Sikhism being considered as separate ethnicity for UK census

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Sikhism is being considered as a separate ethnicity in the next UK census in 2021, following a long-standing demand by some British Sikh groups. The UK’s Office for National Statistics (ONS) had opened a public consultation over whether to add the separate box for Sikhs under ethnicity, instead of just as a religion, and are now getting ready to present the findings to the government. “Our recommendations for the 2021 Census will be included in a government White Paper later this year,” an ONS spokesperson said. The ONS had raised concerns over the issue of “public acceptability” and whether the move would have backing across Britain’s 430,000-strong Sikh community.

In the last census in 2011, an estimated 83,000 Sikhs reportedly refused to tick any of the choices in the question on ethnicity, rejecting options such as Indian in order to write “Sikh” in the space for “any other ethnic group”. The All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for British Sikhs, chaired by Preet Kaur Gill — the UK’s first female Sikh MP — offered to write to Gurdwaras about five months ago.

“Overwhelmingly they have said yes. Not a single gurdwara has opposed it,” said Gill. Sikhs are already recognised as a separate religion in the optional religious question introduced in the 2001 Census. The UK’s Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 placed an obligatory and specific duty on the country’s public authorities to monitor and positively promote race equality in the provision of public services.

According to some British Sikh groups, public bodies tend to only reference the ethnic groups used in the census and demand a separate Sikh ethnic tick box to ensure Sikhs have fair access to all public services. “If the Census 2021 ethnicity question does not include a Sikh tick box question, the impact from a service user perspective will continue to grow and result in Sikhs being invisible to those who develop policies and deliver public services. This will span across the inequalities observed by Sikhs in health, education, employment etc,” Sikh Federation UK and Sikh Network have said as part of their representations to the ONS.

Last year, over 100 British MPs, including Indian-origin lawmakers, had signed a letter to the UK Statistics Authority, which oversees the work of ONS, to include Sikh as a separate ethnic box in time for the 2021 census. However, there are others who are not behind the campaign, with some groups pointing out that being Sikh is a choice, not something you belong to at birth.

“Our Gurus taught that all humans are of the same one race and that man-made divisions based on caste or race are divisive and false,” had said Lord Indarjit Singh, director of the Network of Sikh Organisations (UK). The UK has been collating ethnic group data since the census of 1991 and the data is used for resource allocation by central and local government, to inform policy development and to help organisations meet and monitor their statutory obligations.

The ONS said that questions used for the census have evolved to remain relevant to contemporary British society and phraseology of the census questionnaire is targeted to ensure the public and data users have complete clarity. A decision on whether to include Sikhism as a distinct ethnic identity in the next census is some way off, as the government looks into all sides of the argument from later this year.

https://www.financialexpress.com/in...ty-status-in-2021-census-says-report/1254900/

I don't get it, why do Sikhs have a problem with describing themselves as Indian as an ethnic group? Sikhism is a religion not an race.

 

[enkidu_]

In Canada the "Khalistan" movement is very strong among the Sikhs.

Even when not going into the extreme anti-State sentiments, many Sikhs are tired of Hindus playing the Sanatana Dharma car, which negates their own separate religious identity, and which generally is mainly used to bully Muslims/Christians.

 

[troodon]

Sikhs consists of people from all castes from Hindus. I brother used to work with a Sikh guy whose Grandparents were Brahmins.

Sikhism as separate religion is fine, but separate ethnicity? LOL

 

[CricketCartoons]

Sikhs consists of people from all castes from Hindus. I brother used to work with a Sikh guy whose Grandparents were Brahmins.

Sikhism as separate religion is fine, but separate ethnicity? LOL

Ethnicities is not the same as race, and Sikhs deserve to be considered a separate ethnicity as they tick all the boxes.

 

[troodon]

Ethnicities is not the same as race, and Sikhs deserve to be considered a separate ethnicity as they tick all the boxes.

They are ethnic North Indians.

 

[enkidu_]

They are ethnic North Indians.

"North Indians" is not an ethnicity. It's a geographic description. That's like saying "Central Europeans" and putting peoples as different as Czechs and Hungarians into the same bracket. Rajasthanis, Haryanvis, etc are all "North Indians" but they're not of the same ethnicity.

Sikhs differ ethnically from all other Indian Hindus, apart from Punjabi-Khatris (keep in mind there's a minority Sikh community among this group as well), but who themselves are probably a bit less than 1% of the total Indian Hindu population.

 

[CricketCartoons]

They are ethnic North Indians.

Ethnicity is more cultural and linguistic than racial.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Ethnicities is not the same as race, and Sikhs deserve to be considered a separate ethnicity as they tick all the boxes.

Does that mean the Khalistan movement should also be considered a legitimate enterprise? On the one hand, many Indian posters argue that it was a failed movement which died in the 80's, on the other hand seems like many Sikhs who are abroad still campaign vigorously for a separate identity.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Does that mean the Khalistan movement should also be considered a legitimate enterprise? On the one hand, many Indian posters argue that it was a failed movement which died in the 80's, on the other hand seems like many Sikhs who are abroad still campaign vigorously for a separate identity.

Every religion needs its homeland. Israel, Pakistan, Khalistan, Hindustan.

 

[TM Riddle]

Sikhs should have accepted Jinnah's offer at the time of partition.Not surprising that they are starting to feel ashamed of their Indian roots.

 

[TM Riddle]

"North Indians" is not an ethnicity. It's a geographic description. That's like saying "Central Europeans" and putting peoples as different as Czechs and Hungarians into the same bracket. Rajasthanis, Haryanvis, etc are all "North Indians" but they're not of the same ethnicity.

Sikhs differ ethnically from all other Indian Hindus, apart from Punjabi-Khatris (keep in mind there's a minority Sikh community among this group as well), but who themselves are probably a bit less than 1% of the total Indian Hindu population.

Since you seem so knowledgeable on the topic lemme ask, what's the basic difference between a Rajasthani and a Haryanvi?

 

[the Great Khan]

This is to ensure they have the proper protection within British Law like the Jewish people. So I share the same ethnicity as some Sikhs but because I'm Muslim, equalities legislation will be applied differently to me. Muslims should ask for the same..

In future Sikhs will be protected by equalities legistlation even if its watered down to exclude the freedom to wear burkhas etc..thats where this is going..

Eventually it will be ok to discriminate against Muslims using loopholes in the equalities legislation but not anyone else..

 

[KingKhanWC]

I don't get it, why do Sikhs have a problem with describing themselves as Indian as an ethnic group? Sikhism is a religion not an race.

They should never be considered an ethnicity, Sikhism is a religious ideology. The same goes for Jews even though many Jews can trace their heritage but how can a black Jew be the same a white Jew?

I think the bigger issue is in Inida, Sikhism is not a religion in India, it's seen as a sect of Hinduism which many Sikhs in the UK find offensive.

 

[SpiritOf1903]

They're Punjabi aren't they ?? Pathans don't have their own!

 

[PakLFC]

Almost all Sikhs are of Indian ethnicity. They will remain that forever as there will be no Khalistan. It would have been formed by now if it were to come in to existence. No point in demanding Khalistan sitting in London or Canada. If they want it that badly then come to India and do what Quaid Jinnah did. Sikhism is a faith and belief not an ethnicity.

 

[James]

This is ridiculous, even moreso than Judaism being linked with race.

Religion is not racial, it is a state of mind.

 

[enkidu_]

Of course, all Sikhs don't follow all precepts of their religion (like in any religion), but I was just pointing out that Sikh Jatts are one of the the most caste-conscious group in India.

But Sikhism is a different religion from Hinduism, I hope you agree, many Sikhs don't want to be used as pawns by Hindu nationalists in their anti 'Abrahahmic' rhetoric.

This is ridiculous, even moreso than Judaism being linked with race.

Religion is not racial, it is a state of mind.

Judaism is linked with race, as Jews descend from the Israelites, a nation, and basically are the most endogamous of all the peoples on earth (see the Freud/Einstein families, despite being liberals), as per recent National Geographic research (they're even less mixed than ultra-isolated populations like the Japanese and Koreans).

That's why Europeans always considered them as different, basically eastern migrants like the gypsies/Romanis, thus the cliché of the Jewish nose/ears and very dark curly/kinky hair, which unluckily for them stood out in countries like Poland.

But Sikhism is not an ethnic identity.

 

[akki]

Of course, all Sikhs don't follow all precepts of their religion (like in any religion), but I was just pointing out that Sikh Jatts are one of the the most caste-conscious group in India.

But Sikhism is a different religion from Hinduism, I hope you agree, many Sikhs don't want to be used as pawns by Hindu nationalists in their anti 'Abrahahmic' rhetoric.



Judaism is linked with race, as Jews descend from the Israelites, a nation, and basically are the most endogenous of all the peoples on earth (see the Freud/Einstein families, despite being liberals), as per recent National Geographic research (they're even less mixed than ultra-isolated populations like the Japanese and Koreans).

That's why Europeans always considered them as different, basically eastern migrants like the gypsies/Romanis, thus the cliché of the Jewish nose/ears and very dark curly/kinky hair, which unluckily for them stood out in countries like Poland.

But Sikhism is not an ethnic identity.

Sikhism is a different religion. We dnt need to hurt anyone sentiments. We in india especially some rss ,although trust me rss respects and have even their gurus photos in their offices or temples,have a say that sikhs are just a part of hinduism.
Sikhs very often visits temples and even worship mata temples a lot while hindus in punjab go to gurudwaras very often.
But sikhism is different religion just as jainism or budhism or many otger religions which got birth in bhaart land.
We can say that sikhism is bhaarti religion or hindustani religion but not hindu religion for sure.

 

[enkidu_]

Sikhism is a different religion. We dnt need to hurt anyone sentiments. We in india especially some rss ,although trust me rss respects and have even their gurus photos in their offices or temples,have a say that sikhs are just a part of hinduism.
Sikhs very often visits temples and even worship mata temples a lot while hindus in punjab go to gurudwaras very often.
But sikhism is different religion just as jainism or budhism or many otger religions which got birth in bhaart land.
We can say that sikhism is bhaarti religion or hindustani religion but not hindu religion for sure.

Cool. Basically you agree with this gentleman :

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Tgrzm7GlQkc" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[akki]

Cool. Basically you agree with this gentleman :

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Tgrzm7GlQkc" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I know him more than you guys ,although i was not born at this time. I know how our most wealthy and happy place in inda got eexpoited by politics and external enemies.
Bhindrawala was not that wrong. He was played by the hands of our government.
Yes i agree with this person. Although he was also same responsible for thousands of deaths in punjab like otger our congress politicians. His thinking was not that bad but he got it in different track.

 

[enkidu_]

I know him more than you guys ,although i was not born at this time. I know how our most wealthy and happy place in inda got eexpoited by politics and external enemies.
Bhindrawala was not that wrong. He was played by the hands of our government.
Yes i agree with this person. Although he was also same responsible for thousands of deaths in punjab like otger our congress politicians. His thinking was not that bad but he got it in different track.

Isn't talking in favor of Sant Bhindranwale considered some sort of apology for terrorism in India ?

 

[akki]

Isn't talking in favor of Sant Bhindranwale considered some sort of apology for terrorism in India ?

Yes it is but who cares.

 

[James]

Of course, all Sikhs don't follow all precepts of their religion (like in any religion), but I was just pointing out that Sikh Jatts are one of the the most caste-conscious group in India.

But Sikhism is a different religion from Hinduism, I hope you agree, many Sikhs don't want to be used as pawns by Hindu nationalists in their anti 'Abrahahmic' rhetoric.



Judaism is linked with race, as Jews descend from the Israelites, a nation, and basically are the most endogamous of all the peoples on earth (see the Freud/Einstein families, despite being liberals), as per recent National Geographic research (they're even less mixed than ultra-isolated populations like the Japanese and Koreans).

That's why Europeans always considered them as different, basically eastern migrants like the gypsies/Romanis, thus the cliché of the Jewish nose/ears and very dark curly/kinky hair, which unluckily for them stood out in countries like Poland.

But Sikhism is not an ethnic identity.

Anyone can convert to Judaism, and they will be considered by the Talmud to be as Jewish as any born Jew if they are approved by their local Beit Din - regardless of their heritage or racial background. Orthodox, Conservative and Reform converts can even become citizens of Israel quite easily. The descendants of Jews will therefore be a mixture of many racial backgrounds. So the Jews are more of a tribe than a race in my opinion.

 

[enkidu_]

Anyone can convert to Judaism, and they will be considered by the Talmud to be as Jewish as any born Jew if they are approved by their local Beit Din - regardless of their heritage or racial background. Orthodox, Conservative and Reform converts can even become citizens of Israel quite easily. The descendants of Jews will therefore be a mixture of many racial backgrounds. So the Jews are more of a tribe than a race in my opinion.

The Israelites were indeed a mix of many of the ethnic groups in the region, from Med and Levantine populations. For instance the Idumeans were known to have a lot of blondes/redheads, and that's why you find this among Jews (for ancient Greeks and medieval Arabs, redhead was nearly a synonymous with Jew). But that changed when the Roman Empire became Christian post-Constantine, esp. with Justinian a bit later, for a simple reason : Christianity became the State religion, and "converting to Judaism" basically meant apostatizing from Christianity, which was condemned by death.

Converting to Judaism still remain hard, even in the Reform circles, and it's discouraged, because there's an idea in Jewish mysticism (Hassidism) that the soul of a single Jew is worth more than all the Universe (in their most read book, the Tanya of Rav. Shneur Zalman, it's said more than one time, and very explicitly), for the simple reason that a Jew has a genetic link with one of the men or women who witnessed the Torah descend upon Moshe Rabbanu/Moses at mt Sinai ; they have witnessed the divine light, so are themselves parcel of it. That's why Judaism discourages conversion : a descendant of Germanic tribes or Bantus of Africa has no chance that one of his ancestors "contemplated the Divine Light".

With Moses Mendelssohn and the so called Jewish Enlightenment (Haskalah) they brought a subtle change to their old law : if your maternal line is Jewish (not necessarily mother, but also maternal grandmother, maternal great-grandmother, etc), you're Jewish. Why do you think so they brought that change at the times of "Emancipation", around mid-19th century ? Because Jews were getting out of the ghetto's and becoming Goldsmith's and Rothschild's ; and the best way to infiltrate the aristocracy of a nation is to give away your daughters in marriage to them.

For instance, the last Vicereine of India, Edwina Mountbatten, belonged to such family with Jewish ethnic infiltration, and apparently so did his husband and the actual British royal family, where you find many Frankist names (Frankists are the mystical Jews of Poland who faked a conversion to Roman Catholicism in order to infiltrate the local Polish aristocracy, and one famous descendant of Frankists is none other than the late Brzeziński, the brain behind US' major Cold War policies.)

The most popular introduction to Marxism in French language is Henri Lefebvre's "Le marxisme", and do you know what he says at the very beginning of his book, in the intro. where he bashes Nazism ? That the National-Socialists in Germany, when they were launching the racial laws of Nuremberg, basically took inspiration from Judaism (read the book of Esdras, where it's forbidden to marry foreigners, because they're pagans.)

Hitler himself said that the only thing he admired in Judaism was its racial purism/supremacism, and so did his British-born spiritual mentor (and Richard Wagner's son-in-law), Houston Stewart Chamberlain, who was the one to wonder why the Jews don't mix at all, but their bourgeois don't mind giving their daughters in marriage to Europe's most powerful families (obviously he was hinting at the fact that they were infiltrating) ; generally presented as an anti-Semite, Nietzsche even said that Jews are "the purest race found in Europe".

 

[Abdul]

Good. They deserve to for what they go through.

 

[finalfantasy7]

Ethnicities is not the same as race, and Sikhs deserve to be considered a separate ethnicity as they tick all the boxes.

can you tell us why sikhs have the right to be a separate ethnicity

 

[TSA321]

Why do they think they're a separate ethnicity? Boggles the mind.

 

[blackanhyellow]

I don't get it, why do Sikhs have a problem with describing themselves as Indian as an ethnic group? Sikhism is a religion not an race.

Indian is not an ethnicity.

Indian is a nationality.

Punjabi would be a typical Sikh's ethnicity.

Sikhism is a religion I agree with you there.

 

[Pakistanian]

What about sikhs who aren't Punjabi?

 

[blackanhyellow]

What about sikhs who aren't Punjabi?

Most Sikhs are Punjabi.

But I get your point, not all are.

However, census cant consider every single ethnicity of the world, I imagine there would be too many to keep track of.

So they often simplify it.

They may even have Pakistani as an ethnicity, when in fact it is a nationality.

There is no such thing as Pakistani ethnicity (or even Indian).

The ethnic groups in there countries are Pashtun, Baloch, Punjabi, Gujrati, Sindhi, Bengali, etc...

 

[Pakistanian]

Most Sikhs are Punjabi.

But I get your point, not all are.

However, census cant consider every single ethnicity of the world, I imagine there would be too many to keep track of.

So they often simplify it.

They may even have Pakistani as an ethnicity, when in fact it is a nationality.

There is no such thing as Pakistani ethnicity (or even Indian).

The ethnic groups in there countries are Pashtun, Baloch, Punjabi, Gujrati, Sindhi, Bengali, etc...

I feel like Pakistani has a better chance of merging into one meta ethnicity like in the case of Italy and Germany as opposed to India which is just too big. Maybe a century or two from now Pakistani would evolve into an ethnicity.

 

[James]

[MENTION=137893]enkidu_[/MENTION] that’s very detailed and interesting, thanks.

 

[blackanhyellow]

I feel like Pakistani has a better chance of merging into one meta ethnicity like in the case of Italy and Germany as opposed to India which is just too big. Maybe a century or two from now Pakistani would evolve into an ethnicity.

Could be.

However forget marrying other ethnicity, many Pakistanis dont marry other castes within their own ethnicity. For example, a Punjabi syed in many cases will only be open to marrying another Syed, and wouldnt consider even marrying a Punjabi Jatt.

Pashtuns are the same way.

Also, cousin marriages are huge in Pakistan (50-70% of all marriages are between cousins). That is how much Pakistanis prefer marrying or getting their children married into their own communities.

But things are changing slowly and a century is a long time, so who knows.

 

[enkidu_]

I feel like Pakistani has a better chance of merging into one meta ethnicity like in the case of Italy and Germany as opposed to India which is just too big. Maybe a century or two from now Pakistani would evolve into an ethnicity.

If you think of it, Karachi's "Urdu speaking" community is basically that, a fusion of different ethnic groups. Those who came from UP alone were themselves diverse (of Arab ancestry - Syeds, Farooqis, ...-, of Persian descent, the Rohilla Pathans, etc) and they now feel belonging to the same "meta-ethnicity", as much as the Gujarati migrant, to take one example.

I think that Pashtuns (from KPK, not from UP, already Urdu speakers), who apparently now make up 25% of the city (which is thus de facto the largest urban concentration of Pashtuns in the world, ahead of Peshawar/Kabul), as well as Punjabis, who are around 10-15% of Karachi (one of the best known Punjabi singer from Pak, Falak Shabir, was born there), will also fuse into the generic "Urdu speaking" community in a matter of decades (with upward socio-economic mobility and assimilation).

What do you think ? And do you think that "Pakistani" will become an assimilating meta-ethnicity like "Urdu speakers" in the future (50-100 years) ?

 

[enkidu_]

[MENTION=137893]enkidu_[/MENTION] that’s very detailed and interesting, thanks.

And keep in mind even the "liberal and intellectual" Ashkenazis stick to it : Edward Bernays, who's basically, with another Jew, Walter Lippmann, the father of propaganda/use of mass-media for politics (on the order of president Wilson he helped convincing the reluctant American public to go into WW1), from which Goebbels openly took inspiration, was a "double nephew" of Freud because his mother was Freud's sister, while his father was the cousin as well as brother-in-law of Freud (who basically married his cousin).

That's the extent of Jewish endogamy.

David Bakan has demonstrated how much Freud's ideas had to do with the Jewish mysticism I was talking about (Hassidism), which points out how "holy" a Jewish soul as compared to the whole of creation, and despite being "secular" and even a militant atheist ("Future of an Illusion"), Freud, like ALL Jews (even the "atheists"), was proud of his "race" - it's just that since WWII and the end of Nazism, Jews can't no more talk of "race", so they go on with "people" or "nation".

On a side note, some other Bernays' innovations through publicity : the "typical American breakfast" (bacon and eggs) or the weaponization of the cigarette as "feminist symbol" by using Hollywood.

 

[JaDed]

Hopefully they get it, seem to play victim card way often and hopefully their economic status/violence/crime would be measured via their ethnicity as well.

 

[Pakistanian]

Could be.

However forget marrying other ethnicity, many Pakistanis dont marry other castes within their own ethnicity. For example, a Punjabi syed in many cases will only be open to marrying another Syed, and wouldnt consider even marrying a Punjabi Jatt.

Pashtuns are the same way.

Also, cousin marriages are huge in Pakistan (50-70% of all marriages are between cousins). That is how much Pakistanis prefer marrying or getting their children married into their own communities.

But things are changing slowly and a century is a long time, so who knows.

Well I'm mixed and so are most of my cousins, it might be different if you have a country background.

 

[Pakistanian]

If you think of it, Karachi's "Urdu speaking" community is basically that, a fusion of different ethnic groups. Those who came from UP alone were themselves diverse (of Arab ancestry - Syeds, Farooqis, ...-, of Persian descent, the Rohilla Pathans, etc) and they now feel belonging to the same "meta-ethnicity", as much as the Gujarati migrant, to take one example.

I think that Pashtuns (from KPK, not from UP, already Urdu speakers), who apparently now make up 25% of the city (which is thus de facto the largest urban concentration of Pashtuns in the world, ahead of Peshawar/Kabul), as well as Punjabis, who are around 10-15% of Karachi (one of the best known Punjabi singer from Pak, Falak Shabir, was born there), will also fuse into the generic "Urdu speaking" community in a matter of decades (with upward socio-economic mobility and assimilation).

What do you think ? And do you think that "Pakistani" will become an assimilating meta-ethnicity like "Urdu speakers" in the future (50-100 years) ?

It's possible in the future. You already see that in America where Pakistanis identify Pakistani as their ethnicity. There are lots of Ismailis in my state and they just consider themselves Pakistani despite have different origins.

 

[cricketjoshila]

They should never be considered an ethnicity, Sikhism is a religious ideology. The same goes for Jews even though many Jews can trace their heritage but how can a black Jew be the same a white Jew?

I think the bigger issue is in Inida, Sikhism is not a religion in India, it's seen as a sect of Hinduism which many Sikhs in the UK find offensive.

Sikhs are a separate religious minority in India and not a sect of Hinduism.

 

[barah_admi]

I guess the reason is pretty simple, many of them are politically and socially averse to being labeled Indian, which is fair enough from their point of view BUT Sikhism is a religion not an ethnicity or even a nationality. If they had an independent Asian state then they would have an argument, since they do not, sadly their argument comes across as quite silly.

Let's see if this is granted.

 

[Marauder]

Good on Sikhs. They were tired of being labelled as "indians" or colonized "hindoos"(pre 1947 era). They just wanted a separate tick box in census. Of course some indians will be jealous Sikhs have got a special status. Indians don't like giving special statuses to minorities, be it Muslims, Christians or Sikhs. Word "Sikh" is not even mentioned in their constitution! Weird!

 

[Stewie]

Wouldn’t racially Sinhs mostly classify as Punjabis? If a white or black person converts to Sikhism, how does that change his race? This sounds absurd!

 

[Marauder]

It's already "granted".

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Good on Sikhs. They were tired of being labelled as "indians" or colonized "hindoos"(pre 1947 era). They just wanted a separate tick box in census. Of course some indians will be jealous Sikhs have got a special status. Indians don't like giving special statuses to minorities, be it Muslims, Christians or Sikhs. Word "Sikh" is not even mentioned in their constitution! Weird!

Doesn't matter if they don't like being labelled Indians, fact is, they don't have any other ethnic identity. Writing Sikh in the census box is just being petty, there is a separate box for religion.

 

[Gabbar Singh]

This is just silly - Sikhi is a belief system not an ethnicity. No one is forced to tick “Indian” in the ethnicity box, just write your ethnicity instead (Panjabi, Bihari, Sindhi etc).

Anyway it looks like the Times have jumped the gun a bit here.

Are British Sikhs getting an option to be an 'ethnic group'? Not anytime soon

http://barficulture.tv/people/276

 

[mani1]

They already get special treatment via the race laws.