Gurpreet Singh writes from Vancouver

AS the 2010 Winter Olympic ends, the absence of the Punjabis at the anti Olympic rallies held in Vancouver throughout the event has left many wondering whether support for activism is waning in an other wise politically vibrant community.

Though half a dozen Punjabis, including a turbaned Sikh were among the torch bearers and the Olympic torch was welcomed at the Main Street Punjabi Market, barring a couple of prominent South Asian activists, the Punjabis did not show up at the rallies that were held by the protesters in downtown Vancouver. Rather a significant number of Punjabis were seen taking transit from Surrey to Vancouver to enjoy the spirit of Olympic. It is not disappointing to see sport loving Punjabis enjoying the Olympic, but it is astonishing to note that there population was not well represented at the rallies that were organized by the members of the civil society.

The member of the Olympic Resistance Network, Harjap Grewal, the member of the No One Is Illegal, Harsha Walia, the Chair of the Impact on Communities Coalition, Am Johal and the famous women activist, Sunera Thobani were the only prominent South Asian faces who were either seen at these rallies or heard in the media discussing the negative impact of the Olympic. Whereas, the Punjabis should also be proud of Canada’s participation in the Olympic, but their indifference towards the cause of the anti Olympic protesters sends a discouraging signal.

Everything that the protesters are saying or some of them have done is not right, but the establishment also needs to be shaken to some of the valid issues these groups have raised. The government should be made answerable to the problems of homelessness, sex trade, environment, cut backs, wars and the systematic discrimination against the aboriginals. For that the people in general should pay attention to the voices of the activists. However, the Punjabis in particular should be aware of the history of activism in their community. After all, the Punjabis had to fight to get a right to vote in BC in 1947. They were disfranchised in 1907. By virtue of that struggle, there are good number of Punjabis in the BC legislature and the Canadian Parliament today.

Likewise, they had launched an agitation against the conspiracy to send all the Punjabi settlers in BC to Honduras in 1908. In 1910, the first Punjabi newspaper outside India was published in Vancouver. It gave voice to those who were struggling for their rights in not only in Canada but back in India that was under occupation of the British Empire. In 1912, they had launched a campaign to pressurize the Canada government to let the immigrants bring their families to this country. Almost a century later, a will to fight seems to be lacking in the community. Some of the negative fallouts of the Olympic like increased house rents or a slow taxi business have affected the Punjabis too, but this did not motivate them to come to the support of the protesters. It would be unfair to solely blame the Punjabis for this trend as the society as a whole is becoming consumerist. Enjoying Olympic is a right thing to do but to be critical of the authorities whose policies have not been inclusive is not an act of anarchy.

BACK

How moderate are the moderates?

Gurpreet Singh writs from Vancouver

AS the election of the Khalsa Deewan Society, the oldest Sikh temple in Vancouver draws closer, the conservative Sikh youth slate is gearing up to give a fight to the incumbent moderates. Encouraged by the victory in the Surrey Sikh Temple election which the moderates have lost to the conservatives, they are now eyeing for victory in Vancouver.

Thanks to the divisions within the moderate Sikh leaders, the Sikh youth slate with the support of the fundamentalists, who are high on religion convictions wrested control over the Guru Nanak Sikh Temple in Surrey last year. However, the moderates have not drawn any lessons from this defeat and continue to fight among themselves on trivial issues. Their mission to defeat the separatist and ultra religious forces has ended long ago. Whereas, the disunity is one thing that the moderates need to address the overall thinking of the so called liberal Sikh leadership has also deviated from the real moderate outlook.

The moderate Sikhs is a group of the Sikh leaders that is considered secular than the fundamentalists who not only continue to fight for a theocratic Khalistan but also wish to impose a conservative religious environment in the Canadian gurdwaras. Since 1906, when the Khalsa Deewan Society was established, the gurdwaras allowed the community meal or langar to be served on tables and chairs. The practice is in sharp contrast to the one in the traditional gurdwaras of India where the langar is served to the devotees sitting cross legged on the floor. The fundamentalist Sikh leadership that started asserting itself when the pro Khalistan movement was at its peak later challenged this practice. An edict was issued by the Sikh clergy in India that ordered the moderates to reverse the modern practice of serving langar to the traditional practice. Some moderate leaders, who had defied the edict, were ostracized and a battle on the langar issue ensued in BC.

Though the moderates continued to challenge the fundamentalists on the langar issue their general outlook on other issues such as human rights, social justice and equality remained regressive despite whole hearted support from the progressive forces that were opposed to religious bigotry.

After all, continued opposition to the traditional practice of serving langar on the floor alone would not have paid them dividends for ever, especially when the children of the moderate Sikh leaders are mostly inclined to join the mainstream compared to the conservative Sikhs who have encouraged their kids to stick to the roots. On top of it, the moderation of the liberal Sikh leaders remained limited to the langar issue.

Ironically, the Sikh youth slate has a better understanding of the Canadian Charter of Rights. It is not a coincidence that some prominent religious conservative Sikhs have not opposed the civil same sex marriages, while the prominent moderate leaders, like the former president of the Surrey Sikh Temple , Balwant Singh Gill had vehemently criticized homosexuality. On the contrary, the World Sikh Organization leader, Gian Singh Sandhu was open to the idea of teaching homosexuality in the schools of Surrey though he considered it as ``unnatural’’ at a personal level.

In the Surrey election, the moderates did not field a single female candidate whereas the Sikh youth slate had three women candidates. Besides, the moderates have not done anything significant to involve the members of the so called low caste communities in accordance with the tenets of Sikhism in their temple bodies. All this reflect their limitations in handling sensitive issues such as gender equality or women empowerment and eradication of caste system in the Sikh community.

Their pro establishment approach is also in contrast with the progressive and revolutionary approach of the early Sikh leaders of Vancouver . Though they were religious Sikhs who sported long hair and turbans compared to the moderates, who are mostly clean shaven they were very secular and had encouraged activism in the community. They had fought against the institutional racism and discriminatory laws that not only prevented the immigrants from bringing their families but also the right to vote. However, the current moderate leadership has remained indifferent towards similar challenges and rather enjoys rubbing shoulders with the powerful people representing the elite.

BACK

Deepening economic crisis in America

AS the Obama administration and Congress deal with the country's economic problems -- including double-digit unemployment, a housing crisis, credit shortage, and stagnating wages -- one issue that has fallen under the radar is that states across the country are facing serious budget crises. Faced with budget shortfalls that total hundreds of billions of dollars, state legislatures are contemplating ways to close their gaps. These legislators have a choice: They can choose the path of the "deficit peacocks," who demand cutting social spending while ruling out tax increases on those who have benefited immensely from years of conservative policies. Or, at a time when the tax burden between the wealthy and the middle class is "narrower than at any time in modern history," they could instead look for ways to responsibly raise revenues while protecting their states' spending on vital programs like children's health care and education. It is instructive to look at how the response of both conservative and progressive state governments differ. And while it is important for state legislators to balance their budgets in progressive ways, it should be noted that the federal government also has a role to play by including generous aid to cash-strapped states in congressional jobs legislation.

Ethan Pollack, an analyst at the Economic Policy Institute, estimates that "the combined [budget] shortfalls for state and local governments [is] $469 billion over the next three fiscal years." Forty-eight states "had or still have shortfalls for fiscal year 2010," ranging from a 0.9 percent budget gap in Tennessee to a 19.7 percent budget gap in Arizona. These shortfalls are having devastating effects across the country. Colorado Springs has cut power to "more than a third of [its] streetlights" and put police helicopters for sale on the Internet; Alabama's education system suffered "the deepest cuts in more than 30 years." Not even state legal systems are safe. During a summit last year, former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said that "the sudden loss of funding for court operations, as states grapple with the budgetary impact of the recession" imperils the ability of states to run their justice systems. The Iowa Judicial Branch recently announced that it will eliminate 200 jobs in order to meet the state's budget needs. Additionally, the budget cuts that states are facing "could lead to a loss of 900,000 jobs, according to Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Economy.com." In all, the recession has caused "longest period of continuing state revenue declines since at least the Great Depression," according to a new report issued today by the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government.

Conservative-led state governments are choosing the deficit peacock path, refusing to responsibly raise revenues and instead slashing vital spending that benefits children, college students, and law enforcement. Virginia faces a $2.2 billion budget shortfall over the next two years. Newly elected Gov. Bob McDonnell (R-VA) has promised to veto any legislation that would raise taxes. As a result, McDonnell's budget amounts to a full-on assault on the state's domestic priorities, proposing cutting almost $730 million in K-12 education spending, freezing enrollment in the state's health insurance program for low-income children and pregnant women, and requiring state workers "to take as many as 10 unpaid days off and contribute more to their pensions." These cuts would end the school breakfast program, lead to the layoffs of "thousands of teachers," and close five major state parks. Minnesota, which has to deal with a $1.2 billion budget deficit, is choosing a similar course under the leadership of Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN). Pawlenty has proposed "cutting $347 million from health care and human service programs," which would leave an additional 20,000 Minnesotans without health care coverage. Meanwhile, he has proposed cutting $250 million in aid to municipalities and $50 million in higher education aid. Pawlenty has failed to propose ways to raise more revenue and has even called for a 20 percent cut in the corporate tax rate, effectively rewarding the most prosperous Minnesotans while punishing the poorest. California is enduring a $20 billion budget shortfall. Gov.

Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA), who has ruled out any tax increases, has submitted $8.5 billion in budget cuts for 2010, which even he admits are "draconian." More than 200,000 children would lose their eligibility for state health insurance. Calworks, the state's unemployment insurance program, would effectively be eliminated. These cuts come on top of $7.4 billion in reductions last year, which caused double-digit tuition increases at public universities and "laid off thousands of teachers, increased class sizes, and slashed academic programs." Due to California's Proposition 13 -- "which requires that a two-third majority of the state legislature approve any tax increase" -- conservative legislators have repeatedly been able to block tax increases on the wealthiest Californians. In Missouri, "cash-strapped legislators have recommended spending cuts for Missouri schools and shelters for battered women," but a special tax exemption for yachts is "depriving state and local coffers of more than $6 million a year." In Georgia, the Republican-led House of Representatives passed a FY2010 budget that "slashes spending for the current year by $1.15 billion," and state House Speaker Rep. David Ralston (R) has demanded that there be no tax increases despite the fact that Georgia ranks in the bottom 10 states for spending per capita and has some of the lowest taxes in the country. The state is also considering making cuts to public safety while Georgia has the least number of state troopers of "any state in the nation on a per capita basis."

Progressive-led state governments, on the other hand, are asking their states' most prosperous citizens -- who often pay the lowest effective tax rates, according to a recent report from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy -- to sacrifice a little so that spending on the most vital programs, like education and health care, can be protected. New York was expecting a $16.2 billion deficit for 2009, but progressive legislators chose to raise taxes on its wealthiest citizens, raising more than $5 billion and staving off the need for deeper cuts in social services. In Wisconsin, Gov. Jim Doyle (D-WI) led the charge to raise taxes on wealthy Wisconsinites to help blunt the need for budget cuts in the face of the "largest budget shortfall" in the state's history. The state "enacted a new 7.75 percent income tax bracket on all income over $300,000 for married couples and $225,000 for individuals and heads of households. And the exclusion for capital gains income was lowered to 30 percent from 60 percent." These measures generated an extra $280 million for fiscal year 2010. Thanks to these progressive steps, Wisconsin was able to limit cuts on public school funding to 2.5 percent (rather than the 6.1 percent without the tax increases) and increase funding for Wisconsin's technical colleges and children's health insurance programs. With a $2.5 billion projected budget shortfall between 2009 and 2011, Oregon was on the verge of having to make deep cuts to education spending, freeze public employee salaries, and ending forest protection rules. Oregon progressives organized and triumphed over a corporate-backed propaganda campaign to successfully convince voters to "handily" pass ballot measures that increased taxes on the wealthiest Oregonians, phased out an expensive tax expenditure, and increased the corporate minimum tax rate from a paltry $10 a year while not raising taxes on 97.5 percent of taxpayers and 93 percent of businesses. The measures protected $1 billion in services.

While the importance for state legislators to turn to progressive solutions to balancing their budgets cannot be stressed enough, the severity of the budget crises means that the federal government must play a role as well. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities notes that the aid to states included in the stimulus package has "averted many job-killing budget cuts" in state budgets, and further federal aid to the states would have a similar effect. Last month, the House of Representatives stepped up to this responsibility by passing a $155 billion jobs bill that includes "$75 billion of bailout funds to pay for more infrastructure projects and assistance for cash-strapped states." Unfortunately, the Senate has not followed suit. Its $15 billion jobs bill lacks any major aid to states, and has been criticized by progressive economists and labor leaders. "If this $15 billion was the only thing [that passed], that would be like having an amputated arm and sticking a Band-Aid on the end of it," said AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka Friday. As Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Heather Boushey writes, the "Senate should match -- or increase [the] investment" that the House makes in aiding state budgets.

BACK

Torture Whitewash

HOW American ministers and lawmakers sanction savagery was revealed recently in Washington. Last week, the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) released a long-awaited report investigating whether the legal advice in crucial Bush administration memos authorizing torture "was consistent with the professional standards that apply to Department of Justice attorneys."

According to American Progress, “The report found that attorneys John Yoo and Jay Bybee "had committed professional misconduct in writing the legal opinions that authorized torture." The report was softened, however, by Associate Deputy Attorney General David Margolis, the top career attorney at the department, who "overruled OPR's finding of misconduct" in an accompanying memo, concluding only that that Yoo and Bybee exercised poor judgment and made bad legal arguments. While stating that his "decision should not be viewed as an endorsement of the legal work that underlies" the torture memos, Margolis also "barred OPR from referring the matter to state bar disciplinary authorities where Yoo and Bybee are licensed." What's troubling, Margolis' memo indicated that Yoo and Bybee's legal decisions were understood as having occurred in the heat of the post-9/11 moment, (even though they were written in 2002) implying that "being under pressure" is an excuse for ignoring laws against torture.”

OPR is the Justice Department's "internal watchdog" and "has the authority to recommend referring errant DoJ lawyers for professional discipline or even criminal prosecution." The OPR's investigation of Yoo and Bybee began after Jack Goldsmith -- who succeeded Bybee as head of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) in 2003 -- "protested the legal arguments made in the memos." In a highly irregular move indicating how poorly reasoned the memos were, Goldsmith withdrew them. Goldsmith resigned the following year, and later wrote that he was "astonished" by the memos' "deeply flawed" and "sloppily reasoned" legal analysis. OPR's report was originally submitted in the final weeks of the Bush administration and sharply criticized the legal work of Bybee and Yoo, "as well as that of Steven Bradbury, who was chief of the OLC at the time." In February 2009, Newsweek's Michael Isikoff reported that a draft of OPR's report was "causing anxiety among former Bush administration officials." The Washington Post reported that, at the urging of representatives of Yoo and Bybee, former Bush administration officials were "lobbying behind the scenes to push Justice Department leaders to water down" the final report.

Seizing on the fact that the Justice Department will not recommend any further disciplinary action against them, Bybee and Yoo's defenders have attempted to present the report as a victory. Writing in National Review, former Bush administration officials Dana Perino and Bill Burck claimed that the Justice Department had "officially exonerated" Yoo and Bybee. Yoo, who is now a law professor at the University of California Berkeley, was quick to claim vindication. In the Wall Street Journal, Yoo wrote "Barack Obama may not realize it, but I may have just helped save his presidency" by having devised a legal rationale for unfettered executive national security authority, and "winning a drawn-out fight to protect his powers as commander in chief." Yoo's lawyer Miguel Estrada went so far as to suggest that Attorney General Eric Holder should identify those in the Justice Department who had leaked previous findings and "refer them for prosecution or bar discipline." But an editorial in the Los Angeles Times stated that the report "is far from a vindication" for Yoo and Bybee's "shamefully narrow interpretations of laws against torture." The editorial worried that Margolis' "measured verdict will be misrepresented as an exoneration of two lawyers," noting, "They may not be disbarred, but they are disgraced." An editorial in the New York Times asked incredulously, "Is this really the state of ethics in the American legal profession? Government lawyers who abused their offices to give the president license to get away with torture did nothing that merits a review by the bar?"

DO LAWS AGAINST TORTURE HAVE ANY MEANING?: Though the Justice Department's own internal investigation into the matter is now officially closed, Washington Independent legal analyst Daphne Eviatar writes, "The battle now will be over whether the U.S. government will meet its obligations to thoroughly investigate what happened and hold the perpetrators accountable." Last year, The Progress Report led an effort to demand that either Bybee voluntarily step aside from his perch on 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, or if not, Congress should impeach him. Even though President Obama announced shortly after taking office that his administration would no longer use the "enhanced interrogation techniques" enabled by the torture memos, there are real questions as to whether future abuses can be deterred if there is no accountability for those who authorized and engaged in such abuses in the past. Appearing on ABC's This Week on Feb. 14, former Vice President Cheney openly admitted that he had approved of waterboarding -- a practice that is acknowledged as torture by an overwhelming international legal consensus, including Holder. If there's no accountability, asked attorney and blogger Glenn Greenwald asked, "What would stop a future President (or even the current one) from re-authorizing waterboarding and the other Bush/Cheney torture techniques if he decided he wanted to?"

BACK

Some musings of a ‘Gora Sardar’

Fatehpal Singh-Tarney

I AM impatient with anything autobiographical because there is usually some self-promotion involved. On the other hand, I am convinced that everything ever written, whether so-called fiction or non-fiction, is autobiographical to some extent.

I have been a Sikh for over twenty years. It was a mere two weeks before 9-11 when I decided to wear the Dastar and stop cutting my hair. My timing, of course, could have been better. Post 9-11 prejudice in the West, especially in North America, has made life difficult for we Sikhs as well as Muslims and other people of “Middle Eastern” appearance.

It is sad that in the decades prior to 9-11-01, the Sikh turban was looked upon as an oddity, yes, but with respect and gratitude. For example, in the 1940s, both before and after the Pearl Harbor attack, there were very complimentary articles in popular magazines, such as LIFE, about Sikhism.

Americans, as well as those within the British Empire, acknowledged the contribution Sikhs made to the war effort against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Almost overnight, I think, the turban went from a mysterious, but somewhat positive thing to pure, unadulterated fear and hostility. Why? I contend that it was the uninformed connection Westerners made between the Sikh turban and that worn by the likes of Osama bin-Laden. Those efforts to educate people in the West about the different turbans worn are very important and should continue.

I am committed, whenever possible, to explain to people that I am not a Muslim, but say at the same time, that I have great respect for Islam. I have a formula, “Call me a terrorist and you insult me; call me a Muslim and you honor me!” When I am the target of anti-Muslim comments, I try to think about Bhai Mardana and Mian Mir, a.k.a. Mir Mohammed Muayyinul Islam. Were there any people closer to our first and fifth Gurus than these two Muslims? I have always defended the true Islam and when I try to explain to people that I am not a Muslim, I also tell them of my admiration and respect for that faith.
I always try to separate the directives to followers of a Jahangir or Aurangzeb, as well as their actions, from the true principles of Islam. Lest we forget that when Guru Gobind Singh Ji sent his letter, the Zafarnama, to Aurangzeb, he never said that the Qur’an was untrue; he said that Aurangzeb was untrue to the Qur’an. In my view, this distinction is vitally important in terms of Sikh attitudes toward Muslims and their faith. In this connection, I have always had a keen interest in Pakistan.

The Islamic Republic of Pakistan is very instructive in showing that a nation-state based on superficial religious homogeneity is not necessarily more stable than those with more religious diversity. People often feel threatened not by the outsiders, but by those who are similar. It is obvious that ethnic and tribal loyalties, as well as Sunni-Shia-Sufi differences contribute to the current unrest there. Disparities in wealth and status also play important roles.

I recently spoke with two Pakistani Muslim friends, one from Karachi and one from Lahore. Both persons have been reluctant to visit their ancestral homes out of fear of kidnapping. They both, in separate conversations with me, explained that kidnapping is not always ideological; not necessarily the work of jihadists. In other words, it is usually not a part of holy war. Very often, it is merely a means to financial gain and poor people manifesting some kind of local control.

Here is a possible difference between Pakistan and Afghanistan that should be explored and discussed further. Recently, an expert on Afghanistan, a Westerner, was interviewed from Kabul making the point that violence and kidnapping in Afghanistan, more often than not, does have an ideological rationale, and is not done merely for money.

Both countries remain enigmas, especially in the West. Did Mohammed Ali Jinnah want a secular or an Islamic Pakistan? This is still a subject of debate. It is significant that Jinnah in several speeches acknowledged the ethnic and religious differences within his proposed Pakistan and also noted that Roman Catholics and Protestants persecuted each other in Europe for long periods of time. I am sure that Jinnah had in mind at least two particularly horrendous religious conflicts in Europe. The first was Christian soldiers of the Fourth Crusade from Western Europe, who attacked Christian Constantinople rather than the Muslim Saracens who controlled the Holy Land. These crusaders destroyed holy places; defaced paintings and mosaics of Jesus and the saints; raped nuns; carried off sacred relics. This attack so weakened the Byzantine Empire that the city of Constantinople was eventually captured by the Ottoman Turks in 1453.

Later, the Thirty Years War between Protestants and Catholics destroyed much of Europe. Here were people: Roman Catholics; Lutherans, and Calvinists who all believed in the divinity of Jesus, fighting each other for decades. One would think that the common belief in the divinity of the man from Nazareth would bring people together. The loss of life and property in the Thirty Years War was devastating.

Whether medieval Europe or modern Pakistan, small differences can result in explosive conflict. The “narcissism of small differences” is a term associated with Sigmund Freud. It refers to the tendency of people to be especially hostile to and intolerant of those who are similar to them. Such people get great ego satisfaction in the small things that make them slightly different. Fractious tendencies are always present in Pakistan. One puzzle, however, is that both Islamists and secularists claim Jinnah as among their principal inspirations. Jinnah did acknowledge that non-Muslims, including Hindus, Parsis, Sikhs, and Christians were a part of his Pakistan. Fractious tendencies, of course, also exist in India.

I have noticed through the years, especially since 9-11, that when non-Muslims, such as we Sikhs, attend Muslim functions, the Muslims are very aware and appreciative of this. A Sardar Ji friend of mine and I attended a Muslim outing and we were showered with gifts. The Muslims pleaded with us to accept their food, but in addition to sweets, these included halal chicken. We politely explained that we cannot eat Halal, but we took the food to some homeless people on our way back to our Gurdwara Sahib.

I consider Punjab, or should I say, northern India, to be my ancestral homeland – spiritually speaking. I have never been there, but factors involving the heart, mind, and soul far outweigh genetics, heredity, and mere geography. It was through my keen interest in Mughal India that I was first introduced to Sikhism. For me, India was, is, and perhaps will always be an enigma. India, in my view, has always been a place of contradictions. Throughout the ages, great spirituality exists alongside great materialism; great wealth and abject poverty; religious harmony alongside religious conflict; there is the pursuit of pleasure and there is renunciation; there is great joy and great sorrow; there is freedom and there is servitude. I get the impression that India is as much a mystery to native Indians as it is to a faranggi like me.

Recently, I attended a Path at the home of a wonderful Sikh family. My wife and I spent the night as we do not like to drive long distances late at night. The next morning, one little boy, about ten years old, a lad I know quite well, came up to me and said, “Fateh Uncle, where were you born?” I told him, “In New York City!” He then asked, “But your parents were from India, right?” I then said, “No, Italy.” He then asked, “Then how come you look like us?” The challenge at this point was to explain to a youngster the distinction between religion; ethnicity, and perhaps nationality as well.

I have had very mixed emotions about the Khalistan movement. I have observed such great animosity on the Sangat level that I wonder what would happen in a Sikh state. I believe that the key to the success of the Sikh Empire under Maharaja Ranjit Singh, beyond his charisma and intellect, was the commitment to religious freedom and equal opportunity in the government, military, and in business for people of all faiths. I contend that it was not so much Sikh solidarity, but Sikh outreach to other religions that accounted for the success of the Sikh Empire.

I have had a love-hate relationship with the writings of the late Hew McLeod. I envied his ability to speak Punjabi fluently and read Gurmukhi with ease. I have learned many Sikh facts from his articles and books. I rely, for example, heavily on his book, The A to Z of Sikhism. I try at all times, however, to distinguish between fact and opinion, especially when it comes to the writing of McLeod. There is a part of me that wants to commend McLeod for his honesty in saying that he no longer believed in God, but continued to be fascinated with the Sikh religion. There is another part of me that envisions the following scenario in retrospect – given his disbelief:

Once upon a time, McLeod believed in flying saucers, but that they only came from Planet X, which he believed in. This, of course, was his Christian phase. He then decides to travel to spread the word about the flying saucers on Planet X to people who mistakenly believed in flying saucers from other planets: A,B, and C. He then becomes intrigued with people who believed in flying saucers from Plant C, but who also accepted the validity of beliefs in other UFOs – these are the Sikhs. McLeod eventually concludes that there are no such things as flying saucers anywhere in the universe, but he continues his research into one particular belief system about them, even though in his mind there is no reality to any of these beliefs and practices. I have trouble with this.

To be sure, converting to the Sikh faith altered my appearance, but did not change my core values and principles. I simply found a religion consistent with my basic beliefs. I always believed that there was only one God for all mankind; that all faiths should be respected and protected; that God is not far away; that honest work; family life, and community service were good things, and that we all should try to help the downtrodden. I feel compelled to say the following: Sikhism turned my life from black-and-white to color. Be a kinder person day after day and be helpful to others – it is as simple as that. I like the Sikh perspective that all the world’s religions are rivers leading back to the same Divine Essence.

[Fatehpal Singh-Tarney, 6533 Serena Lane, Boca Raton, Florida 33433 USA, 561-487-5931]

BACK