The Sikh Bulletin

The Sikh Bulletin cyq-vYswK 539 March-April 2007
discarding of unshorn hair and taking drugs. I do not make
this connection. But I do observe that people assume and
expect that a person who looks like a Sikh should live like a
Sikh. This is a fact. There are plenty of people who look like
a Sikh but do not live like a Sikh. But you cannot find a
person who lives like Sikh but do not look like a Sikh. In fact
you are arriving at an erroneous and untenable conclusion.
You are saying that it is not at all essential to look like a Sikh
to live Like a Sikh. For me this is absolutely wrong as if it is
true then we accuse our Gurus of superimposing this
appearance on their philosophy. In other words we call them
“Bhekhies”.
You referred to idyllic Punjab when Sikhs were living
Sikhism in its true spirit and asked me the question what
went wrong. I tell you what went wrong. You are part of the
process that went wrong. In the first phase of this process the
termites looking like Sikhs came and started destroying Sikh
philosophy. They produced literature that was full of
superficial and misplaced praise of Sikh Gurus but distorted
their philosophy and history. In the second phase the termites
that do not have Sikh appearance are busy telling Sikhs that
this appearance is not at all necessary. In fact it is hindrance.
Both of these processes are two sides of the same coin.
But these people won’t succeed in their designs. Truth
prevails at the end of the day.
Jarnail Singh, Australia
Rejoinder to JS’s Second Response
Dear S Jarnail Singh Ji,
This reply will have to be a little long; I hope you can bear
with it. I will point out, repeatedly, how you continue to
juxtapose two different statements, and then draw some
erroneous conclusion from that. In some cases it will be
necessary to look at every sentence and point out the error
therein. Your responses / statements are, in some places,
given within the following “brackets”: >
First off it is necessary to ask you and anyone else who
disagrees with what I wrote, to look at my definition of
“universal”. I defined it as ‘embracing a major part or the
greatest portion (as of mankind)’. It is on the premise of this
definition that the rest of the article makes its arguments. If
this definition is unacceptable then the article is of no
consequence. As a first measure you have to decide if this
definition is acceptable. As I explained in my article this is
what most people mean when they think “universal”. You
say: “Sikhism is a universal religion because it is a universal
religion. Universality of a religion is not a numerical but
philosophical matter.” (I will revert to this statement again).
Take a look at my definition, and that of most people, and
you will see that it is the “numerical” factor that I speak of. If
you choose to redefine the word then, presumably, you will
allow that privilege to all others; in which case every faith
(and idea) can claim to be universal. Why would Sikhism be
any special Throughout this response whenever I use the
word universal it will mean ‘embracing a major part or the
greatest portion of mankind’.
You allege that I “go on to plead all those persons who do
not keep unshorn hair and take drugs etc be “accepted as
Sikhs” because they declare themselves to be Sikhs and no
one has excommunicated them.” Tell me in which part of
my response to your earlier mail did I associate shorn hair
AND drugs, as going hand-in-hand, as you imply By the
same token would you plead all those persons who do keep
unshorn hair and take drugs etc be “accepted as Sikhs”
>
In relation to appeal to non-Sikhs, who would seek an
alternative spiritual path to their current faith, and keeping
the definition in mind, it surely appears so. As I said in my
earlier response “I don’t have to be happy with it but that is
a reality I have to face”. By definition, it is only when the
majority of mankind accepts the message of the SGGS
(become Sikhs so to speak) that Sikhism can claim to be
universal.
>
If one says he is a Sikh he must be. That is quite apart from
your use of the word ‘becomes’ as it implies a lot. Barring
your “RSS and Company” and their political posturing (in
India), why would anyone (in the rest of the world) claim to
be Sikhs unless, of course, they are Sikhs I have not come
across anyone making such claims.
>
It is you who have ascribed a perverse logic to me by
making unrelated assertions and then drawing a conclusion
from them. It is not I whose logic is “really marvelous”.
>
Where have I given an opinion “in favour” of discarding
unshorn hair Take a good, hard look at the article. My
conversation with non-Sikhs simply implied that the
majority (if not all) found the unshorn hair unacceptable,
and in the numbers game (remember the definition of
universal) it is important.
>
K. T. F. of N. A. Inc. 3524 Rocky Ridge Way, El Dorado Hills, CA. 95762 17