Kids Corner

Columnists

Sikh-Americans: Towards a More Perfect Union

by I.J. SINGH

 

 

The following is the edited version of a lecture delivered by the author at The City Club of Cleveland on April 14, 2010:

 

 

These are important days for many of our neighbors. Not long ago was Passover for the Jews, Easter for Christians. For us today is Vaisakhi that gave final form to the message of Sikhism.

I come to you as an American who is also a Sikh.

Today let's consider how these two rather weighty ideas come together in the New World.  I see that we are all - all of us - at one time or another, in one form or another -- just off the boat.  Many of you came over two centuries ago; my people - a little over a hundred years; I came 50 years ago. All three, to me, are examples of just being off the boat.

And then I think of the motto E Pluribus Unum that defines us as a nation. The conversation today is about the ideas inherent in that motto.  It is also about Sikhs in America. 

In the contemporary American society, in many ways Sikhs are the new kids on the block. Yes, we have been a presence in America for over a hundred years. That is a substantial portion of American history. But we have a checkered and relatively unknown presence here.  

There were Sikhs who worked on the Panama Canal when it was built in 1903-04. The West was not opened by the likes of John Wayne alone - Chinese, Italian and Sikh labor had a hand in it. A pioneer Sikh served in the U.S. army in 1918, at the tail-end of the First World War.

But there were discriminatory laws in place then. The right to citizenship formally came only in 1946. Immigration laws were eased only as recently as Lyndon Johnson's time as President.

Sikh numbers in this country were relatively small until the 1970's; now there are a tad less than a million. When I came here in 1960, there were 3 Sikhs in New York then; I went to graduate school in Oregon where I was the only one.

From the day I landed in America almost half a century ago, the American Dream has been my preoccupation, as it is for all immigrants from anywhere. I have heard the American Dream proclaimed from all kinds of pulpits - political, religious, popular print and television. But after having been here awhile, I began to wonder what exactly do we mean when we talk about being and becoming an American.

The first flood of immigrants - an estimated 18 million Europeans - came between 1890 and 1920.  Israel Zangwill celebrated them in the Broadway play, The Melting Pot, and thus this defining expression entered our national dialogue.

The Melting Pot became our time-honored model.  But in a melting pot, the units blend irretrievably into each other. The individual identity of each item is lost. This reminds me somewhat of a hostile takeover, not a model of cooperative interaction.

Is this how America is?  I think not. It is a land where each wave of immigrants has added inestimable value to society. The creativity, vitality and energy of this culture come from its immigrant roots. A melting pot in which immigrants no longer contribute the strength and traits that they came with would leave the larger society poorer indeed.

Some observers now look to a tossed salad to capture the complexity of our contemporary social reality. Yes, the individual ingredients remain recognizable - each adds to the richness of the salad - but sometimes a salad can be tossed a tad too vigorously to the detriment of the smaller ingredients. That has been our lot, post 9/11. More of that later

A mosaic may be a better metaphor. Look at how small shards that have little value as individual tiles can create an enthralling whole with much magic and considerable value to it. A mosaic offers an interactive model. In it, every little piece, no matter how small, has a place such that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. 

Alternatively, I like to think of this society as a large multi-instrument orchestra.  Notice that the lowly cymbals or the triangle, too, have a place.  When they speak, even the naturally dominant violins and pianos listen.  When the mighty and the small talk to each other without drowning the other, the conversation becomes heavenly music. That's how a rich performance is born. An orchestra, when well and wisely led, has an organic presence to it.

Again, the idea is of the whole being greater than the sum of the parts. And there is a core of American values that defines and unites us.

This is how I understand the words - E Pluribus Unum - One From the Many. An equal place at the table for the many diverse people that make up this great country. This is how I see our Sikh presence in this country - small but significant.

A lynch mob is governance by majority rule, but we would all reject it. We all know what happens when a majority turns tyrannical. For example, history speaks eloquently of the struggles of Women, of Blacks, the Irish, Jews, Germans, East Europeans, Italians and the Japanese for an equal place in this society. My people as well.

As a Sikh, I point, for example, to The Asian Exclusion Act, for instance, that prevented Asians from owning land or becoming citizens until 1946. I also point to another recent instance: the targeting and profiling of Sikhs in the United States post 9/11.

A democracy mandates that the rights of even the smallest minority are equally protected. In a mosaic or an orchestra even the smallest bit is not trampled on, but instead allowed its breathing space.

The lot of a small minority is never easy. And Sikhs would be a small minority no matter where they lived in this world.  So, there are days when I hear the multi-instrument orchestra in my soul, and the "world's mine oyster" (Shakespeare). Then there are days that are not so kind. So I remain particularly sensitive to our place in a multi-ethnic, multi-religious nation such as this; the triangle and the cymbal among the powerful strings and the pianos are always on my mind.

In Sikh belief, as in many other spiritual traditions, the "Word" is God. Sikh scripture - the Guru Granth - opens with an alphanumeric devised by the founder of the faith over 500 years ago.

"Ik Oankar", he formulated, combining the first numeral, "one" with "Oankar", a word that stands for Creator or Doer. Thus it postulates One God - not a partisan Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Sikh God, but one that embraces all creation. Sikhism tells us that to discover unity in the diversity of creation is to experience God.

If I can see the oneness in the creator and creation, there is then absolutely no room left for distinctions in race, caste, creed, gender, color or national origin. Differences between "them" and "us" vanish. Equality, liberty, fraternity and justice are inherent in that oneness.

And, then, as the Sikh scripture says, "I see no stranger".

This speaks of discovering, nurturing and celebrating unity in diversity, not violently hammering the many into one. This is how I see the meaning of "E Pluribus Unum" that is our motto, and our way to a more perfect union.

Fear of the stranger is universal. In America, these fears have, at times, produced discriminatory laws. Some people fear our becoming a "balkanized" nation. Yet, clearly, American society is constantly being re-made in ways not imagined before.

As FDR told us in a different context, "we have nothing to fear but fear itself." 

Emerson reminds us, "A nation, like a tree, does not thrive well till it is engrafted with a foreign stock".

The idea here is integration, not assimilation beyond recognition and definitely - definitely not pockets of isolation either. 

Are we a Christian nation? This is a perennial question and would take experts many a lifetime to parse. But let me - a non-expert - offer my take on it.

Yes, the nation, in its current form was founded by Christians, and derives its values from Christian teaching and tradition. It need not, should not, and does not diminish a non-Christian, or even an agnostic or an atheist. This then does not make it a Christian nation. 

Such were the values of Thomas Jefferson, clearly enunciated by him and by other like-minded founding fathers of this nation. The inscription "In God We Trust" on our currency, and "One Nation under God" in our Oath of Allegiance would not find approval in their eyes. In fact, they did not approve; these words were added in the 1950's.

The First Amendment pointedly has two clauses: First, that the state shall not establish a church; secondly, that it must ensure free exercise of religion. Jefferson also reminds us: It does me no harm if my neighbor thinks there are twenty gods or that there is none.

This tells me that much as it is possible to be a good Christian and a good American, or a good Jew and a good American, or even an atheist and a good American, similarly it is possible to be a good Sikh and a good American. These are not mutually exclusive ideas. This is the meaning of an equal place at the table.

The mantra these days is diversity in the workplace. The idea is that "Religion is a diversity issue and should be addressed in the workplace." My position is that "Religion is not a diversity issue and should not be a consideration in the workplace".

This may surprise you since I wear a turban and unshorn hair - markers of my faith. However, I wish to be hired and judged not by the turban on my head but my ability to do the job, just as a woman candidate must not be judged by her gender but only by her qualification and ability.

To my mind, the best acceptance of diversity is to go through life such that irrelevant traits such as color, gender, caste, creed, religion or national origin do not enter the equation.

Yes, Sikhs wearing the articles of their faith, including the long, unshorn hair and a turban, are making a public declaration of a private intention, but I would argue that it is not mixing of religion and public life or public space. 

Clearly, there is no demonstration by any cogent logic that my public demeanor, in any manner or form, hampers society or harms another. There is no expectation here for special accommodation on the job. The workplace must remain blind and neutral in such matters.

Let me recount a brief story:  It was just a day or two after 9/11 and I was one of the few people walking about wearing a turban in New York City. I fell into conversation with a bright, educated 'white' American. And well-to-do - his brief case was better than mine and his suit more expensive. We talked a while about Sikhs in America.

"Tell me," finally, he said "your people have been here a hundred years. Why did they not leave their religion back home when they came here?" 

I was a bit flustered but recovered and asked if he wanted a long answer on the virtues of Sikhism or a short answer. He wanted a short answer. So I asked. "Your people have likely been here over 200 years. Tell me, when they came here, why did they not leave their religion back home." 

It was his turn to be thoughtfully silent a moment. Then he said - "You have a point. Let's have a cup of coffee." 

We did and remain friends now, so many years later.

To understand the meaning of diversity, we need to see "us" in "them" and "them" in "us". I cannot think of a better formulation of the concept of "E Pluribus Unum" than the awesome poetry of Sikh scriptural writing. It goes thus - in translation: 

As out of a single fire, millions of sparks arise;

But fall back in the fire, to come together again.

..........

...........

As out of a single stream, countless waves arise;

And then return to the water.

So from God's form, emerges all creation;

To return to the One again.

 

April 23, 2010

Conversation about this article

1: Irvinderpal Singh Babra (Brampton, Ontario, Canada), April 23, 2010, 11:34 AM.

I suggest the same fundamentals should be applied from Cleveland to Chandigarh, and so on.

2: Sangat Singh (Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia), April 23, 2010, 12:13 PM.

I too had such an encounter. She wanted a quick answer. I said, with the usual bon mot: "You want a short speech or a long one?" "What's the difference?" The short one is "Thank you". and the long one is: "Thank you very much". She laughed and I went on for the next hour or so. It was Guru Nanak's Gurpurab and she was my captive audience. We were on a flight from Kuala Lumpur to Bangkok. By the time I finished, I still had an hour to spare. My parting words were: "If you ever get converted to Sikhism, it would be entirely your own fault."

3: Pierre (Washington, D.C., U.S.A.), April 23, 2010, 6:52 PM.

Beautiful! I would also add that fear of the truly universal is also now universal; there are some who fall in for mere relativisms, melting distinct notes, tones and qualities down to a quantity of one (and then with nihilism and deconstructionism, dismissing said one), some proclaim exclusive paths and answers subsumed under temporal doctrines (seldom is one's own path subsumed ...). It is nigh on impossible to actually DO universal, as has taken a Creator to make a universe through pluribus; there is unity of faiths and peoples - not by our hands but by His; cultivating AWARENESS of the unity, of the universal, is not the craft of heaven - it is our awesome duty on earth (Really awesome! Like, California surfer awesome!)

Comment on "Sikh-Americans: Towards a More Perfect Union"









To help us distinguish between comments submitted by individuals and those automatically entered by software robots, please complete the following.

Please note: your email address will not be shown on the site, this is for contact and follow-up purposes only. All information will be handled in accordance with our Privacy Policy. Sikhchic reserves the right to edit or remove content at any time.