Wow, I know it doesn't sounds very mature, but to see this article and comments on HN, really make me feel happy and proud to be a Sikh.
But, alas Sikh's own state of Punjab is nowhere close to successes of the community all over the world. It's a great tragedy.
The state of Punjab once a pioneer in green revolution and the richest in India is now being looted by dynasty politics and corruption. The state of things is so bad that people don't even want to visit back the place. Sometimes, we wonder if that's the key for our current success everywhere but in our own home.
I hope, perhaps naively, that maybe AAP have a chance to root out that particular dynasty. I remember they polled pretty well at the last election but am not sure how things worked out on the ground afterwards.
As a member of the diaspora I wonder what more can be done from the outside?
Both! Many villages are now fighting to stop opening up of Wine shops (some small villages have one school and 3-4 wine shops!). It is said that the corrupt elements in Punjab Govt. get a cut for every wine shop opened in Punjab. They also own most of the bus network.
My grandfather was murdered in Punjab, and my cousin who moved here who lived in Punjab for 18 years would rather be called American and moved on immediately. Rule of law is necessary for market activity, the problem is we seem to have moved away from respect of rule of law recently.
Just thought I would mention. Also a Sikh descendant who is a part of the diaspora happily living in Anglo-derived culture and also an atheist.
(Obvious Generalizations etc..)
Sikhs are some of the hardest working and toughest people from the Indian Subcontinent.
They also have a fearsome reputation in the military and are considered one of the toughest Regiments of the Indian army.
There are many stories where they have literally fought to the bitter end against overwhelming odds [1].
The great tragedy is that since 9/11 Sikhs have often been mistaken for afgans/arabs wearing turbans & discriminated against.
One could argue that the heuristics are for what a Muslim looks like. In that sense the tragedy is that that Sikhs don't really have anything to do with Islam at all. That most Americans think of a beard and turban as a fool-proof indicator of the person being a Muslim of course shows a lack of consideration.
How relevant moderates are to extremism is a separate question (and one that is largely orthogonal to the religion itself) but it's fair to say that no matter how little a moderate has to do with extremists, someone who isn't even a member of their religion in the first place is about as undeserving of hostility as it gets.
I would argue the greater tragedies are that ethnicity frequently gets conflated with religion (which really serves no-one, unless your religion is incestuous) and that most people are too ignorant of other cultures than their own to tell them apart.
Heck, there are still Americans who have a hard time accepting that Obama isn't Muslim just because he's not white (as if non-white Christianity hadn't ever been a thing in the US).
I'm generally pretty biased against all religion by default but Sikhism is one of the few religions I can't find much to complain about. It's pretty egalitarian, its followers are encouraged to defend the weak (and not just weak Sikhs either) and committing to its values and laws is an option that should only be taken after careful consideration rather than the default.
The only negative thing I can think of is the insurgency in India of the 1970s and the assassination of Indira Gandhi, although I don't think it's fair to classify those events purely as religiously motivated violence (or even terrorism).
I'm generally pretty biased against all religion by default but Sikhism is one of the few religions I can't find much to complain about. It's pretty egalitarian, its followers are encouraged to defend the weak (and not just weak Sikhs either) and committing to its values and laws is an option that should only be taken after careful consideration rather than the default.
The only negative thing I can think of is the insurgency in India of the 1970s and the assassination of Indira Gandhi, although I don't think it's fair to classify those events purely as religiously motivated violence (or even terrorism).
It's not great to pick and choose whether to stereotype people based on religion, positively or ngatively. You may have forgotten the blowing up of a 747 carrying 329 people, suspected to have been by Canadian Sikh militants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_India_Flight_182
In the aftermath of 9/11, there were many snarky remarks in the Blogosphere about "those war-like Buddhists", implying that Buddhism was entirely peaceful, when Buddhism is in fact co-opted in various ugly political ways in South East Asia.
Religions are not abstract ideologies, but always exist in the context of their practitioners.
Sure, as I said, the insurgency (and the related events) is the one negative thing I can think of. And as I said: I wouldn't classify the events purely as religiously motivated violence (unlike, say, 9/11). It's more comparable to the Troubles in Northern Ireland.
That said, of course religions always exist in the context of their practitioners. Heck, I would even go so far as to say that no two practitioners share exactly the same religion (which is why it is so absurd to claim that extremists aren't True Scotsmen).
But as religions go, Sikhism at least doesn't embrace ideas that could be used to defend inter-faith violence. Unlike, say, the Abrahamic traditions. While Christianity had to go through the Enlightenment in order to figure out that all humans (regardless of faith) should be equal, Sikhism already had that idea baked into it. All religions are bad IMO, but Sikhism seems to be one of the least bad ones.
I respect that they have a tradition that considers religious practice most valid when it occurs in the world[1].
Many other religions have strong ascetic and/or monastic traditions, and they tend to consider those practitioners to be, in some sense or other, the holiest. Retreat from the world tends to be the advised path for the purest, or at least most successful, pursuit of religious study and practice.
Not the Sikhs. They're like, "Pft, that sounds like religion on easy mode. No thanks, I'm going to have a job, a spouse, and kids, and still manage to practice my religion well, because I'm not a wimp." This despite their religion featuring all the usual the-world-distracts-you-from-salvation warnings.
> Blind spirituality: Superstitions and rituals should not be observed or followed, including pilgrimages, fasting and ritual purification; circumcision; idols & grave worship; compulsory wearing of the veil for women; etc.
This is probably one of the things that surprised me the most. Other religions put these things first, Sikhism just bans them outright. You'd think a religion that doesn't reinforce its importance with obtrusive rituals wouldn't survive but here it is alive and kicking ass.
The laws are only considered binding if you decide to submit yourself to them. You can mostly pick and chose as long as you haven't yet committed yourself to it and unlike most other religions you're explicitly told only to commit yourself if you feel that you are ready and able to.
At least that's my understanding of it. And it's not like there aren't ("faithful") Muslims who drink.
I really hope that the denizens of HN can rise above the need to make foolhardy generalizations (good or bad) about large swathes of people. Maybe save that for your reddit account.
Here[1] is a nice 5-minute 2008 video on the same topic. And a 2011 NYT article[2] also points out some of the challenges they have faced. This 2012 article [3] has some nice pictures
I recently watched the documentary Chef's Table on Netflix [1] and in the first episode, there was another interesting story about saving Parmesan cheese.
The earthquake damaged a lot of Parmesan wheels, leaving them vulnerable to spoilage. This would mean a huge loss of investment and possibly bankruptcy for a lot of the parmesan producers.
A chef from Modena then created a recipe called Risotto cacio e pepe that was both easy to make and required Parmesan. He used the to simultaneously raise awareness about the consequences of the earthquake and promote sales of the damaged Parmesan [2]. He ended up selling 360.000 wheels of Parmigiano, possibly saving a lot of cheese makers from going out of business.
A lot of damaged cheese was simply 1) sold in smaller pieces, as is the norm for retail distribution (1/16 or 1/32 of a whole wheel are the common sizes), or 2) routed to industrial processing to become little cheese pieces (shrinkwrapped as snacks) and pre-grated cheese.
If the currently settled Sikhs are moving up in the labour market (and integrating well into Italian society), couldn't they just open up immigration to a new wave of immigrants to start the same journey?
Eg there are lots of Sikhs left in India who'd be happy to tend Italian cows, and other people Sikh or not all over the world.
Sikhs are the warriors of India - they have been India's guardians and the hardest working and friendliest people. They are revered all across India and referred to as "Sardarji" - which is an honorific meaning "Commander" or "Leader".
Not to diminish the large contributions of many Sikhs in military service to India - that record is indisputable - but it's a bit far fetched to call them The warriors of India.
India has had many martial communities over its history and up to this day, and to focus only on the Sikhs in this regard is to tell a selective story of the past and present.
In my travels in India I've seen a large number of Indian military personnel drawn from all over the subcontinent. Indeed most of those I saw stationed on the front lines in Kashmir when I visited there just ahead of the Kargil war in 1999 were from southern India.
The British while ruling India classified the Sikhs as a "Martial Race". "Non-martial" races weren't allowed to be recruited into the British Army in India. For more see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_race
The interesting consequence of this, was when the Indian Army came in to existence, it had a highly disproportionate share of men from a handful of communities. I know this was true till a few years ago (haven't checked recently), but the Indian Army never released data on the state wise distribution of its personnel as a result.
Yup, and this led to an imbalance in the officer corps too, with sikhs being disproportionate to their population. Though it's generally not talked about, that imbalance in the officer corp has been corrected. Started during the 1980's.
Another interesting aspect of Indian Army regiments is that they are based on a region or caste for the enlisted members, but the officers can be from any part of the country. So if you're a south Indian officer then you must know hindi and if your parent regiment is say the Gorkhas, they'll teach you Nepali.
Also, there has been a greater emphasis on recruiting from all parts of the country for the enlisted members.
Military recruiting has certainly improved and has become much more diverse over the years. The Army doesn't release this data because of political considerations. Politicians are sure to demand quotas if those numbers come out. And letting politicians meddle with the internal systems of a really good institution like the Indian Army is a sure way to gut it.
To clarify recruiting means recruiting of enlisted members. Selection may be the right term for officers.
Sikhs are hardworking people, so its no surprise you can see their influence across India.
Even during the heights of Punjab insurgency the Army Chief was a Sikh and a majority of India's defence chiefs have been Sikhs.
The Indian cusine that is found outside India is predominantly a Punjabi cusine. Bollywood is dominated by them as well.
A few year back, I met a Sardarji at Adelaide airport and his story mimics the one in this article. Difference is they are in the borders of South Australia and Victoria in Australia and into Citrus cultivation and were diversifying.
No argument against the fact that Sikhs are a hard-working people, but its a stretch to say Indian cuisine found in most Indian restaurants in the West is Punjabi cuisine. What gets served is generic North Indian food which is based on the Mughlai cuisine. For instance you almost never find Sarson da Saag or Makki di roti in any restaurant, so cannot really call it Punjabi food.
I don't know why, but lot of Sikhs just do very demeaning work Abroad. Mostly Labour. 1-2% go to College and get Degree. In Long run, its bad for Economy.
But, alas Sikh's own state of Punjab is nowhere close to successes of the community all over the world. It's a great tragedy.
The state of Punjab once a pioneer in green revolution and the richest in India is now being looted by dynasty politics and corruption. The state of things is so bad that people don't even want to visit back the place. Sometimes, we wonder if that's the key for our current success everywhere but in our own home.