them from the moderate Sikhs? Location maybe? Maybe it's easier to be a "fundamentalist" in Surrey than in Vancouver? Maybe they're just more tolerant and acceptant of traditional Sikh doctrine even though they choose not to follow it themselves? I came up with a different possible answer though...
In 1984, there were no concrete "moderate/fundamentalist" divisions within the community (the media created the division in the late 1990s). Anyways, after 1984, when Sikh shrines were attacked in India, there was universal shock, anger and condemnation from Vancouver's Sikh community, religiously-devoted and religiously-moderate alike. Everyone was shocked. Everyone felt a sense of connection with their people back in Punjab. People felt a sense of outrage as if it was their own brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers who were being butchered and raped by the Indian army. I think, (although I wasn't born at the time) that this was felt all across the community.
What was the consequence of this? Previously non-devout Sikhs became devout. They felt a connection to their people and to their faith. This spanned all different kinds of Sikhs.
I have a feeling, that if another tragedy and injustice was inflicted upon the Sikhs of the Punjab, most moderate Sikhs would no longer feel connected to the tragedy. This is not meant to sound harsh, but I just feel that they're no longer connected to the panth, and they're separating from the Sikh diaspora and are often not even connected to mainstream Canadian society - meaning that they don't really have a nation to call their own.
They would rather buy into the lies of the Government of India and the lies that would be perpetuated through the worldwide media (due to a probable repeat of the media blackout that plagued Punjab in 1984) than to feel sympathy with the injustices carried out in India. Unlike the irreligious people who became religious after 1984, I don't think that phenomenon would once again impact the "moderate" side of the community. It would surely have an effect on the "fundamentalist" side of the community, who at the very least feel a connection to the panth as a whole.
Hmmmmm. I had a few other observations to make, but I'll make them another time. This post has gotten too long.
posted by Japnaam Singh at
4:15 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home