• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Ordinary Singaporean vs Inderjit / Seng HT Saga

gatehousethetinkertailor

Alfrescian
Loyal
My understanding from Indian friends is that Sikhs are no different to any other Indian except that they have different religion. In fact they are not even a race. Since we are familiar with South Indians, we think they are different only that they a not southerners but North Indians. If we treat them as a separate race, they would not even make the GRC cut as their numbers are small and pretty much like Eurasians. Anyway. If they entered via GRC and obtained the minority cert, the expectation is to represent all minorities and I expect there is a sense of accountability towards people of their geographic origin.

Abit late but I think this broad brush statement needs to be clarified - what needs to be distinguished is race from religion - the local Singaporean Sikhs (and counterparts in Malaysia) are very much clueless as to their identity - India is a sub-continent i.e. from a geological perspective it was once a separate continent from Asia (this is pre-partition 1948 India incorporating Pakistan and Bangladesh) - India drifted towards Asia ("continental drift"), crashed into the Asian continent hence the Himalayas.

Hence as a sub-continent its land mass is substantial - through a mix between geography, geology, and history the peoples of India have rather diverse identities (they are until today defined by provincial/regional identities as seen through language, food, music, culture) - because of the history of conquests, the various religious identities were formed - a simplistic approach would be Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam (and Sikhism being a youngest, only 500 years old).

The Sikh religious adherents originate from mainly the Punjab province - this is the seat of the religion and the conversions into the faith by inhabitants who were either Hindu or Muslim under the Mughal empire about 500 years ago.

However, not all Punjabis are Sikhs - there are more Punjabi Muslims in numbers (in Pakistan today) and Hindus than there are Punjabi Sikhs. The partition of India cut into the province of Punjab and the sectarian violence there was between people with the same provincial identity slaughtering each other in the name of faith - whoever was on the wrong side of partition because of their faith were slaughtered - this was again repeated in Yugoslavia after Tito died - Slavs turned on Slavs because of their faith/regional identity (Croats and Serbs are Christians but one being Catholic due to the influence of the Venetian Empire, and the other Orthordox due to its Slavic heritage - the Bosnians being Slavs who converted to Islam under the Ottomans).

If you put Inderjit in a room with Nawar Sharif - they would speak with the same accent and language i.e. Punjabi. If Inderjit spoke to Ali Zardari they would probably have difficulty understanding each other as he is Sindhi (not Punjabi) and the common vernacular is distinct. They may understand each other to an extent but the accent
and grammar is very different.

Singkie Singaporeans are absolutely clueless about this - to them being Punjabi means automatically being a Sikh - they have never been taught otherwise because ethnicity has been synonymous with religion.

The Singkie Sindhis of Singapore are also in the same boat - clueless and interbreed because they believe they are more "atas" than other "Indians" - a lot of their disdain is towards to Southern Indians of Singapore originating from Tamil Nadu - intermarriage between Sindhis and any other denomination of "Indian" Singaporeans is taboo and adds to them sense of "entitlement" (Royal Bros are Sindhis as are the Melwanis) - the Sindhis are also clueless about the fact that they are not a "race" of people but rather a group of people who originate from the Sindh province.

Since the Indian FTs started coming into Singapore the traditional local (Tamil) Indians immediately started to feel threatened - all along the idea of being an Indian in Singapore was mostly determined by the Tamil definition (and to a small extent the Keralites from Malayalam who had been absorbed culturally into the Singapore Tamil
culture) - the ancient North (fair skinned) against the South (dark skinned) prejudices surfaced (matrimonials in India, UK, Canada until today cite the skin tone of the prospective bride/groom never mind this being the 21st century) - linguistically, culturally, religious observations all differed - the bedrock of antagonism has been the color of one's skins and the typical differences it signaled based on prejudice.

Suddenly, the Tamils of Singapore are no longer the only "Indians" of Singapore.

In school it was not uncommon for Tamil boys to want to tackle the one bayi girl - sort of a trophy of sorts to show off and eventually marry (note the number of Tamils married to Punjabi Sikh girls) - the very small Punjabi Muslim community in Singapore was absorbed by the Malay community and culture hence other than looking very
different they had also lost their sense of Punjabi heritage.

So the Sikhs in Singapore are indeed quite different and even within their own community there has been a backlash against the Punjabi Sikhs who had poured into the local temples - the local Sikhs have been unhappy that the newbies are taking advantage of their free kitchens for meal, hoarding space during prayers etc. - just
like the Tamils in their temples - so even if they have the same provincial ethnicity and religion, they are distinguishing themselves as being Singkie Sikhs.


p.s The same has happened here to the Arab community (mostly from Hadramut) - most cannot speak Arabic, speak Malay and eat Malay food - ask them whether they know what "khabsa" is and you will be met with a blank look - the revival of Arab Street has contributed to a soft
awakening of their cultural identity and ethnic distinction (other the usual desire to only marry other Arabs to maintain "purity" long eroded) - they have a fantastical idea of what it means to be an Arab without any real sense having had no exposure further than Arab Street (I am yet to see any of these Singaporean Hadramutis donning
a sarong, chewing kaat and versed in the art of honey cultivation and falconry).
 

Annoyed

Alfrescian
Loyal
Inderjit Singh sounds like he has a pike up his ass. I'll never become an MP, but that's no way to speak to your constituent. Defensiveness aside, he almost seemed rude to me.

Also, as some other posters have mentioned, Seng Han Thong is a good one to talk about speaking poor English. Pui!
 

Leongsam

High Order Twit / Low SES subject
Admin
Asset
My understanding from Indian friends is that Sikhs are no different to any other Indian except that they have different religion. In fact they are not even a race.

"Indians" aren't a race and India [the country not the continent] as we know it today was created by the British.
 

Fook Seng

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
gatehousethetinkertailor said:
Abit late but I think this broad brush statement needs to be clarified - what needs to be distinguished is race from religion - the local Singaporean Sikhs (and counterparts in Malaysia) are very much clueless as to their identity - India is a sub-continent i.e. from a geological perspective it was once a separate continent from Asia (this is pre-partition 1948 India incorporating Pakistan and Bangladesh) - India drifted towards Asia ("continental drift"), crashed into the Asian continent hence the Himalayas.

Hence as a sub-continent its land mass is substantial - through a mix between geography, geology, and history the peoples of India have rather diverse identities (they are until today defined by provincial/regional identities as seen through language, food, music, culture) - because of the history of conquests, the various religious identities were formed - a simplistic approach would be Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam (and Sikhism being a youngest

Suddenly, the Tamils of Singapore are no longer the only "Indians" of Singapore.

In school it was not uncommon for Tamil boys to want to tackle the one bayi girl - sort of a trophy of sorts to show off and eventually marry (note the number of Tamils married to Punjabi Sikh girls) - the very small Punjabi Muslim

So the Sikhs in Singapore are indeed quite different and even within their own community there has been a backlash against the Punjabi Sikhs who had poured into the local temples - the local Sikhs have been unhappy that the newbies are taking advantage of their free kitchens for meal, hoarding space during prayers etc. -

p.s The same has happened here to the Arab community (mostly from Hadramut) - most cannot speak Arabic, speak Malay and eat Malay food -

Thank you very much for a very good summary of a rather complex picture.
 
Last edited:

Nice-Gook

Alfrescian
Loyal
Thank you very much for a very good summary of a rather complex picture.

Don't be too happy bro.There is a lot of mischief in clearing the misconception.

1.Historically.

Tamils and Sikhs (the turban wearing lot from Punjab),were imported by the British into Singapore practically at the same time historically.There were few distinct classes of Indian imports.()Troops & policing--Sikhs--the turban wearing lot.()Administrative and clerical--Ceylon now Sri Lankan Tamils()Laborer class-Tamils and others from India----please note that though the same Tamils who are religiously and racially are the same but were very much divided as seen by the British and most importantly by the Tamil themselves as a different society.But don't confuse yourselves with the Tamils who preceded the Malacca Sultanate--they were conquerors,royalties,explorers ,traders and etc.Only a small remanent of this typo still remains.One the Chitti -Chitty Melaka(Hindus) and the other Jawi Peranakan (Tamil Muslims) the equivalent of our Straits born aka Baba and Bibi..

The most important event that took place recently that changed the course for Sikhs was the rise of militant Sikhs seeking independence or autonomy from India.Which resulted in the then PM of India Indra Gandhi shot dead by her own Sikh guards.What happened aftermath is that Sikhs no longer see themselves as Indians----especially so by Sikhs residing in UK,Canada and SEA.

This was a great opportunity for a racially divide and rule party like PAP to exploit; to show a Sikh face as an Indian to non discerning community but who is actually not proud to be an Indian.The same happened in Malaysian politics too.Karpal Singh ,a Sikh,is the 2nd man in charge of DAP but as of today wants the most prominent Tami in DAPl,the deputy CM of Penang,ousted.This is today's news.

Now,one must note this.Tamils both in Singapore and Malaysia are the majority among Indians.But PAP and DAP chose to give a Sikh face to represent Indians.Sikhs in Singapore number hardly 10k in Singapore and pretty much the same numerically in Malaysia too.What is more important is that Sikhs living overseas had openly declared their antagonism towards being classified as Indians.

This is the point in order.The same point Scroobal made.

Arabs,of course is a different topic altogether;if need be I can expand on this.The guys from Hadramut are not exactly Saudis ;they are Yemenis---the sea farers of the ancient world.The kind you read about in Sindbad folklore .They even held key portfolios in the Ming dynasty.
 
Last edited:

Nice-Gook

Alfrescian
Loyal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalistan_movement

Khalistan movement refers to a global political secessionist movement which seeks to create a separate Sikh state, called Khālistān .In 1971, Khalistan proponent Jagjit Singh Chauhan, traveled to the United States. He placed an advertisement in The New York Times proclaiming the formation of Khalistan and was able to collect millions of dollars.[SUP]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalistan_movement#cite_note-3[/SUP] On 12 April 1980, he held a meeting with the Indian prime minister Indira Gandhi before declaring the formation of "National Council of Khalistan".

n the 1980s, some of the Khalistan proponents turned to militancy, resulting in counter-militancy operations by the Indian security forces. In one such operation, Operation Blue Star (June 1984), the Indian Army led by the Sikh General Kuldip Singh Brar forcibly entered the the Golden Temple to overpower the armed militants and the religious leader.

The Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was assassinated by her two Sikh bodyguards in retaliation. Following her death, thousands of Sikhs including those opposed to the Khalistan movement, were massacred in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, termed as a genocide by the Sikh groups.

Pro-Khalistan organizations such as are also active outside India, supported by a section of the Sikh diaspora.
 

gatehousethetinkertailor

Alfrescian
Loyal
No mischief was intended but a sincere effort to try and touch on a rather complex issue as succintly as possible - as a follower of this forum there a number of diatribes against "ah nehs" and I hesitated to get into much detail as I am unsure how much interest there would be here.

There is literature that argued the Sikhs were promised their own state as part of the partition plan - as they were concentrated in "Greater" Punjab (pre-partition) it was inevitable that the sectarian violence that would follow would engulf their community and truly scar relations between the Sikhs, Muslims and Hindus (despite all coming from the same province and each being derived from the other from a religious perspective - again a generalisation but is a fact of the history of the area).

My purpose is simple - the statement "My understanding from Indian friends is that Sikhs are no different to any other Indian except that they have different religion" oversimplifies the distinctions that exist - no need to point to the "turbaned" Sikhs as Sikhs are also split between the orthordox (turban wearling) and non-orthordox (non-turban) - it is a faith that has been intertwined into an identity (being Punjabi first and Indian lesser so).

I am unsure whether one can state that the "Sikhs" do not identify with being "Indians" - most Sikhs in India today (post-1984, Khalistan etc) still have one nationality and that of being Indian nationals - the fight for a separate homeland was pegged on the aspirations of Partition (and probably the desire to resurrect the independence seen under Maharaja Ranjit Singh : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranjit_Singh; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikh_Empire ) - it was a far-fetched and ambitious political idea - India as a nation would never allow the succession of the most prosperous agricultural state which has the dual-component of success: fertile soil and water (Punjab as a word derived from the Persian meaning "land of five rivers").

Another consideration of the "Sikhs" as a people is the outflow of Sikhs from Afghanistan during the Soviet and Taliban era - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism_in_Afghanistan

The same Afghani Sikhs identify themselves with Afghani culture rather than Indian culture as linguistically and culturally they evolved differently - a parallel would be with the Sikh diaspora in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore - they are as "Indian" as the Chinese populations there are "Chinese" which is the point I was making and poignantly stated by Boss - India as an idea of a unified whole was propogated by the British - it had been a land mass of kingdoms and invasions until made "whole" and then partitioned into West and East Pakistan and India along religious rather than racial/provincial identity (thus unleashing the bloodshed of partition).

I am not sure which specific areas the majority of the Punjabi Sikhs in Asia originate from - there are smaller numbers from the "Pakistan" side of Punjab and more from the "Indian" side of the Punjab. The ones in the UK mostly seem to come from Jallundur.

Another clarification - the diaspora in the UK and East Africa still very much identify with the idea of "India" (although much of it is sentimentalised) - a drive down predominant Asian parts of the UK (from the North to the Midlands to the South) would see Indian flags flying during Diwali and Pakistani flags during Eid - the youth despite being born in the UK are slowly developing a sense of being "British Asians" and until travel to India and experience it first-hand still believe it is a point of reference for their identity. The same zeal for "Indian"/"Pakistan" overarching identity is hardly prevalent in Asia - probably attributed to the integration of the various cultures through food and language over the past 100 years. So perhaps the diasporic Sikhs do not support policies of the Indian government (Sikhs are not till today regarded as a separate religion in India and deemed to be a sub-sect of Hindus although they are closer in belief to Islam i.e. being monotheistic).

I always thought that despite being only 10k strong in Singapore and 250k strong in M’sia (hence the many stereotypes of Bayis originate from across the Causeway as immortalized by PM Ramlee and gang in his movies and Lat in his cartoons – the stereotypes of Sikhs in India are in stark contrast)

As for the Arabs in Singapore - yes, they are mostly Yemenites and not Saudis (hence the reference to Hadramut rather than Riyadh or Jeddah or the Eastern Province) – the Yemenites had and continue to have a culture very distinct from the rest of the Gulf Arabs (which a significant overlap between Somalian and south Indian cultures) – geographically on the Arabian plateau with pre-disposition towards sailing away (and some landing in Cardiff as well it seems) – but the point is common with the other disapora communities – they have a sentimentalized notion of heritage and the “motherland” but culturally (rather than religiously) are Singkies, M’sians, Indons etc. and would not survive in the tribal landscape of Yemen.
 

Nice-Gook

Alfrescian
Loyal
No mischief was intended but a sincere effort to try and touch on a rather complex issue as succintly as possible - as a follower of this forum there a number of diatribes against "ah nehs" and I hesitated to get into much detail as I am unsure how much interest there would be here.

.

Your noble effort to educate us is appreciated.Be brief since few read political folder and fewer bothers to read anything academic ' unless you have a scoop that gonna sensationalize the issue.

Back to the matters of Sikhs.Unlike,the Chinese who were cut off from China for decades Sikhs whether from Singapore or Malaysia always had the opportunity to return home to India--which they did regularly.Something even the local Tamils lacked because because of the finances and their links totally cut off.Just look any obituary of a Sikh in the Straits Times and the village a Sikh is born in India is always mentioned.And their clan class is easily traced too by their names.In short,a Sikh from Singapore can always go back to his ancestral village and feels at home among his great uncles,cousins and etc.Something no Chinese and very few Tamils of Singaporean origin can claim to.

I have nothing against the Sikhs.They were my great drinking buddies in Vancouver and here.But Sikhs had lend themselves as PAP lap dogs.Just observe how pictures of LKY and LHL regularly appearing in our newspaper participating in Sikhs functions; even lately as few months back.You hardly see LKY in Tamil functions let alone Malay functions.My observations are empirical.

As in the case of PAP vs Oppositions.In between there is almost always a Sikh police,a Sikh judge,a Sikh ombudsman and so on.Hence PAP had conveniently used Sikhs for their political purposes.Sort of an Indian face but who does not really identify himself with Indians.This is what many of us Chinese failed to see.

Take this Seng HT saga for instance ,Pritam is a Sikh and an opposition MP.Was his silence on this issue deafening?---Why?At least the PAP Indian or Tamil rather ,MPs took a stand; even if it's boot-licking ......where is Pritam's stand where it is most needed?

This is the state of affairs of the sick,ooops I mean the Sikh society in Singapore?

Not about Sikhs per ce since the definition of who is a Sikh and who is not was only finalized in 1950.
 
Last edited:

Windsor

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Not about Sikhs per ce since the definition of who is a Sikh and who is not was only finalized in 1950.

There is a great difference in the gene make-up, religion, culture and physiques between the Tamils and the Sikhs. They are definitely 2 distinct races in India, and let's not discussed deeper into the other countries in the Indian sub-continent. I recalled reading that the Sikhs are from Persia, hence their likeness to the Iranians. How they arrived there and stayed on is another long story.:smile:
 

Nice-Gook

Alfrescian
Loyal
There is a great difference in the gene make-up, religion, culture and physiques between the Tamils and the Sikhs. They are definitely 2 distinct races in India, and let's not discussed deeper into the other countries in the Indian sub-continent. I recalled reading that the Sikhs are from Persia, hence their likeness to the Iranians. How they arrived there and stayed on is another long story.:smile:

Ahhhh,my pet subject I mean the origin of races and humanity.

India is actually a country of Eurasians of sort.All races exist in the sub continent--hence called the sub continent.

Yes,vast quantity of Persians settled down in India.It is also called the Aryan invasion since Persians ,the now Iranians ,are Aryans and not Arabs.It is also speculated that Aryans could have flowed from India to as far as Germany.Some of the words in Hindi and German is remarkably the same.The European Gypsies are actually Indians.

It's a very complex discussion and I hate to write long.

But the Sikhs are more of Greeks.Just observe a photo of a Sikh with his turban and beard and a photo of an ancient Greek side by side; you would be shocked at the similarity.Now why Greeks?

Greeks and India had trading connections as far as 3000 years back.Both their army fought each other in many wars.Their royalties inter married too.The last was Alexander the Great---he died while invading India;his entire army thus disbanded in Punjab area.Hence you see Punjabis and Kashmiris with blue eyes.But please don't come to the conclusion that all Sikhs has Greek origin.Sikhism is a religion and there are many with dark skin too.

Amazingly,even Indonesian of Minang origin(Padang--nasi padang lah) claim origin to be the decedents of Alexandra the Great.It is not bullshiiting either.Because during the Indianization of Indonesia some Indian royalties with Greek blood also settled in Indonesia.
 
Last edited:

Leongsam

High Order Twit / Low SES subject
Admin
Asset
Ahhhh,my pet subject I mean the origin of races and humanity.

Watch "The Human Family Tree" produced by National Geographic.

But the Sikhs are more of Greeks.Just observe a photo of a Sikh with his turban and beard and a photo of an ancient Greek side by side; you would be shocked at the similarity.Now why Greeks?

In one of the episodes, DNA testing shows that a black and a Caucasian are more closely related than two individuals of the same "race" so looks can be pretty deceiving.
 

Nice-Gook

Alfrescian
Loyal
Watch "The Human Family Tree" produced by National Geographic.In one of the episodes, DNA testing shows that a black and a Caucasian are more closely related than two individuals of the same "race" so looks can be pretty deceiving.

We are not talking the same lingo,because 'the human family tree' discusses of human migration some 160,000 years ago.The Genographic Project is a five-year-long (2005-2010) study funded by National Geographic and IBM to collect human DNA from people all over the world, and analyze those data to determine the various general pathways humans took out of Africa.

Than we have the recent Mapping of Human Genetic Diversity in Asia" by the Genome Institute of Singapore by a team of scietists from all over the world puts the origin of Chinese,Koreans and Japanese to have flowed from South India to South East Asia and finally northwards to E.Asia.According to this new scientific study, Dravidians - the race of people who inhabit south India, including Tamils - could be a common ancestral link to most modern-day Asians says Professor Edison Liu.Again this sequence is during a period of 50,000 years ago.

Again the subject of Sikhs with Greek ancestors is relatively modern dating back to not more than 3000 years ago.Even today there is human migration---as Singapore,originally a Malay archipelago but almost Chinese today.
 

Liquigas

Alfrescian
Loyal
I once took a taxi and the Sikh driver did tell me that Sikhs are descendants of Greek soldiers who invaded the Punjab region more than 2,300 years ago. But do note that at that time the area was already populated by Indo-Aryan people who were not much different from the Greeks, also an Aryan people.

In simple terms India can be divided into the Aryan North and the Dravidian South. But even among the North Indians, some are more 'aryan' than others. People from the north western part of the country (Punjabis, Sindhis) certainly look more 'european' than Indians from the east say in Bengal. The reason is the longer aryan influence on the people from the north west and the assimilation of Bengalis with the tribal peoples living in the same area.
 

eatshitndie

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
.......

Greeks and India had trading connections as far as 3000 years back.Both their army fought each other in many wars.Their royalties inter married too.The last was Alexander the Great---he died while invading India;his entire army thus disbanded in Punjab area.Hence you see Punjabis and Kashmiris with blue eyes.But please don't come to the conclusion that all Sikhs has Greek origin.Sikhism is a religion and there are many with dark skin too.
.........

alexander did not die while invading india. he died in babylon after conquering northwestern india. he was seriously injured a few times, but the injuries were not fatal. his army did not disband across the indus after the defeat of porus, who was king of the punjabi region. they mutinied, and senior officers persuaded alexander to proceed no further as there were more kingdoms to fight, climate was tropical, terrain was getting thicker with jungle, families were waiting behind, and there was no end in sight. alexander agreed, left the newly conquered regions to be governed by porus who became his ally and satrap, and returned to babylon in two columns: one via the coast in ships and the other via land across the southern persian desert. many of his men perished in the desert on the return trip. he died years later in the palace of nebuchadnezzar of internal complications either from too much drinking or "slow" poison administered by conspirators in court who wanted him dead. He made many enemies, and there were multiple attempts on his life. there was also court intrigue back in macedonia. macedonian aristrocacy who had much to lose with him moving his capital and power base to babylon also plotted against him. but it is true that greek and macedonian remnants fathered offsprings in north western india. i know of indian stock in the area who still retain fragments of their greek/macedonian last names and language.
 

Nice-Gook

Alfrescian
Loyal
alexander did not die while invading india. he died in babylon after conquering northwestern india. he was seriously injured a few times, but the injuries were not fatal. his army did not disband across the indus after the defeat of porus, who was king of the punjabi region. they mutinied, and senior officers persuaded alexander to proceed no further as there were more kingdoms to fight, climate was tropical, terrain was getting thicker with jungle, families were waiting behind, and there was no end in sight. alexander agreed, left the newly conquered regions to be governed by porus who became his ally and satrap, and returned to babylon in two columns: one via the coast in ships and the other via land across the southern persian desert. many of his men perished in the desert on the return trip. he died years later in the palace of nebuchadnezzar of internal complications either from too much drinking or "slow" poison administered by conspirators in court who wanted him dead. He made many enemies, and there were multiple attempts on his life. there was also court intrigue back in macedonia. macedonian aristrocacy who had much to lose with him moving his capital and power base to babylon also plotted against him. but it is true that greek and macedonian remnants fathered offsprings in north western india. i know of indian stock in the area who still retain fragments of their greek/macedonian last names and language.

Agreed.Your version is more accurate.Mine was more brief to the point of popular version.As I said before not many want an academic discussion here.In that respect ,even the origin of Sikhs who are basically Punjabis goes beyond Greek blood.In fact,the Greeks had earlier contacts with South India thought the port of Cochin.The same port which Admiral Zheng He made his pivotal point.

And to many who would be rather shocked that Sikhism is actually a sub version of Islam.It was started by one Guru Nanak who actually went to Mecca of Arabia for lessons.The version we now see is totally different because Sikhs now take Muslims as their sworn enemies--and wearing of a knife an and unshaven face and etc are vows towards that end.This came simply because the Muslim Indian emperors generally tolerated Sikhism ,which leaned towards Sufism--a sub category of Muslims.But one Mugal emperor took offense and slaughtered their leaders.All hell broke loose.

If you look carefully,a Sikh temple has no resemblance to any Hindu temple but very similar to mosque in appearance.Both inside and outside.

Sometimes,its better to leave certain matters unsaid.Enough said.
 

gatehousethetinkertailor

Alfrescian
Loyal
A most enlightening discussion and many thanks for tolerating the extension.

Indeed too complexed and varied which adds to the mosaic identity of “India” and “Indians”.

A couple of quick points – the direct descendants of those Greeks have been found in Pakistan (or claimants – the Kalash tribe) : http://euroheritage.net/greeksinasia.shtml

As much as Sikhism has evolved from the original form that was initiated by Guru Nanak, there is an inert disdain to accept its proximity to Islam based on historical legacy (rather than theological monotheistic similarities) – the two catalyst for the antagonism stemmed from the event mentioned (hence heralding the establishment of the militarized Sikh identity as the Khalsas) and the partition of 1948 which is the direct cause of typical animosity between sub-continental Sikhs and Muslims (despite the Sikh riots post-assasination of Indra Gandhi it has not been expressed as emotionally against the Hindus amongst the Sikh disapora).

Guru Nanak (the the subsequent Gurus) were indeed heavily influenced by Sufism – he was particularly so because his closest companion was a Muslim Sufi, Bhai Mardana – the influence and inclusion of Sufi poetry and hymns in the holy book of the Sikhs is well documented. Kudos for pointing out the most obvious similarity – the place of worship which is reminiscent of Mughal mosque architecture. The Sikh hymns in the temples today are very similar to the qawwalis of the Muslims of the sub-continent – in modern day terms Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan is the most famous singer who sang in a mixture of Urdu and Punjabi and Mirza Ghalib being the highly revered Urdu sufi poet.

Another interesting element is the influence of Persian art on the representation of the Sikh gurus (often found to consist of Guru Nanak and Guru Gobind Singh in a typical Sikh home) – the confluence of Shia-centric artistery is quite striking (unlike Sunnis who do not allow representation/paintings of the Prophet) the Shias (all the sects within the Shias included) have painting, pendants, medallions of Imam Ali and Hussein and the Prophet (whose face is not shown) – this is heretical to Sunnis but commonplace in Iran. The style of the paintings are very typical and one dare say identical.

The similarity of the emblem of the Sikh khalsa flag and the Islamic Republic of Iran’s emblem is also interesting to note.

The Persian empire of yesteryear was a huge empire and it is not unlikely that the “Persians” who invaded (as Aryans) came from the steppes of Central Asia (which was part of the Persian empire) – a few Punjabi mates have taken the National Geographic test and all came back with an indication that their ancient ancestors originated from Central Asia rather than from within the Indian sub-continent. Greek friends who undertook the same test also came from the same geographic pool (but being Greeks hate to be told that they are possibly modern day descendants of Turks).

All of those I know who have participated in the test started in Africa.

A very enjoyable exchange and glad to learn so much more from the members here.


P.S. On point though, I have yet to meet any Sikhs in Singapore, Malaysia, UK or Canada who have shown the same wealth of knowledge and understanding of the complexities of this issue. Really wonderful to know there is such initimate knowledge here on this forum.
 

Nice-Gook

Alfrescian
Loyal
A most enlightening discussion and many thanks for tolerating the extension.


Khalsas.

You seems to be quite knowledgeable in this subject.

Pls note the word Khalsa,as our Khalsa association found in Balestier Road.It's an Arabic word.Bet not many Sikhs know that.

(but being Greeks hate to be told that they are possibly modern day descendants of Turks).


Yes,a bulk of today's Turks are actually Greeks and viz viz .Not many Singaporeans know this.
 
Last edited:

eatshitndie

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
You seems to be quite knowledgeable in this subject.

Pls note the word Khalsa,as our Khlalsa association found in Balestier Road.It's an Arabic word.Bet not many Sikhs know that.

Yes,a bulk of today's Turks are actually Greeks and viz viz .Not many Singaporeans know this.

turkic tribes are in china too, mostly in the urumqi area. they were part of the migration from central asia to the east and northeast thousands of years ago. turkic people also migrated from asia minor to the greek archipelago, and vice versa, so called hellenic tribes migrated (back) to the asiatic coast. many turks are in iran today. know of an iranian who identifies himself as turk.
 

gatehousethetinkertailor

Alfrescian
Loyal
Yes the "Turk" label oversimplifies the various groups of peoples that were consumed by the Ottomans - from the East all the way to the doors of Vienna. The typical Greek baggage of history remains the "disbelief" that they were actually conquered (and in many instances forcibly converted), the loss of Constantinople, the slaughters of
Greeks and Armenian at the turn of the century and the subsequent population exchange, the aspirations of the Greeks of Cyprus to unify with Greece under EOKA hence triggering the 1974 invasion of Cyprus (and the ongoing deadlock)....that is another story with its own layers of complexities...

As for "Khalsa" - it is derived from both ancient persian and arabic (probably closer to Urdu) - there are many words in Punjabi that are derived from persian and arabic again because of the myriad strands of invasions and conquests in that region.

Iran today also has its own mosaic cultures - unified under the Iranian flag but distinguishable by key features and linguistic heritage - literally all the "-stans" in Central Asia had some form of overlap with the Turkic tribes and Persian empire - hence you have Turkomans, Azeris, Uzbeks, Balochis, Arabs, Black Arabs, Tajiks, Hazaras....the list is quite extensive just as it is in Afghanistan.....Babur was from Uzbekistan and the Mughal empire is a corruption of the Mongols and the descendants of Genghis Khan....so if one adds up the possible influences historically in that region (the North of the Indian sub-continent), there is no singular homogenous influence arguable.

All very fascinating for those who take a keen interest - unfortunately not many in Singkieland either care or bother - quite typically an islander affliction (generic statement but highly applicable to too many singkies)....
 
Top