Sikhs sue UK Government over refusal to treat them as ethnic group in census

[SpiritOf1903]

A long-running campaign to have Sikhs listed as an ethnic group in the UK census has reached the High Court.

The Sikh Federation UK argues it would be "unlawful" if the 2021 census did not include the option for people to record themselves as being of Sikh ethnicity. Lawyers for the federation told a hearing on Tuesday that not everyone who identifies as an ethnic Sikh would also identify as being Sikh by religion.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/...up-in-census-reaches-high-court-a4285236.html
This is absurd. sikhs have long tried emulating Jews. I also believe their number in UK equal Pakistanis. They have sizeable population in London, Midlands, Yorkshire and North East.

 

[Majestic_Inzi]

But then indians get annoyed..

Sikhs deserve there own state.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Why is it important that they are classified as Sikhs? At the moment they are classified as simply Indians I take it?

 

[Captain caveman]

Why is it important that they are classified as Sikhs? At the moment they are classified as simply Indians I take it?

Because many british sikhs want their own independent country(khalistan) and do not consider themselves as indians.
If it was good enough for pakistanis ....

""Apna punjan hoga, apna sarab hoga""

 

[cricketjoshila]

Because many british sikhs want their own independent country(khalistan) and do not consider themselves as indians.
If it was good enough for pakistanis ....

""Apna punjan hoga, apna sarab hoga""

Independent Khalistan where? UK?

 

[cricketjoshila]

Why is it important that they are classified as Sikhs? At the moment they are classified as simply Indians I take it?

Are all Sikhs from India? Many are from Pakistan.

 

[Captain caveman]

Independent Khalistan where? UK?

No.
In indian occupied east punjab!

 

[Kroll]

Lawyers for the federation told a hearing on Tuesday that not everyone who identifies as an ethnic Sikh would also identify as being Sikh by religion.

I thought Sikhism was a religion though?

 

[Down2Earth]

How can a religion be an ethnicity. They're Asian...

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Are all Sikhs from India? Many are from Pakistan.

So I guess they could identify as Pakistanis.

 

[Arya]

No.
In indian occupied east punjab!

Who do you think makes that Khalistan call? A handful of Sikhs in UK or East/West Punjabis?

 

[Captain caveman]

Who do you think makes that Khalistan call? A handful of Sikhs in UK or East/West Punjabis?

If it was a free vote with no danger of reprisals, i would think the majority of punjabi sikhs would choose indepedence.

Anyway, not what the thread is about, its about sikhs in britain wanting sikh option in the census.

So don't get so defensive!

 

[Arya]

If it was a free vote with no danger of reprisals, i would think the majority of punjabi sikhs would choose indepedence.

Anyway, not what the thread is about, its about sikhs in britain wanting sikh option in the census.

So don't get so defensive!

I am not getting defensive, there is no need to. Sikh representation in Indian army or other patriotic activities suggests otherwise, but you can keep your opinion, that's fine.

My point however is whether or not these Sikhs in UK have reasonable grounds for this demand. They want to be treated differently because of an imaginary country that only they demand, not people inhabiting that land. Unlike Kashmiris, it makes their case weak.

I think what it boils down to in the end is an embarrassment associated with an ethnic connect to a 3rd world country. I would distance myself from India too if poverty, Apu or PewDiePie diss-tracks are people's first thoughts when they hear the word India.

 

[Pakistanian]

Independent Khalistan where? UK?

No, on the lands in India where they make up the majority.

 

[Kroll]

I think what it boils down to in the end is an embarrassment associated with an ethnic connect to a 3rd world country. I would distance myself from India too if poverty, Apu or PewDiePie diss-tracks are people's first thoughts when they hear the word India.

How can you say such things about shining India?

 

[Captain caveman]

I am not getting defensive, there is no need to. Sikh representation in Indian army or other patriotic activities suggests otherwise, but you can keep your opinion, that's fine.

My point however is whether or not these Sikhs in UK have reasonable grounds for this demand. They want to be treated differently because of an imaginary country that only they demand, not people inhabiting that land. Unlike Kashmiris, it makes their case weak.

I think what it boils down to in the end is an embarrassment associated with an ethnic connect to a 3rd world country. I would distance myself from India too if poverty, Apu or PewDiePie diss-tracks are people's first thoughts when they hear the word India.

Brother, you seem a reasonable chap, so i will be reasonsble too.
I guess many sikhs in india are ok with the status quo and are not too fussed about independence, but if they were given a free choice without any reprisals, i believe they would choose independence. This is just my opinion of course, but it comes from speaking to both british sikhs and indian sikhs visiting the uk

As for joining the army, the sikhs, like the pathans are a warrior race and joining the army is a natural choice for them.

The fact remains, both pakistan and india are artificially made countries, which are huge and are made up of many different ethnicities and religions. You will always get a ethnicity or religion or region dominating and the other religions or regions or ethnicities feeling powerless. When this goes too far, thats when the rise of independence occurs.

 

[troodon]

Sikhs are not a race. Sikhs are as diverse as the Indians from rest of India.

 

[Captain caveman]

Sikhs are not a race. Sikhs are as diverse as the Indians from rest of India.

Silly argument!
There is only one race - the human race!
All these sudivisions of races are artificial, so if the sikhs want to call themselves a race, then thats their right. They are as much as a race as all the other accepted artificial races.

 

[Technics 1210]

The precedence has been set. If Jews can claim they are a race, then why not Sikhs? Both have roughly 25M in term of population; both base their ancestry on religion, and their history and race confined to a specific region.

 

[TSA321]

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/...up-in-census-reaches-high-court-a4285236.html
I also believe their number in UK equal Pakistanis.

No, they have about a third of the British Pakistani population according to the 2011 census.

 

[JaDed]

Only the indian disinformation version includes lmaoo. Under the formula of partition, only the Sikh majority would form an independent Khaalistan. There are barely Sikhs in Lahore, so Lahoris wouldn't even vote to join Khaalistan in a referendum so it's hilarious how indian nationalists ignore the demographics and how a referendum is supposed work.

Their % is reducing in Punjab too , coz so many have immigrated.
Even officially they have only 58% right now , every year many leaving .

Even if 75% of the 58% vote in favr it would not be a majority.
Irrespective India would never set a precedent by giving a referendum, so your referendum is kind of moot, Khalistan would only hold value if all the youngsters don’t leave but they don’t want to stay in Punjab, in another 10 years I see 5% increase in Biharis and they are nearing to get domicile.

The other reasons why Khalistan is not really spoken about in Punjab:

1. Caste violence, Punjab has one of the highest percentage of backward caste, that have a massive dislike for Jatts and have different problems.
2. Army families don’t care and neither will older generations, and older generations are majority in most villages.

 

[JaDed]

Census should include them, its anyway going to benefit Brit-Indians, they will probably have a jump in education and low crime stats.

Also weren't Sikhs a race in UK? I thought that was already granted..

 

[cricketjoshila]

No, on the lands in India where they make up the majority.

How can citizens of UK decide what will happen in India?

 

[SpiritOf1903]

The precedence has been set. If Jews can claim they are a race, then why not Sikhs? Both have roughly 25M in term of population; both base their ancestry on religion, and their history and race confined to a specific region.

They've heavily based their identity on Jews. Jews have been around as a race for 4000 yeras. There's a clear difference between Jewish ethnicity and Judaism.

sikhs however generally are from the Punjab buy don't have a distinct ethnicity. It's a joke. Is there a'Budhhist' ethnicity?

 

[msaaim89]

How can citizens of UK decide what will happen in India?

They are Khalistanis living abroad due to fear of persecution from the Indian authorities.

 

[cricketjoshila]

They are Khalistanis living abroad due to fear of persecution from the Indian authorities.

They are UK citizens. They have no rights in India.

 

[Captain caveman]

How can citizens of UK decide what will happen in India?

They can't but what they can do is start a movement which will spread to indian punjab and that movement is for the independence of sikhs and the creation of khalistan.
Can this happen, can a free khalistan be created? Probably not, but the indian govt is so bothered that it routinely complains to the uk govt about this groups activities. So if the indian govt is that concerned, then who knows?

 

[msaaim89]

They are UK citizens. They have no rights in India.

You can't just revoke their citizenship.

 

[Captain caveman]

Lawyers for the federation told a hearing on Tuesday that not everyone who identifies as an ethnic Sikh would also identify as being Sikh by religion.

I thought Sikhism was a religion though?

In the west alot of asians(sikhs, hindus, muslims) do not believe in religion and see religion as "fictional", they believe more in science and evolution.
So these people no longer believe in the religion but are still proud of their heritage i.e. sikh punjabi heritage or muslim punjabi heritage etc.

So they are ethnic sikhs, muslim etc but do not believe in the religion

 

[Captain caveman]

How can a religion be an ethnicity. They're Asian...

On uk census forms the asian classification is further divided into pakistani, indian , bangladeshi etc.

 

[PakLFC]

Sikh's are not an ethnic but religious group. Almost all of them are of Indian ethnicity like it or not.

 

[Kroll]

In the west alot of asians(sikhs, hindus, muslims) do not believe in religion and see religion as "fictional", they believe more in science and evolution.
So these people no longer believe in the religion but are still proud of their heritage i.e. sikh punjabi heritage or muslim punjabi heritage etc.

So they are ethnic sikhs, muslim etc but do not believe in the religion

Nah brother, I don't think this is true, a lot of Asians in the UK (be it Sikh, Hindu, Muslim or something else) identify with religion, don't think it's significantly less than elsewhere.

Believing in science doesn't necessarily mean you're going to be less religious.

 

[Pakistanian]

They are UK citizens. They have no rights in India.

That's like saying since Pandits have left Kashmir and are now citizens of other states in India thus they have no rights in Kashmir.

 

[troodon]

That's like saying since Pandits have left Kashmir and are now citizens of other states in India thus they have no rights in Kashmir.

Kashmir is also India and you are free to move to any state.

 

[cricketjoshila]

You can't just revoke their citizenship.

Indian law doesnot allow dual citizenship.

 

[cricketjoshila]

That's like saying since Pandits have left Kashmir and are now citizens of other states in India thus they have no rights in Kashmir.

There is no states citizenship in India.

 

[cricketjoshila]

They can't but what they can do is start a movement which will spread to indian punjab and that movement is for the independence of sikhs and the creation of khalistan.
Can this happen, can a free khalistan be created? Probably not, but the indian govt is so bothered that it routinely complains to the uk govt about this groups activities. So if the indian govt is that concerned, then who knows?

If any country allows its citizens to interfere and try start a separatist movement in another country, ofcourse the other country will raise that issue.

If UK govt is so interested in Khalistan, they can make one in UK.

 

[Pakistanian]

Kashmir is also India and you are free to move to any state.

but then pandits shouldn't be allowed to vote in a Kashmir referendum since they're no longer residents of Kashmir.

 

[Pakistanian]

There is no states citizenship in India.

Except in a referendum only a residents of an area can participate. Of course states don't have citizenship laws but they do in fact have domicile laws e.g somebody living another city can't just go to your neighborhood and vote in your constituency. If British-Indian Sikhs shouldn't have a right to vote in a referendum in their ancestral state then Pandits should also not be allowed to vote a Kashmir referndum if they're residents of another state. Periodt.

If any country allows its citizens to interfere and try start a separatist movement in another country, ofcourse the other country will raise that issue.

If UK govt is so interested in Khalistan, they can make one in UK.

As if India didn't support a separatist insurgency in East Pakistan and later Sri Lanka

 

[Captain caveman]

If any country allows its citizens to interfere and try start a separatist movement in another country, ofcourse the other country will raise that issue.

If UK govt is so interested in Khalistan, they can make one in UK.

Always defensive. If the sikh immigrants, who have seeked assylum in the uk because of indian aggression.and persecution, want to protest against india, then they have every right to.
What you don't understand is that in a free and democratic country, peaceful protests are allowed. Obviously, india is not a free country and a fake democracy.

 

[Hornbill]

Are they the only warrior race among punjabis

 

[SpiritOf1903]

Are they the only warrior race among punjabis

It's ironic that having claimed to eradicated 'caste', sikhs, who were khatri elevated 'jatt' status. Suddenly, rural farmers were given an elite status whereas Brahmin, Rajput etc are traditionally the highest classes. I find the whole notion of sikhism contradictory. Its empire desecrated mosques, its founder insulted Islam and the Kaba, it seekes to attack Islam at every opportunity, goes directly against Halal. If anything, a person of sikh heritage may still harbor the core beliefs but not act on them.

 

[SpiritOf1903]

Are they the only warrior race among punjabis

They've cultivated a perfect persona. Claim to be marginalised but are the stock image of a minority. Appear in almost every advert, have a global music presence even getting a Punjabi song in the mainstream music scene. Which is absurd but they've got traction.

The sikh empire used European mercenaries to enforce its power. Avitabile is the most famous .

 

[cricketjoshila]

Except in a referendum only a residents of an area can participate. Of course states don't have citizenship laws but they do in fact have domicile laws e.g somebody living another city can't just go to your neighborhood and vote in your constituency. If British-Indian Sikhs shouldn't have a right to vote in a referendum in their ancestral state then Pandits should also not be allowed to vote a Kashmir referndum if they're residents of another state. Periodt.





As if India didn't support a separatist insurgency in East Pakistan and later Sri Lanka

1.Who made these laws on Kashmir? You? There is diff between moving to another state and taking citizenship of another country.

2. I dont see Bangladesh making any compaints? Show me one.

India banned LTTE long before Sri lanka did.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Always defensive. If the sikh immigrants, who have seeked assylum in the uk because of indian aggression.and persecution, want to protest against india, then they have every right to.
What you don't understand is that in a free and democratic country, peaceful protests are allowed. Obviously, india is not a free country and a fake democracy.

There is a difference between protest and fanning separatism.

Ofcourse you have no idea since pakistani origin people think terrorists in kashmir are freedom fighters.

 

[msaaim89]

There is a difference between protest and fanning separatism.

Ofcourse you have no idea since pakistani origin people think terrorists in kashmir are freedom fighters.

Maybe it's got to the point were peaceful protests and requests for equal rights are being completely ignored?

If they want seperatism, it just shows how much of a sham India is when it comes to rights.

 

[AdamM97]

Punjabi Hindus and Punjabi Muslims belong to the same ethnic group as 95% of all Sikhs around the globe, and since Punjabi Hindus and Muslims are referred to as Asians, it would make no sense for Sikhs to have their own ethnic group.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Maybe it's got to the point were peaceful protests and requests for equal rights are being completely ignored?

If they want seperatism, it just shows how much of a sham India is when it comes to rights.

UK citizens demanding rights in India? How does that work?

How difficult it is to understand that UK citizens have no right to demand anything in India, and their attempts to fan any separatist movement is againist laws.

 

[msaaim89]

UK citizens demanding rights in India? How does that work?

How difficult it is to understand that UK citizens have no right to demand anything in India, and their attempts to fan any separatist movement is againist laws.

Just because they they had to flee abroad due to Indian persecution, doesn't change the fact that they are Khalistanis.

 

[Captain caveman]

There is a difference between protest and fanning separatism.

Ofcourse you have no idea since pakistani origin people think terrorists in kashmir are freedom fighters.

Seriously!
Dude people can hold protests for the liberation of their homeland.
The protests must be peaceful.

I don't speak much on kashmir, because no one will like what i say. Basically, i am a firm believer that the UN should force both pakistan and india to give up their occupied kashmiris land and let the kashmiris form their own country.
This country should be for all kashmiris including the kashmiri pandits.

But this is a pipedream and will never happen.
The kashmiri people have a right for peaceful protest , without the indian army and indian security forces usng violence against them and gang raping kashmiri women and girls!
Anyway, i don't want to derail this thread.

I told you before, we are proud british pakistanis, but our heritage is from indian punjab, jalundhar and my mothers family is from mumbai.
Both my parents were born in india AFTER partition and all 4 of my granparents were born in india before partition.
After that i guess theres only one thing to say








PAKISTAN ZINDABAD!!!

 

[cricketjoshila]

Just because they they had to flee abroad due to Indian persecution, doesn't change the fact that they are Khalistanis.

They dont hold indian citizen ship. That ends it. Thats the law.They can demand their whatever in the country of their citizenship.

Persecution? Lol. Sikhs are among the most well off community in India. There isnt a high post India sikhs havent held.

 

[msaaim89]

They dont hold indian citizen ship. That ends it. Thats the law.They can demand their whatever in the country of their citizenship.

Persecution? Lol. Sikhs are among the most well off community in India. There isnt a high post India sikhs havent held.

If the indian authorities decide to revoke citizenship after forcing peaceful protesters to flee the country, that is a stain on India. Don't presume everyone ignores their plight.

One Indian joining BNP doesn't make it an all inclusive party.

If you were to allow a referendum, you know damn well, Sikhs would rather go it alone.

 

[SpiritOf1903]

They dont hold indian citizen ship. That ends it. Thats the law.They can demand their whatever in the country of their citizenship.

Persecution? Lol. Sikhs are among the most well off community in India. There isnt a high post India sikhs havent held.

I find Pakistanis supporting 'khalistan' absurd. They'll be marching through kartar trying to regain Lahore and Rawalpindi... Pakistanis dislike o Indian and by extension Hindus has warped their thinking. sikhs are not Pakistan's friend.

What next BTW, surely British Pakistanis of Kashmiri extraction have more claim?.

 

[cricketjoshila]

If the indian authorities decide to revoke citizenship after forcing peaceful protesters to flee the country, that is a stain on India. Don't presume everyone ignores their plight.

One Indian joining BNP doesn't make it an all inclusive party.

If you were to allow a referendum, you know damn well, Sikhs would rather go it alone.

Who did India forced to flee?

Whenever any Indian citizen takes citizenship of another country, he or she automatically lose Indian citizenship. India doesnot allow dual citizenship. It is applicable on everyone.

Who is this everyone? What another country does for its citizens in its territory, without interfering in India, is between that country and its citizen.

The last Indian PM was sikh. Sikhs have been army chiefs, presidents, Chief justice of India etc etc.

What referendum? Non indian citizenship Sikhs holding any referendum in UK or US has nothing to do with India.

 

[Captain caveman]

I find Pakistanis supporting 'khalistan' absurd. They'll be marching through kartar trying to regain Lahore and Rawalpindi... Pakistanis dislike o Indian and by extension Hindus has warped their thinking. sikhs are not Pakistan's friend.

What next BTW, surely British Pakistanis of Kashmiri extraction have more claim?.

Why?
I am pure punjabi, my mother and father and all 4 of my grandparents and there parents etc are from punjab. Our family was spread all over what is modern day pakistan punjab and indian punjab.
Punjab has always been majority muslim, for at least the last 1000 years, sikhs have only existed in punjab for approx 500 years. And most of these sikhs are originally from punjabi muslims heritage.
Moreso, sikhs in punjab are what 25 million and muslims punjabis are at least 100 million. So sikhs can only claim there half of punjab, they cant claim lahore(where most of my extended family now reside) or any part of pakistani punjab!

By the way, i dont accept rawalpindi as a part of punjab, it is a part of the pothwari plateau and those people are potwaris, not punjabis, the british extended the boundaries of punjab, but this doesnt make them ethnically punjabi.

 

[Bel_Homme]

If any country allows its citizens to interfere and try start a separatist movement in another country, ofcourse the other country will raise that issue.

If UK govt is so interested in Khalistan, they can make one in UK.

I am an Indian, live in Central London. Trust me, except Brexit and geo political issues in United States, this (British) govt don't give a two hoots about anything else...let alone third world issues like Khalistan and Kashmir. LMAO.

As far as protest is concerned, there are some sort of protest in Britain everyday. Just go out of Westminster station, you will find some group from some random country is protesting about something. Some goes peacefully abd few turns violent, like the protest in front of Indian embassy in Aldwich on 15th Aug where police needed to fire tear gas since protestors turned violent and were throwing eggs/coke cans on innocent women/children who came to celebrate Independence day peacefully.

But overall, British govt has no stance on any of these protests and looks into them as perks of a democratic country. Good thing is Indian govt understands these (harmless overseas protests) too and dont get swayed away by what is happening in Britain or America. They do what is correct for the nation as any democratic nation should.

 

[Romali_rotti]

but then pandits shouldn't be allowed to vote in a Kashmir referendum since they're no longer residents of Kashmir.

But, Pakistan aint getting Indian Kashmir nor are they getting independence from India

 

[Captain caveman]

I am an Indian, live in Central London. Trust me, except Brexit and geo political issues in United States, this (British) govt don't give a two hoots about anything else...let alone third world issues like Khalistan and Kashmir. LMAO.

As far as protest is concerned, there are some sort of protest in Britain everyday. Just go out of Westminster station, you will find some group from some random country is protesting about something. Some goes peacefully abd few turns violent, like the protest in front of Indian embassy in Aldwich on 15th Aug where police needed to fire tear gas since protestors turned violent and were throwing eggs/coke cans on innocent women/children who came to celebrate Independence day peacefully.

But overall, British govt has no stance on any of these protests and looks into them as perks of a democratic country. Good thing is Indian govt understands these (harmless overseas protests) too and dont get swayed away by what is happening in Britain or America. They do what is correct for the nation as any democratic nation should.

I agreed with everything you said til the last paragraph. The indian govt definetly gets hot under the collar and bothered by theses protests and tries to get the uk to ban these protests. The uk government justs ignores india's request.

 

[TSA321]

Why?
I am pure punjabi, my mother and father and all 4 of my grandparents and there parents etc are from punjab. Our family was spread all over what is modern day pakistan punjab and indian punjab.
Punjab has always been majority muslim, for at least the last 1000 years, sikhs have only existed in punjab for approx 500 years. And most of these sikhs are originally from punjabi muslims heritage.
Moreso, sikhs in punjab are what 25 million and muslims punjabis are at least 100 million. So sikhs can only claim there half of punjab, they cant claim lahore(where most of my extended family now reside) or any part of pakistani punjab!

No, Punjab only became majority Muslim around 100 years ago. The vast majority of Sikhs are descended from Punjabi Hindus.

 

[Captain caveman]

No, Punjab only became majority Muslim around 100 years ago. The vast majority of Sikhs are descended from Punjabi Hindus.

Have you any sources for your claim?
Most hindu panjabis actually converted to the religion of Ravadassi, commonly known as chamars a distortions of the word kumars.
Sikhs are mostly muslims converts.
And the punjab region has not been hindu majority for centuries.

 

[Captain caveman]

Have you any sources for your claim?
Most hindu panjabis actually converted to the religion of Ravadassi, commonly known as chamars a distortions of the word kumars.
Sikhs are mostly muslims converts.
And the punjab region has not been hindu majority for centuries.

And its debatable whether punjab had ever had a hindu majority.

 

[TSA321]

Have you any sources for your claim?
Most hindu panjabis actually converted to the religion of Ravadassi, commonly known as chamars a distortions of the word kumars.
Sikhs are mostly muslims converts.
And the punjab region has not been hindu majority for centuries.

See below

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjab_Province_(British_India)

 

[Bel_Homme]

I agreed with everything you said til the last paragraph. The indian govt definetly gets hot under the collar and bothered by theses protests and tries to get the uk to ban these protests. The uk government justs ignores india's request.

Trust me, it dont. Ofcourse if embassy is attacked, Indian FM will definitely raise the concern with Britain. But Indian govt don't give two hoots about some random protests in Britain...LMAO.

 

[Captain caveman]

See below

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjab_Province_(British_India)

Your scorce only goes back to 1881 and has
muslims 47.6%
hindus 43.3%
sikhs 8.2%
Of the population of british punjab.

1. No way of knowing when muslims came into majority, 100 years or 1000 years ago.

2. This is refering to british punjab . The british extended the boundaries of punjab and hence would explain the low sikh population % and the high hindu population %.
I was referring to the original punjab, before british tampering with the state.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I find Pakistanis supporting 'khalistan' absurd. They'll be marching through kartar trying to regain Lahore and Rawalpindi... Pakistanis dislike o Indian and by extension Hindus has warped their thinking. sikhs are not Pakistan's friend.

What next BTW, surely British Pakistanis of Kashmiri extraction have more claim?.

Agree, the whole Khalistan drama is a nonsense. If you were going to talk about a separate state it would be Punjab itself, but that spans Pakistan as well.

Anyway, this isn't even relevant, this topic is about Sikhs wanting to be recognised as a distinct ethnicity in the UK, nothing to do with Khalistan. First make your Khalistan in India, then come back and ask for recognition over here.

 

[JaDed]

It's ironic that having claimed to eradicated 'caste', sikhs, who were khatri elevated 'jatt' status. Suddenly, rural farmers were given an elite status whereas Brahmin, Rajput etc are traditionally the highest classes. I find the whole notion of sikhism contradictory. Its empire desecrated mosques, its founder insulted Islam and the Kaba, it seekes to attack Islam at every opportunity, goes directly against Halal. If anything, a person of sikh heritage may still harbor the core beliefs but not act on them.

I don’t know how it is in UK, they are much more sensible in India and many Punjabis down south even have Halal restaurants because it makes business sense.
Jatts do have a notion of superiority but many Punjabis have started calling them up on it.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Sikhs are not muslim converts. Sikhs were as anti Muslim as it would get. Sikhs were mainly hindu converts.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

It's a weird dynamic between Sikhs and Pakistanis in the UK, I grew up with a few, and on the one hand there was some unspoken religious tension, but at the same time there was also so much similarity in outlook and culture that we quite often ended up in the same circles.

 

[TSA321]

Your scorce only goes back to 1881 and has


1. No way of knowing when muslims came into majority, 100 years or 1000 years ago.

It clearly shows that Muslims became a majority between 1901 and 1911. Majority = more than 50%.

 

[JaDed]

Sikhs are not muslim converts. Sikhs were as anti Muslim as it would get. Sikhs were mainly hindu converts.

Before and during partition , there was custom in many Punjabi Hindu families to make one son a Sikh.

 

[JaDed]

It's a weird dynamic between Sikhs and Pakistanis in the UK, I grew up with a few, and on the one hand there was some unspoken religious tension, but at the same time there was also so much similarity in outlook and culture that we quite often ended up in the same circles.

Same culture different religions. Probably the only culture to have 4 different religions.

 

[irfan]

It's a weird dynamic between Sikhs and Pakistanis in the UK, I grew up with a few, and on the one hand there was some unspoken religious tension, but at the same time there was also so much similarity in outlook and culture that we quite often ended up in the same circles.

so true I had similar experience and also because I'm Jat caste we had that connection too, very weird considering 70 years prior we were killing each other.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Before and during partition , there was custom in many Punjabi Hindu families to make one son a Sikh.

Actually that started during mughal rule. It was basically to create an army againist the muslims..

 

[SpiritOf1903]

Before and during partition , there was custom in many Punjabi Hindu families to make one son a Sikh.

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-or...jab-What-are-any-special-reasons-for-the-same

Hm

 

[SpiritOf1903]

It's intriguing. I reckon most Punjabi Muslims swayed by caste are closer to sikhism than sikh are Muslims..

 

[JaDed]

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-or...jab-What-are-any-special-reasons-for-the-same

Hm

I have family who are Sikh my maternal grandmother Sikh. If you go to Haridwar the holy place for Punjabi Hindus one would see Sikhs putting Ashes away of their probably one Hindu grand parent.
The intermixing is not because of intermarriage alone.

 

[Captain caveman]

It clearly shows that Muslims became a majority between 1901 and 1911. Majority = more than 50%.

We are using different definitions of majority.
You are using majority as greater than 50% of the total population.

I am using majority to mean the largest % of the population.

 

[Pakistanian]

It clearly shows that Muslims became a majority between 1901 and 1911. Majority = more than 50%.

Muslims were still a plurality long before they formed an absolute majority.

 

[Captain caveman]

It clearly shows that Muslims became a majority between 1901 and 1911. Majority = more than 50%.

You are using majority in the form of used in ELECTORAL SYSTEMS.

The actual definition of the word majority is as follows:

Majority
noun
the greater number.

 

[Kroll]

It's a weird dynamic between Sikhs and Pakistanis in the UK, I grew up with a few, and on the one hand there was some unspoken religious tension, but at the same time there was also so much similarity in outlook and culture that we quite often ended up in the same circles.

so true I had similar experience and also because I'm Jat caste we had that connection too, very weird considering 70 years prior we were killing each other.

The other ironic thing is, along with Hindus, we can now all fight as a united group under the same armed forces for the UK.