Dickinson College Humanities Program in Norwich

I find the prompt a bit vague and difficult to answer simply because I’m not at all familiar with how Sikhs and Hindus adjust to life in London.  However, based upon what I’ve seen and what I’ve read, there doesn’t seem to be much of a difference between the cultural identities of the two in the UK.  I actually think that a lot of their adaptation is similar, mainly because I link the two religions in my mind as well.

Just as an aside, I read a quote today by C.S. Lewis that reminded me of our visits to the two temples: “You don’t have a soul./You are a soul./You have a body.”  I think this is the perfect way to sum up Sikh and Hindu ideas regarding the relationship between God and humanity, that is to say, God can exist in all things and in all people.  I was particularly reminded of our guide in the Sikh temple who stressed the transience of the human body and the importance of tending to one’s soul.  However, it could also refer to the Hindu concept of “Atman,” or the true soul which transcends earthly existence and our false egos.  I think the relevance of the quote extends to each in equally significant ways.

I think the sense of community central to both Sikhism and Hinduism plays a huge role in the ways that these people adjust to London life.  Both temples stressed the fact that their buildings are a gathering place where people can congregate and worship.  In Salaam: Brick Lane and Brick Lane, I got the impression that Tarquin Hall and Nanzeen felt isolated in their respective communities because they were forced to adjust on their own.  Since Tarquin Hall and Nanzeen came from such different socioeconomic, cultural, and geographical backgrounds than their neighbors and friends, they both seemed to suffer from loneliness to some degree.  Each managed to cope until they became more comfortable with their surroundings, but it certainly took time and great effort.  I found that this was in direct contrast to the Hindu and Sikh communities that we visited.  They put great emphasis on community and togetherness, which makes for easier adjustment to a new culture simply because they are able to spend time in comfortable places with people who act in a familiar way.  Similarly, I was able to adjust to London life quickly because I am surrounded by people who are going through the same changes that I am.  From a psychological perspective, change is easier when one is not alone, and I think this is applicable to Sikhism and Hinduism.

Along those lines, both attempt to maintain this community through arranged marriages or simply marriages within their religion population.  Interestingly, BBC mentioned that online dating is increasing for both denominations.  This, to me, is the perfect balance between adaptation to a new culture and adherence to one’s background and history.  They are able to try new things while still congregating with those who share their own religious beliefs and morals.

Since this is getting quite long I’ll finish, and perhaps add more later..but for now, I think my general sentiment is that both Sikh and Hindu followers are able to adjust more easily than other religions because of their focus on community and willingness to support one another in their daily lives in London.

   As I sit in the Hindu temple observing the religious practices, a sign reads “please observe silence.” 

    To me, there is a very thin line that separates the secular world and a religious world. Such a thin line that it is almost blurred. For me the “real world” seems to overpower the religious world. I can not help but to question whether liberation and equality exist in the “real world” even if religion may not always promote such values. The blur might exist for me because of my complicated story. I grew up in Baku, Azerbaijan with an Islamic family from my mother’s side and a Christian family on my father’s side. I was able to follow Islam religion by attending a Mosque once in a while, following the holidays, and observing my grandmother and my uncle praying for 30 days during Ramadan. Besides such factors, I have never considered my family too religious or “straight laced,”  even before coming to the United States, the influence that the U.S.S.R. had on Azerbaijan allowed me to grow up in a Westernized country, where religion was not the driving force  behind the society. Needless to say, I have not been to a Mosque in over nine years  and since coming to the United States, my grandmother and uncle gave up their “duty” of praying during Ramadan. However, there are many principles that I still follow and believe in and will most likely remain in my life. 

   Traveling to Sikh Gurdwara and  the Hindu temple has proven to be an experience that not only has allowed me to explore Sikhism and Hinduism but allowed me to question how I have interconnected my religion with my daily “real world” and furthermore question whether it is possible to be both religious and still live in a secular world. Therefore, I have tried to research how first and second generations have tried to maintain their religions while living in a very westernized world of England and how certain beliefs and concepts cross that blurred line that makes it impossible for someone like myself to follow strictly one religion. 

   Both, Sikhism and Hinduism have a following in London and England in general which would explain the large structures that were built in order to provide a space for practicing. Both of the religions have extensive histories and have specific worshipping rituals that include praying a few times a day, meditation, holy days, promote non-violence, and encourage continuous learning. One aspect of both religions that stuck out to me was the relationships the Temple, and the Gurdwara to form with younger generations because here is where the blurred line comes into play.

   Upon taking our tours, the topics of abortion, marriage, female and male roles, and liberation ran through my mind. My desire during the tours was to chat with those “youngsters” practicing in the Gurdwara, females who were sitting in the back while males were praying in the front of the Temple, males who are training to become monks and gurus and anyone else who is a first, second, or third generation individual trying to get rid of the blurred line and have their religion and their westernized culture exist together. 

   Although, I was not able to chat with any individuals besides our tour guides, I was able to find a few stories told by Second Generation Sikhs on the BBC website. In many recollections, the Sikhs such as Sody Singh Kahlon, mentioned being an eternal student and scholar. The attitudes of older generations and how they encourage younger generations to maintain their religions differ in Sikhism and Hinduism. When mentioning the “youngsters” during our group tour, it was made clear that the Sikhs encourage their younger generations to adapt as much as they can from the religion while continuing to live in “the real world” that is now England. Their focus is to pass on as many of their religious teachings as possible but the elders are also willing to learn from younger generations who live their lives in the western world. Although geographically the Gurdwara was separated from Central London, it seemed that their religion is accepting of changes, of equality of women and men praying in the same space. 

   The Hindu concepts seemed to be true original roots of caste systems, gurus, cycles of birth, death, and rebirth. When it comes to the younger generations, Hindus still seem to hold men in a higher position than they do women. My conclusion is based on the fact that men and women were separated in the praying room, with men sitting in the front of the room and being allowed to offer their prayers to Gods first while women follow. Also, the young men, no matter what generation, are encouraged to become priests and then follow on to hopefully become monks. Instead of incorporating their current worlds with their religion, the men are encouraged to follow their religion strictly. And here is when the line presents itself for me. Certain ethics in Hinduism seems to cloud over my “real world” believes such as into pro-choice when it comes to abortion, in the right to pick your own partner in marriage. How can one separate their daily beliefs while still following their religion? Is there a way to separate praising God and living your daily life? 

   I am sure adjusting to the life in a Westernized country such as England is tough, especially for the first generations that are caught between their ethics and ethics of their parents. As of now, I have been choosing the “real world,” over the religious world because I have not found a way to interconnect the two worlds together. I do have a lot of respect for those individuals who have found a way to cross the blurred line and be happy.

…simply because we allow our differences to overpower our commonalities. As both groups and individuals we spent a ridiculous amount of time investigating and calculating the differences between who/what we are and who/what we are not.

For example:

From the moment we are born, traditionally, we are dressed in colors that represent our assigned gender. Those wearing anything different must then be who/what we are not. From that moment on, we are being taught to differentiate people by the category of gender.

What happens when we grow up to realize that we are all, actually, just human? A definite challenge that will continue to trouble our society and many more societies to come. Religion, is a complex term that encompasses multiple definitions, it all depends on perspective. It can simply be a devotion or, as described by Kile Jones (a Ph.D student at the University of Glasgow (i found his quote while doing some research on the meaning of religion), “It is apparent that religion can be seen as a theological, philosophical, anthropological, sociological, and psychological phenomenon of human kind. To limit religion to only one of these categories is to miss its multifaceted nature and lose out on the complete definition.” Jones definition clearly being  a more complex one, suits my personal ideas of religion.

A “phenomenon of human kind” which only exists to further divide our global population into sectors that have indefinitely branched from one another, to define our purpose in life. I would like to state that if I had to choose a religious denomination I would categorize myself as an atheist, for I do believe that “God” (when defined as the Supreme being, creator and ruler of all) is a human-made construct. Thus, I am aware that religious ideas and believes are made up of layers after layers of tradition, philosophical, sociological and anthropological values, therefore, I attempt to understand them (from an analytical/academic perspective).

When reading the various world religions profiles on BBC news I realized that they are all not so different from each other. Lets take Christianity and Islam, the two with the most followers in the world, both are monotheistic religions that have existed for thousands of years, are based on a holy book and teachings of God’s prophets. Christian believes can also be found in Santeria, which borrows some religious sense from Christian practices. Like Santeria, Rastafarians worship in ways that are somewhat uncommon, for instance, Rastafairians smoke marijuana to enhance their spiritual connection with their God, meanwhile Santerians sacrifice animals for their God. Both marihuana and animal scarification are illegal in the United States. These are only a few of the multiple comparisons that can be drawn along multiple religious practices and believes. They are all so similar and yet so different.

[Sometimes I want to ask people: Since when do you believe in your “God”? When did you decide that this is the “God” that you wanted to believe in? If you’ve believed in that religion your entire life, then someone had to decide for you… right? So you’ve been taught to believe in something that you never decided to believe in. It has been taught to you why? I think it’s all about power and control, and so many are immersed in a religious world that will never allow them to answer the above questions for themselves, after all, I may just be tempting “evil” thoughts!]

Sometimes, I wish we could break through religious barriers, bring down the walls of churches and temples and unite everyone under one roof of religious acceptance (not fake tolerance). Maybe if we start by deconstructing gender norms and stop dressing our children in either blue or pink when they are born, then that could be the first step towards deconstructing a religiously segregated world. After all, various religions still evoke a gender hierarchy in their practices, such as Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism and Islam are four religions which are obviously male-oriented. For example: In Christianity women are not allowed to become priests (a position of respect and religious power within the church), in Hinduism women are not allowed to become either monks nor Guru’s (leaders of the spiritual community) and in Rastafari women have an entirely different code of religion. For now, gender will continue to be a category that further separates us, physically, socially and within religions.

…we can’t all just get along. Globally, we have divided ourselves, and we are all too deep in it. BBC features nineteen different religions on their “Religion and Ethics” site, which one defines you? Which one have you chosen to be the one that separates you from everyone else, from all of the others? Why can’t we all just get along? We’re all just humans.

Reference: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/

I’ll start by discussing our trip to the Shri Swaminarayan Mandir on Sunday, which I think was on balance a positive experience, despite my serious reservations about the implications of some aspects of their tour. I liked best having a chance to learn about all the functions and spaces of a Hindu temple and also getting a sense of Hindu prayer, which I’m ashamed to say I’ve never really looked into. On the other hand, I really disliked some aspects of the tour, particularly the Hinduism exhibit and what I’ll call the “wall of famous white people who approve of us.”

Some of the former was presentation of simple facts about Hinduism as a whole, but not nearly enough of it was. The rest of it sought to elevate their particular sect above the rest, elevate Indian civilization above western civilization, and at the same time imply that quotes from white historians and writers about Hinduism should be what convince the British masses to accept Hinduism. I can understand being proud of one’s particular sect, but the last two do a disservice to the exhibit. I approve of recognizing the formidable achievements of Indians throughout history as part of a Hinduism exhibit, but I cannot support essentially saying that every innovation in history is proof of the superiority of Indian civilization (the most silly panel was something like this: Indians invented the concept of zero, think how many times those crazy Romans would have to write M to get to 10 million before we set them straight!)

The quotes from white historians and “wall of famous white people who approve of us” are altogether more problematic. The fact that they were a centerpiece of the tour makes me feel as though the Mandir has more of an interest in making Hinduism superficially palatable to the UK population rather than really providing a place where the curious and faithful alike can get a better and deeper sense of the true meanings of Hinduism. Although I may not like it, the wall is proof that this particular mandir does a good job (of superficially) getting its name out there and interacting with the community around it and indeed the nation’s leaders. While I understand that not every Hindu temple has the resources or inclination to do this, the fact that such a large one manages to do this can be seen as proof that Hinduism is on track to do better rather than worse in acculturation. If there’s anything working against Hindus on that front, it’s likely current population. Hindus were only 1% of the UK population in 2001 (which really surprises me) and this might be detrimental to the population’s visibility within the country.

Sikhs appear to face a few unique challenges to acculturating. The first of which is dress, which is more distinctively strict (at least among devoted Sikhs) than in Hinduism or Islam. While I think it is certainly possible to acculturate with strict religious dress, some groups in history (Jewish immigrants on the Lower East Side, for instance) have relaxed religious dress as sort of the first step to full scale integration into their new nation. If this would also be true for Sikhs, it will have the negative side effect of forcing individual Sikhs to choose devotion to religion or the possible benefits of acculturation, and perhaps put a greater gulf between the older and younger generation of Sikhs (which if we are to believe our tour guide Mr. Singh, is already there). I’d like to do a bit of research into the Sikh population as a whole in Britain, perhaps to see if there’s a guardwara in London that serves a similar kind of function as the Mandir does (in terms of outreach). If so, that would likely be beneficial for them in terms of becoming part of getting Sikhism in the national consciousness. The Southall guardwara seemed less used to public relations and (while in a diverse community) seems a bit cut off from the whole of London.

Although we haven’t discussed them in a bit and didn’t get the chance to go to a mosque, I felt the need to mention Muslims in Britain and where they may fit into all of this. Muslims, too, have a unique problem as evidenced by the cover of last night’s evening papers.  British Muslims, though they make up the largest share of the population among these three religions, seem to mostly get in the papers in relation to extremism or terrorism. Over the weekend, there were violent protests of Islamic fundamentalism in Birmingham which led to ninety arrests (it’s unknown if the protesters or counter-protesters started the violence, but unfortunately it looks as though it all might happen again). Our reading from about a week and a half ago about police and national relations with the Muslim community mentions that one of the scariest things to many Britons about 7/7 was that one of the planners spoke in his tape with a broad Yorkshire accent, making British Muslims to some seem like the frighteningly hidden enemy within.

That same article outlined ways to improve relations between Muslims and national institutions like the police and the press through mutual respect and cooperation. Hopefully this will come about. Working for Muslims, although I’m not sure of the more recent immigration trends, is that they make up a slightly larger percentage of the population, closer to three percent than the one percent of Hindus and Sikhs. Muslims have already made large parts of the bigger English cities (London and Birmingham, for example) their own, so they likely don’t have the exposure problem Sikhs and Hindus might. Now it’s just a matter of getting better exposure. Predicting acculturation into a new national identity is always tricky, and without foreknowledge of events and immigration trends I won’t bet on any of these three groups to be there first. Each seems to have unique advantages and challenges, and how each community will manage them doesn’t yet seem clear to me.

My high school was a very small all girls, Catholic, private school in the outskirts of Boston.  When most people hear this they imagine a few things: uniforms (which we didn’t have), nuns roaming around the halls (which we didn’t have), and very strict Catholic religion classes (which we also didn’t have).  It is the last of those things that I am most proud of, at my school I was fortunate to study all different religions during my time and my senior year I was exposed briefly to Buddhism, Islam, and Hinduism. This being said, I had previously visited a Hindu temple and experienced the lives of those Hindus living and adapting to life in Central Massachusetts. I assumed that my visits to the Hindu temple and the Sikh gurdwara would be easy, peaceful, and educational as other locations that I had visited, however I was surprised when both of these visits took a different turn for me.

We visited the Sikh gurdwara first, before our journey I investigated the BBC religion site to learn some of the basics of the Sikh religion.  Learning that Sikhism was a practice where its worshipers were completely and totally devote to one God.  They believe everyone is equal to one God, and dedication to ones community is of the utmost importance.  The man who took us around the temple was just a local from the community rather than a trained tour guide.  For me this was a valuable experience because instead of just learning about Sikhism from a book we were getting an inside perspective of the religion.  His opinions, feelings, fears, and love of this one belief.  He discussed his community, and the special place the Sikh temple holds in the community. They were very open and receptive to us coming in and appreciated our interest.  There aren’t many Sikh gurdwaras outside of India, and so making a place outside of India will take some time, and open minds.

Going to the Hindu temple I expected a similar experience to visiting the Sikh gurdwara or the Hindu temple I visited three years ago in Massachusetts, however I was shocked by what I saw instead.  Walking through the London neighborhood not knowing exaclty what to expect I almost stopped short when I saw the enormous temple rising above eyesight.  We put our bags in security, walked through a metal detector, and then met up with an official temple tour guide.  There were so many people in the area, old and young, Hindus and visitors– it was a strange discovery.  And then walking around and listening to the guide talk about all of the large Hindu temples around the world and seeing all of the famous visitors I realized that Hinduism is really beginning to be a major player in worldwide religions, especially in London.  I felt that the Hindu temple I visited before was in a place where they were struggling to find their place.  I did not feel like it was as much as an issue here.  I don’t mean to sound cynical, but with so much funding and exposure to me this community is widely accepted in London society.  Some may argue with me, that the Sikh temple we visited also received large sums of money, but from my own personal eye I felt that this community was not as acclimated to society as the Hindus.

Both are religions that initially came from India.  Sikhism is more surrounded around communal prayer, and Hinduism around individual prayer.  Although similar , they are also very different, and I think these differences may play a factor in how they fit in with London society. Both religions came to London relatively around the same time, Hinduism may have more followers which is why I feel it fits in with society better, but I don’t think I’ll ever truly know.  I’m also fairly certain my opinion on this matter could change from day to day as I am exposed more to these two religions, but this is what I thinking/feeling now after much contemplation and a little research on the BBC website.

Do beliefs make a difference in how two faiths adjust to life in the UK? Of course. Hinduism and Sikhism are incredibly different religions. One is polytheistic, the other monotheistic. One needs pages to define its practices and customs, the other a couple sentences. One supports offerings in shrines at the home, the other preaches the importance of meditation. One has a gift shop in a temple, the other a type of soup kitchen. The beliefs of Hinduism are so foreign to the English culture that it seems to attract people by its mystery. It’s something that could go either way; that is, its very noticeable differences could have inspired intense fear or interest in the English people.

Based on the observations of a person who has limited knowledge on the subject, the English seem to have responded to Hinduism in the latter manner. And who wouldn’t be impressed with the absolutely gorgeous images that are associated with the religion? The figures of their gods, the hand-carved wood that adorns their walls, the bright colors of their dress- Hinduism is without a doubt a very eye-pleasing religion. Sikhism, on the other hand dresses, itself in a quite dull manner in comparison. That’s not to say that both places of worship on the outside are anything less than impressive. But the first thing that greets you at the Hindu temple is a gift shop filled with beautiful figurines that you can’t help but want to have. Conversely, the first thing you see at the Sikh temple is a small closet in which you are to place your shoes. It’s more than a little different. This discrepancy in design is more than a difference in taste. A religion that sees gods in many different forms has more to show off than a religion that recognizes only one. That’s quite understandable.

What is a little less understandable is how differently the two religions were accepted into Britain. Both found a presence here in the 1950s with the Indian immigrants came over to find safety after the 1947 Partition of India. Members from both the Sikh and Hindu faiths came to England in hopes to get away from the tension and fighting that was occurring in India. This, of course, is not the sole reason for the influx of Sikhs and Hindus to England but it was definitely a major cause of it. Both the Sikhs and Hindus differ from the traditional English appearance immensely. The Sikhs wear turbans, cannot cut their hair, and tote swords. The Hindus wear bright colors and have bright red dots on their foreheads. The English wear grey and black and, while many carry knives, none too many have a sword at the hip. Though both are clearly different from the traditional British appearance, what is important to note is how the two were affected by prejudice towards that different appearance and how they remember that experience. On the BBC website, the Sikhs mention that they changed their appearance in efforts to be employed in London. The Hindus, on a website from the same news source, make no mention of racial prejudice against them whatsoever. No matter how peaceful a new group of people might be, London has never failed to have a prejudice against a group of newcomers. It’s something that would be nice to not be true but alas in my understanding it’s not. So, why this discrepancy? Both Hindus and Sikhs came from the same land around the same time for similar reasons and yet only one actually mentions the ‘dirty’ details: that there was religious turmoil that needed to be fled, and that once a safe place was found, life was less than instantly easy. I don’t really have an answer for this.

I would argue that there might be certain tendencies that help point to an answer. The Hindu temple tended to be more of a bragging ground to flaunt how grand the religion was. In fact, in the museum, a sign proclaimed that there was absolutely no hypocrisy in the Hindu religion. I applaud them if that’s the case but my observations found this not to be true. Again, I have limited exposure to the religion but one that ignores the huge discrepancy in male and female rights present in the religion might be said to have some hypocrisy lurking around. The Sikh temple by comparison was what it was. It was a huge temple that also made sure to note how much it cost to build; still, it lacked a museum. In place of that and a gift shop, the Sikh gurdwara has a place to feed community members who need a meal. One recognizes the faults with the world while the other seems to cover them up with beautiful decorations. Is that what it takes to fit into British society? Maybe. But even if the Hindu section of the BBC website refuses to recognize that London may have been less than welcoming to them at times, the people who first greeted us when we came to the temple were armed guards. They were quite kind but their smiles couldn’t hide the bulletproof vests they had on. Clearly, both communities have found difficulties in coming to London. How they deal with this prejudice is quite different.

Identity…. What is that? I honestly don’t know. Just thinking about this topic makes my head spin. How do our surroundings influence our identity? Do we identify with something because WE choose or because of outside factors such as religion and education?  From what I absorbed from both the Sikh Gurdwara and the Hindu Mandir both faiths are more of a way of life rather than a religion. Both require life-long practice to even begin to understand. In Sikhism, the devotee is a constant student, trying to liberate the mind from the body to ascend into a state of ultimate knowledge and union with God. In Hinduism the ultimate goal is to break the cycle of life and death to remain eternally in the presence of God. So how do you take responsibility for your Karma in 21^st century Britain? Can you take the religion/lifestyle out of its homeland? Certain customs and rituals have to be tweaked to ‘fit’ in the mainstream British culture. Sikhs are not allowed to carry their defensive swords because of certain laws, and some men have to cut their hair for certain jobs. The restrains of modern society make it more difficult for Sikhs and Hindus to observe certain traditional rites, but does this make them less “religious.” Personally, I don’t think so. When you are forced to adapt or willingly relocate somewhere else, everything changes, choices are made.

Some people have formed tight communities that don’t even attempt to make ties to their new environment, like the character Mrs. Suri in Salaam Brick Lane. Mrs. Suri and her network of Aunties have created their own version of India within each other’s living rooms. These people seek a comfort zone full of everything they know.  Other people rebel completely and break away form everything they know. The character of Clara in White Teeth completely turns her back on her Jehovah’s Witness background (and her mother) and severs all ties with her former life. Either way, a choice was made. I don’t light Shabbat candles every Friday night… does that make me a bad Jew? I still believe in what in God and I pray in my own way. I have adapted to my situation and made choices. You do what you think is right and then run with it. This is religion for the 21^st century.  So what about tradition and education for the younger generations? I’m all for it… I think that both the Gurdwara and the Mandir have excellent education and community centers. The Mandir especially has gone above and beyond to provide the children in the area with a top-notch secular education as well as a religious education on the Hindu faith. Learning the traditions of your ancestors is wonderful, and it is important to remember the past. But ultimately, I think it is up to each individual person to decide his or her identity (whatever that may mean). Are you Hindu and British? Sikh and Welsh? Can you be both? Change is hard, but you can either resist or adapt.

I hope I will live to see the day when the world accepts everyone’s religion but right now that does not seem likely. People will keep being prejudiced and ignorant until they are otherwise educated on the subject. However, as Sikhism teaches us, this is a momentous obstacle. The Gurwara and the Mandir are helping the process by opening their sacred places to visitors off all backgrounds. Both faiths seem willing to teach outsiders and I felt that I received a warm welcome from both establishments. When you live in the modern UK adjustments have to be made due to secular laws. However, you are still free to practice whatever it is you believe. I still am not sure as to what identity means. All I know is that I have to be true to myself.

Going into the trip at the Sikh Gurdwara last Thursday I was unsure of what to expect. By the time I came out I felt very positive about the experience. Things could not have been more different for me at the Hindu Mandir. From the moment I saw the Temple and noticed that there were security guards in front I had an odd feeling. This did not go away. After depositing my bag and all my valuables in the security trailer across the street I made my way into the Mandir. After depositing my shoes in a rack similar to the Gurdwara our tour guide began speaking with us about the Hindu religion. After a quick introduction he began immediately by praising Hinduism and the Mandir pointing out the intricacies of the building including the ceiling which is made from a special wood found in Burma. Unlike Mr. Singh at the Gurdwara who was dressed in traditional Sikh prayer garb our guide at the Mandir was dressed in western attire with a button-up collared shirt and slacks. After walking through the humungous prayer room my hypothesis that Hinduism and Sikhism should be polarized with one another seemed pretty accurate. The prayer room featured one giant ornate rug that covered the majority of the room. On the walls there were giant portraits depicting the past four Spiritual Guru’s of the Swaminarayan Faith and lifesize statues of each. The prayer room also featured two giant projectors in the front of the room so those that are praying in the back of the room can get a phenomenal view of the front stage. In addition there were skylights located in the center of the hall that could be opened or closed at any time. 

After hearing about the prayer room we crossed over to the other side of the Mandir where we entered an exhibit explaining the ins and outs of Hinduism. Although our guide said that the Mandir served a multi-purpose role not only as a place for people to pray but also a place where people can learn, I was still a little disconcerted by the presence of a museum in the middle of a place of worship. While waiting to enter the exhibit the class looked at a wall outside that featured  pictures of all the famous world politicians that had come and visited in the past. The wall also featured certificates and awards that the Mandir had won.

Inside the museum I learned a lot about Hinduism but I couldn’t help but notice the lack of humility with which the information was presented. There were quotes from notable figures such as Mark Twain and Henry David Thoreau praising the Indian way of life and the Hindu religion. An example is: 

“It is already becoming clear that a chapter which had a Western beginning will have to have an Indian ending if it is not to end the self-destruction of the human race…At this supremely dangerous moment in history, the only way of salvation for mankind is the Indian way”  – Dr. Arnold Toynbee (British Historian. 1889-1975).

Other parts of the exhibit not so diplomatically claimed that the Hindu’s invented the concept of zero and created the first university over 2,700 years ago. Everything seemed glorified and most definitely biased. Although I expect every museum to have some sort of bias I did not expect it to be as brutally obvious as the Mandir made it seem.

To sum up my experiences at the Sikh Gurdwara and the Hindu Mandir it is safe to say that they were vastly different from one another. Since Hinduism is the oldest living religion in the world it makes sense for them to refer to many of their ways as “Indian”. Despite this fact I couldn’t help but notice that Sikh’s were being excluded when these descriptions were being made.

The best way to describe the Hindu religion and the Baps Shri Swaminarayan Mandir is immodest. Everything both in and outside was big, new and technologically driven. Even when our class had an opportunity to participate in a traditional Hindu prayer I found it hard to concentrate because there were security guards standing around the premises. Although the Sikh Gurdwara was certainly big and looked fairly new the message preached inside was of simplicity, the polar opposite of what I sensed at the Mandir. Although I still did not feel entirely comfortable paying my respects to the guru at the Gurdwara I felt that had I participated in prayer I could have felt at peace. Even something as small as just sitting down to a meal together was significant to me. Especially since every single Gurdwara serves the same meal to every single person everywhere. To me this example completely JUXTAPOSES the Hindu tradition of hierarchy rooted in their caste system. Since Sikhism is a fairly new religion and has not fully been recognized by much of the world there are bound to be some bumps in the road but it seems to me that part of the reason Sikhism was founded in India was to rebel against the values of Hinduism.

As far as where I see these two religions going within Great Britain it is hard to say. Both Southall and Neasden seemed to be pretty homogeneous communities with mostly people of Indian descent in both regions. Because of this I think that both the Hindu and Sikh religions will have their place within London, at least for a while. Using the example of Mrs. Suri in Tarquin Hall’s Salaam Brick Lane it seems that the Indian community remains tightly knit regardless of where members of the community immigrate to. The Indian community itself  traditionally churns out millions of educated “youngsters” every year many of which go on to hold prominent positions in a variety of fields including business, law and medicine. Because of this the Indian community as a whole is in no danger of disintegrating anytime soon. 

As Mr. Singh told us at the Gurdwara he wishes that a day will come when he can go to the security check point at an airport and the security guard will know that he is a Sikh, therefore a peaceful man, and let him pass without any hassle. Due to the fact that Sikhism is such a young and upcoming religion (according to the BBC there are 336,000 Sikhs currently living in Britain) one can only hope that over time and with more exposure in the U.K. people will come to understand it better and the Sikh’s will find their place here in London. The only obstacle I see Sikh’s facing is their ability to blend in to the professional work force here in London. Some businesses may require that men shave off their facial hair in an attempt to look more like the typical British professional. As a Sikh one would have to ask himself how much that part of his religion means to him and whether he feels like he is sacrificing anything by shaving. If the answer is that the Sikh feels like he is sacrificing something than it will be difficult to predict what will happen. 

With Hinduism being the world’s oldest living religion it is clear that Hindu’s have managed to traverse many obstacles throughout the years. In addition, they have completely modernized their religion to fit 21st century standards. Although I did not enjoy my experience at the Mandir all that much I have to admit there is certainly a rare brilliance and resilience that comes with being a Hindu. With some of the world’s smartest, most self-motivated and disciplined individuals running the show Hinduism is not going anywhere in London or in the U.K. In fact I see it growing steadily, especially with all the adaptations Hindus have made to fit the times.

What I have gathered from visiting both the Hindu temple and the Sikh gudwara is that Sikhism is all about the equality of people from all classes, races, genders, and backgrounds, while Hinduism is founded on the idea of the jati, or caste system. Also, in the practice of the Sikh faith there are very little rituals and very few gaudy symbols, while Hindus use numerous rituals and symbols in their worshiping practices.

In most ways it is more difficult for Sikhs to adjust into British culture than it is for Hindus. With their five Ks, or the five physical symbols that Sikhs have to symbolize their faith, the Sikhs stand out a lot more than the Hindus. Since 9/11 and 7/7 there has been a lot of hostility toward South Asian individuals who wear turbans and have long beards, since then ignorant individuals have tormented Sikhs because they associate them with terrorist activities. Also, some work places do not permit their employees to have unshaven faces and uncut hair. Living in England also forces the Sikhs into a unequal class society that is not compatible with the Sikh’s belief in equality.

Hindus have an easier time adjusting to the British culture because they do not have any spacific visual keys to thier religion that could create a social backlash or hostility. They also have a strong understanding of the British class devisions because of their understanding of their own caste system. However, the fact that Hinduism is a polythisit religion might create some agressive actions from the primarily Christian British society.

So, since we’ve all been given the post topic, I feel as though I don’t need to go into the simplistic description of our travels. We saw Sikh and Hindu places of prayer. They were both gorgeous. What is their differences and how are they reflective of the two cultures attempts to integrate into British culture? Looking at the Sikhs, I would say they were looking for acceptance, where as the Hindu guide was trying much more to impress. Both are devices used to gain positioning within a society.  I distinctly remember our Sikh guide saying something along these lines: I hope one day people will not stop us at the air port, rather they will say ‘oh hey, he’s a Sikh, he’s ok.’  Sikhism in general is a younger religion than Judeo-Christian faiths and Hinduism. With this, it is often forced out of public eye and understanding. For this reason, they are often left to get whatever cultural capital charity they are able to get.  the Naara Mandir was also looking for a piece of the British-cultural pie, but they have gone about attaining it in a very different way, despite the fact that they came to England initially around the same time.  Almost like the girl who punches you when she likes you, the temple seemed to me to be attempting to out do British structures in order to gain their respect. If I heard another comment about Italian marble or how amazing the whole thing was, I may have just laughed. Further, I thought the way that the temple was presenting Hinduism was simply a way to cater towards Judeo-Christian understanding. Hinduism comes from Vedic traditions, and by nature is not a singular religion. While they are all relatively accepting of each other, there are many distinct traditions far beyond what the Mandir was expressing. 

Possibly too bold: the Sikh’s looked to intergrate through submission (BBC mentions cutting their hair, putting down their sabers) while the Hindus looked to intergrate without compromise. Strangely enough, it has worked for the Hindus. Overall they have gained respect much more far reaching than that of the Sikh.   

The few other Hindu temples I have been to have been quite a bit less opulent. This may simply be because of the focal-point nature of the Mandir. Ali and I both went to a small Hindu farm where monks lived and worked together to live and pray. At the farm, the only sign of riches at all was a small pillar filled with donated trinkets. And even then the trinkets were out of sight.

The one thing I noticed about both religious groups, Sikh and Hinduism, is that have both been greatly affected by globalization (not necessarily from an English influence). Comparing the Mandir to an Indian village, where there may only be one TV for the whole community, is quite startling. Also, the concept of a global leader is also a fair new concept– relative to the existence of Hinduism that is. But I think the world requires that of religions these days; the Other needs a Dahlia Lama or Pope. The Other needs a hierarchy to categorize and compartmentalize. Even the name Hinduism, is silly. Hinduism was the name given to the people of the river valley, an umbrella term that described hundreds of tribalistic beliefs.

Onto the articles… Sikh’s using the Internet to find mates makes perfect sense. What better way to cut away the physical attraction than through having emailing dates.  You get all the perks of talking to someone and learning about them, without the issues of false attraction and dating. The concept of sexual abuse in a religion preaching sexual suppression is not unimaginable.  Look at Rumspringa in the Amish community. When you push and ignore any aspect of a person’s psyche, it just enforces a person’s need to let it out. Why do Amish kids go out and drag race, do coke and who know what else? I would wager it is because they know they can’t otherwise. In many conservative religions, people are more likely to go to extreme sexual lengths when they do actually go about having sexual experiences.

Anyway, cheers