Dear Editor, I was forced to reply to Dr. Harjinder Singh Dilgeer, since he had misinterpreted my letter of June 11, p 9.
He views my thesis as supporting interfaith marriages. Lam sorry for his linear thinking. My thesis was (among others) that spiritual differences are not conducive to a long-term relationship. Yet, I didn’t argue for, or against interfaith marriages. Since, one doc not needs to be dogmatic to argue persuasively.
It troubles me that Dr.Singh would miss critical issues i had raised, and personalize the discussion. The critical issues were: the correlation of social UN acceptance and interfaith marital problems; divisions among Sikhs; influence of anti-Sikh practices; failure of Sikhism to spread; the need to affirm our faith; and relegation of parental duties. Dr.Singh missed these obvious points.
In my letter, the word ‘Sikh was in quotes when used with clean Shaven, signifying that I don’t necessarily subscribe to them as being Sikh. Therefore, the original read: Khalsa Sikh and clean-shaven “Sikh” (Emphasis added). Dr.Singh had omitted this obvious fact.
Sikh identity has remained tied to Indian (Hindu) identity. Do Sikhs have an independent state? Guru Gobind Singh Ji says: “Without Self-rule religions have not flourished, without self-rule all have been ruined and destroyed.” ‘Therefore, Sikh identity can truly be maintained in a sovereign homeland.
Sikhism, though, is distinct and syncretic notions of its origins are erroneous, An American convert Says that followers of the faith “have their own Prophets who brought anew divine revelation to earth which is enshrined in their own sacred scripture, the Guru Granth Sahib (Ralph Singh, Sikhism, 1). Sikhism is divinely ordained and can’t be seen as an amalgam.
Hitler wrote Mein Kampf (1924), while in prison for the abortive Munich Putsch, His ideas of social Darwinism, anti-Semitism, race and eugenics led to the Holocaust, in which six million lost their lives. Hitler’s thoughts were not based on “German philosophers and psychoanalysis”, but evolved from shibboleths of Viennese rightwing radicalism in his youth. They have no scientific basis but are racist notions of Nordic supremacy; I never compared Dr.Singh to Hitler, but only their Statements. But, to defend him is akin to defending a madman. Some people insist on their *got’(sub caste) due to caste consciousness, Other learned Sikhs detach their ‘got’, and use only Singh, The latter option appeals to me. Sikh mysticism involves removal of ‘haumai (egoism). Waheguru cannot reside in a heart fall of *haumai’, A person who speaks as if she or he knows everything has ‘haumai,’ and can’t be called a Gursikh. Since, a true Sikh never stops learning. Thank you, Dr Singh, for considering my letter worthy to comment upon, but avoid misinterpretation.
Arvind Singh Hamilton, Ontario
Article extracted from this publication >> July 16, 1993
