Uncle Tom’s in Sikhi
Writing by shinda on Friday, 20 of January , 2006
During the black revolution movement of the 1960’s, Malcolm X divided the black masses into two distinct categories, and defined them using his famous analogies of the house negro, and field negro. He defined them as such:
“There were two kinds of slaves, the house Negro and the field Negro. The house Negroes - they lived in the house with master, they dressed pretty good, they ate good because they ate his food - what he left. They lived in the attic or the basement, but still they lived near the master; and they loved the master more than the master loved himself. They would give their life to save the master’s house - quicker than the master would. If the master said, “We got a good house here,” the house Negro would say, “Yeah, we got a good house here.” Whenever the master said “we,” he said “we.” That’s how you can tell a house Negro.
If the master’s house caught on fire, the house Negro would fight harder to put the blaze out than the master would. If the master got sick, the house Negro would say, “What’s the matter, boss, we sick?” We sick! He identified himself with his master, more than his master identified with himself. And if you came to the house Negro and said, “Let’s run away, let’s escape, let’s separate,” the house Negro would look at you and say, “Man, you crazy. What you mean, separate? Where is there a better house than this? Where can I wear better clothes than this? Where can I eat better food than this?” That was that house Negro. In those days he was called a “house nigger.” And that’s what we call them today, because we’ve still got some house niggers running around here.
This modern house Negro loves his master. He wants to live near him. He’ll pay three times as much as the house is worth just to live near his master, and then brag about “I’m the only Negro out here.” “I’m the only one on my job.” “I’m the only one in this school.” You’re nothing but a house Negro. And if someone comes to you right now and says, “Let’s separate,” you say the same thing that the house Negro said on the plantation. “What you mean, separate? From America, this good white man? Where you going to get a better job than you get here?” I mean, this is what you say. “I ain’t left nothing in Africa,” that’s what you say. Why, you left your mind in Africa.
On that same plantation, there was the field Negro. The field Negroes - those were the masses. There were always more Negroes in the field than there were Negroes in the house. The Negro in the field caught hell. He ate leftovers. In the house they ate high up on the hog. The Negro in the field didn’t get anything but what was left of the insides of the hog.
The field Negro was beaten from morning to night; he lived in a shack, in a hut; he wore old, castoff clothes. He hated his master. I say he hated his master. He was intelligent. That house Negro loved his master, but that field Negro - remember, they were in the majority, and they hated the master. When the house caught on fire, he didn’t try to put it out; that field Negro prayed for a wind, for a breeze. When the master got sick, the field Negro prayed that he’d die. If someone came to the field Negro and said, “Let’s separate, let’s run,” he didn’t say, “Where we going?” He’d say, “Any place is better than here.”
Similarly in Sikhi we have our share of house negro’s (Uncle Tom’s) . Let’s face it, the majority of Sikhs left in Punjab and in India are Uncle Tom’s. The biggest of the Uncle Toms, (there are hundreds of them), but the biggest one in my opinion has to be the renowned author Khushwant Singh.
I remember watching news clips, and interview’s by Khushwant Singh after the assassination of Indira Gandhi, and he almost condoned the attacks, saying that the Sikhs had brought it upon themselves. Even though he was against the riots he seemed to think that the assassination of Indira Gandhi was not justified.
Now he’s not the only one, their are many Sikhs who feel both sides where wrong in 84, and feel obligated to share the responsibility, just like the house negro would justify any out lash from the master as being justified.
So what are the characteristics of an Uncle Tom Sikh? Here are the few that I picked up:
- Feel that the 84 attacks were justified and brought upon by the Sikhs.
- That ‘84 is done with, time to move on with life.
- Singhs of that era were fanatics, and where responsible for deaths of thousands of innocent.
- Religion and Politics should never mix.
- A really relaxed view on rehit. (Kakaars are optional type of relaxed)
- Satkaar for Sri Guru Granth Sahib, pothis etc, is pretty low.
- Are willing to sacrifice there pugh for a korsee.
- Their general perception of Sikhi is something almost out of a care bear fantasy world, where violence is never necessary.
- The view of Sikhi and promotion of Sikhi is far more left wing, just for the sake of appeasing one and all.
- Taking Amrit is often left optional and not seen as a vital part of Sikhi.
Now I could go on, as many of you could, but suffice to say you get the point. Uncle Tom’s have adopted the new trend of labeling themselves as moderates, although no such thing exists. Other notorious Uncle Tom’s include but are not limited to Kalaa Afganaa, Manmohan Singh, Tara Singh Hayer, etc.
Now the biggest problem with Uncle Tom’s in Sikhi is that they for one promote the wrong image to the world. They have good intentions, but the means by which they go about it I totally disagree with. They are virtuous individuals, with the wrong virtues. They waste no time in trying to distance themselves against field negro Sikhs, by labeling them as fanatics and are quick to stand against them, even if it means standing with the enemy. However beyond, that the biggest problem with Uncle Tom Sikhs, is that they justify, and promote the slave mentality within the Sikh masses, (something I’ll come to talk about later on in the coming weeks), however its suffice to say that due to the promotion of this mentality they end up becoming our own worst enemies.
Now, knowing that Uncle Tom’s are, our own worst enemies, we need to learn to deal with them. How we do that I have no clue. Up to now it seems as though we’ve left them alone and just worked at ignoring them, and only when they get rowdy do we slap them on the wrist and send them running, but this does not keep them from being a nuisance, but then again it seems like the only thing worth doing.
Category: Sikhi
- Add this post to
Anonymous from 
Made Friday, 20 of January , 2006 at 1:30 pm
wikked post. so true.
Anonymous from
Made Friday, 20 of January , 2006 at 11:34 pm
finally! a good educational post.. however ur music continues to take away from ur words..
hey from
Made Saturday, 21 of January , 2006 at 1:20 am
hey i didnt feel the need to read your post cause it was too long..next time keep your mosts minimal and maybe people like me wont be scared of reading
Anonymous from
Made Saturday, 21 of January , 2006 at 10:01 pm
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Excellent post - quite similar to something that’s been knocking around in my head for a while in conversations with a few like minded Sikhs; but never coherently enough to get into words like you have.
Look forward to reading more about what you have to say. There’s a bit of a slight parallel hinted at in the post “The Revolutionary Sikh Spirit” on my blog at http://solarider.org/blog/?p=692
Please make your posts as long as you like, if something is worth reading then it’s worth reading despite the length, some of us appreciate your effort.
PS. No music heard here - but thats deliberately due to my setup.
Gurfateh
ss
Yes! I like Malcom X for his intelligence and intellectual, but also, I do like Martin Luther King. Your analogy to field and master sikhs just plain wrong because Sikhs can not be categorized in just two ways! But you are entitled to your opinion. I think that you will find Sikhs and their opinions in the world as different as there are creatures on this earth or in Sikh terms if you like as many ways as you can put together five beloved khalsas at one place at one time. Five Khlasas in Canada may have different solution for same problem than five in India or Pakistan or in USA or England. The decision those five make are binding as per Sikh teachings. So I think putting Sikhs in two or three or ten categories is just not enough.
Secondly, about 84 genocide, I agree that what Indian Government did is plain wrong and things could have been done differently. But as sad thing is that we as Sikhs don’t even look at ourselves first. Where does it say in Guru Granth Sahib that killing of innocent Hindus in buses with machine guns is okay? Yes, if Khalistanis had a problem with Indian government, I don’t have a problem with them fighting the government, but what has a Hindu family in a bus done to deserve a merciless killing. What is Khalistan anyways I ask to many Khalistanis? Is it a land in India or Pakistan or Iraq or Tibet or Bihar or other places where our Gurus walked and preached? How many acres is that worldly land? Would it include people that have adopted Sikhi such as Europe, North America, Mexico and Middle eastren Sikhs? To me people that hate other Sikhs and categorize/label them are actually working against the unity of Sikhs by placing these labels like you have described. Here is my example of hate: lets look at Osama bin laden, with all of his Saudi money ( I think about $300 million U.S.), if he really wanted to help his own muslim brothers and sisters, he could have opened hospitals, schools, shelters, orphanages etc. instead what he did was train people to kill innocent people in buildings. I think he just hates himslef and has no love for anybody (muslims or non-muslims) for what he did. There are some Sikhs in India, Canada, U.S.A (Khalistanis and Pro-indians) that can be categorized taht way. But that does not mean neither are true Gursikhs. There are a lot Khalistanis that are Gursikhs, and same way there are a lot of pro-indians that are true Gursikhs. So in my opinion, you labels don’t make sense.
SikhsRus,
Firstly thanks for sharing your thoughts on this, even if they may differ.
Just some things I wanted to clear up from points raised in your comments. Firstly, you’re right trying to group Sikhs in the way I did has its problems, because the more you look at each group the more splits you can make until your left with just individuals, but I still feel generalizations can be made to group, a broad yet similar group of indiviauls together.
Secondly, Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and its Khalsa Panth, are 1000% against the killings of innocent may they be Hindu, Sikh, Muslim, or Christian, but to let the actions of a few ring aloud for the masses is exactly the type of mentality that Sant Jarnail Singh Ji, and other Sikh leaders worked at dispelling. No such attacks were ever condoned by any Sikh group. It is in the same regard that the Air India Bombings are not and will never be condoned by the Khalsa Panth.
Anonymous from
Made Monday, 23 of January , 2006 at 2:42 pm
You cant let the actions of a few color all the Sikhs or as you say ‘Khalistanis’.
There is evidence that many hindus killed on busses were done by there own government in order to put Singhs in a bad light and put a media spin against them. Some Singhs may have gone overboard but that was a very minimal amount.
I find it offensive when someone says that Sikhs were wrong in 84 time period. Because even if those few sikhs that did wrong is balanced with what the government did, The governmant has done 500000% more. When you hit someone you expect to be hit back. Most Sikhs never hurt a innocent person and never will, only a select few might have, that is not acceptable. But when you hit a person a million times, your going to get hit back.
I think it is impressive that so few Sikhs and so few incidents happened against innocents at the hands of Sikhs, compared to how much torture and uncalled for beatings, destruction of Akal Takht, the panth went through
Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa
Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh
SikhsRus - I think you’ve missed the point and the fact that the house/field negro quote was being used by way of analogy. Having gone off on a hyperspatial tangent I suspect you missed the point that Shinda was making; so going back to the substantive issue under discussion; ie Uncle Toms; let me partially illustrate this by way of another issue mentioned on Shinda’s page - naming the wearing of the Kirpan.
There are and there do exist individuals in the Sikh community who have cosy relationships with policy makers and others of their ilk and are only too happy to do their masters bidding to maintain their supposed kursi’s. These individuals for instance will advise and brief against the wearing of the kirpan as being mandatry for Amritdhari Sikhs, they will offer unacceptable “compromises” (ie a very short kirpan on a necklace). Or in a similar way the wearing of a dastaar; some Sikhs in the UK have advised employers (eg armed forces) that the wearing of the dastaar was not absoutely necessary. What message does this send to those looking to join up and maintain their Sikhi?
On the other hand there are those who will not give in and continue the good fight where ever necessary; but any actions and stances from this are lessened by the actions of the latter group with their cosy relationships.
This I believe is the analogy being drawn in the original post with respect to Uncle Toms.
Such Uncle Toms do exist, and they will bend over backwards to please their “political master”. Consequently we all suffer as a consequence.
A popular slogan at the time and since has been No Sell Out; and that is the ground we should be in inhabiting; not the position of the House Negro.
Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa
Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh
Anonymous from
Made Monday, 23 of January , 2006 at 5:05 pm
Sat Nam! There are two major differences in the Negros and Singhs. One is that they were slaves, uneducated, and had very little power that comes from ownership and education. Two, Sikhs have ruled their own country before.
nonetheless good analogy.
In this world if you have the money and especially in a third world country like India you can make black appear white and vise versa. Unlike those who weren’t there in ‘84. I saw the real sant’s soldiers from a preteen year old’s eyes and they were no murderers. But they did preach Gursikhi. They were mentors, role models. They were educated, brave. They would never hurt a soul would die protecting the innocent and the meek. I’ve never met a person in my life who came in contact with a real Sant’s soldier that didn’t approve of what they were doing. By day they would wave the indian flag but by night they would harbor every singh and singhni that came looking for shelter. and in the morning they talked as if they were mythical heroes from a fairytale such as from the lord of the rings.
BUT some used the “khalistani” cover to murder their own political, family, financial enemies. about a couple of years ago there was an attack by “muslim millitants” on a sikh community in kashmir where a lot of sikhs died. and the first thought that came to my mind was “wait, haven’t i seen this movie before?” instead of the murderers in turbans chanting “khalistan zindabad” they were chanting “allah hu akbar”.
ohh well…our only hope is education, education and more education. no amount of weapons are going to win this war anymore. information is the only true sword.
and also just a reminder that PEOPLE elected the so called corrupt governments/leaders. it’s a corrupt democracy but it’s still a democracy!
Jag-O-Aahyia!
For a Gursikh to attack an unarmed person is a sin - This is the Guru’s Hukam. “Do not be rash in striking your sword on helpless; otherwise the Providence will shed your blood.69.” Guru Gobind Singh (www.sridasam.org Page 1475, Line 1)
Also, “Kabeer, it is tyranny to use force; the Lord shall call you to account. When your account is called for, your face and mouth shall be beaten. ||200||” (SGGS page 1375)
The only time to use the Sword is in defence - when you are being attacked or someone else’s is being attacked. Not in retaliation on someone who is defenceless. Where in our history did the Gurus ever encourage the slaying of unarmed people. Gursikhs need to wake up and look at the message of the Gurus and not get mislead by the priests.
Also since when did the Gursikh need to hide or seek the protection of Gurdwaras? Never in our history has a Guru’s army ever set their base in a Gurdwara. Guru’s used forts and open fields for their battles. We are a martial race not afraid to die - so why should we need to have our base in our places of worship and subject other worshippers to unnecessary danger.
To attack an unarmed person is cowardly and not becoming of a martial race and of followers of Guru Gobind Singh. Remember that despite the hideous crimes of Aurangzeb, Guru did not send Bhai Daya Singh and Bhai Dharam Singh to assassinate him but to deliver the Zafarnama – We need to learn from these sakhis – These are meant to teach us to live as Khalsa – that was Guru ji mission - To spread Dharam by example and by his teachings. So let us wake up Khalsa ji and walk the true path of Sikhi.
Anonymous from
Made Monday, 23 of January , 2006 at 8:21 pm
Hari Singh,
you are misinformed, Akal Takht has been destroyed 2 times previous to 84′ during battle against moghuls. Sikhs have fought from Akal Takht Sahib, for more read Panth Prakash by Kavi Santokh Singh.
Sikhs have every right to stay in gurdwara, it is their guru’s home and they are alwyas welcome.
Also Guru Gobind Singh Ji themselves had the Masands burnt for being corrupt and misusing the sangats money, so there you go, Gurus did use force if it was justified. Also Banda Singh Bahadur razed a village to the ground because someone was talking ill of Guru Gobind Singh Ji, than he killed the guy (its recorded in history).
Anonymous from
Made Monday, 23 of January , 2006 at 8:27 pm
hari singh,
gurdwara is much more than a place of worship. it is the centre of a sikhs community, everything happens from gurdwara, learning sikhi gatka, wedding, community meetings, sikhs evne live at gurdwara if necessary. indian govt planned on attacking darbar sahib 2 yrs in advance and had a replica built to train, Sant Jarnail Singh knew, and prepared to protect his fathers house, which they had every right to do, not just a right, but a duty to protect the house of their father.
Shaheed Baba Deep Singh Ji gave shaheedi at this place, as did many other Singhs. In hte past Shaheed Baba Gurbaksh Singh also gave shaheedi here… so to say Sikhs cant take sheleter at gurdwara, is ignoring the facts
The idea that Sikhs brought on the Delhi mascare is still wide spread in the Punjabi community. It makes me so mad.
“Gursikhs need to wake up and look at the message of the Gurus and not get mislead by the priests.”
Eh! What! Way off target!!
As the result of a comment by SikhRUs which was far removed from the substantive issue in the original post this discussion in classic style has turned into a discussion on something else completely. While it is an important discussion it’s not what this post was about.
People, it’s about Uncle Tom’s. If you want to continue the above discussions then at least relate them to the original point.
KPS Gill - he was/is an Uncle Tom - right there you go.
Zail Singh was another.
I am sorry but I don’t think my post was way off, and I am still not convinced about this Uncle Tom thing as is being applied to Sikhs. There have been traitors among Sikhs such as Dhian Singh, Gulab Singh etc. during Ranjit Singh’s rule, and there are traitors that exist now. And that comes from greed, materialism, shallowness, casteism, and personal insecurities. Let us look at any Punjabi/Indian clasified ad in any of the papers in Canada, India, U.S. etc. Almost every ad starts with bragging about caste, titles, looks, outer appearance etc. which to me are all very unsikh. It just shows our shallowness and lack of knowing who we really are and how do we fit into Sikh framework. Bhangra, bollywood, alcohol, bragging, materialism (big cars, houses etc) have become their Sikhi. This material greed is what is leading to so called “uncle Toms” if you want. Now which category would you put politicians such as Chief minister “Amrinder Singh”, Parkash Singh Badal, Dr. Manmohan Singh, and President of SGPC, and Akal Takhat Jathedars based on your analogy. I am curious to know and hope you will answer.
I just want to say, this is a great discussion regardless of our differences of opinions.
The one quality of the house negro vs that of a field negro was that they distanced themselves from the suffering of the field negro, and I agree, this is often due to greed, and other materialistic desires.
As for how I classify the individuals you mentioned above, I agree there is definitely a cloud of ambiguity
surrounding all individuals mentioned, which can easily throw them into different groups.
Chief minister “Amrinder Singh” - Although part of the Congress party, he has seemingly worked hard in support of the Panth, and has released what many are claiming to be controversial statements, as they are in favor of the Sikhs and support Sikhs support as a separate Quam.
Manmohan Singh - As I stated originally I believe him to be a house negro, as he has denied any wrong doing of his Government and only recently apologized for the riots. He has also been documented for saying that India does not have a history of Human Right violations.
President of the SGPC - I really don’t know about them, let alone heard much about them so can’t say much about them. However the SGPC as a whole, I feel they have done great dis-services to the Panth, and as such would give them a general impression of being House.
Singh Sahib Jathedar Vedanti - Now this is probably the hardest one to put under a category. I disagree with the fact that he has not spoken out against Badal, and others, as such has in many ways become a “sell out”, as he is now in many ways allowing himself to puppet-ed, however at the same time I feel his giaan and knowledge on Sikh history and Gurbani, is worthy of respect, and feel that knowing so well about the history and struggles of the Sikhs I find it hard personally to see him as a house negro, so would instead say he is a field negro under immense pressure.
Badal - The slyest type of house negro, that exists. He’ll deal anyone, sell his children for his korsee, he’s already sold his Sikhi. I really don’t think much explanation is needed here.
LOL, I agree with some of them but not all. Amrinder Singh, I definitely disagree. I think, he still has this Maharaja mentality and has virually ignoring the countryside masses. I also think he is a materialist as well and loves pomp and show. I don’t like the fact that he is bringing his family members into politics. Manmohan - I respect him for his sincerity, integrity, simplicity, intellect, grace and compassion. Ex SGPC - Jagir Kaur - not very effective leader and her involvement in a murder case is questionable, but I liked her stand on allowing women to do karseva at Harmandir Sahib. Avtar Singh - I don’t know much about yet. Badal - I agree with you 100 percent and also like Amrinder, he is bringing his son into politics. Similarly, with DGSGPC - Sarna is bring his family into politics.
Just curious as to what do you consider yourself? In actuality, I don’t look at any Sikh including myself as a slave. To me the divine light of our Gurus and the khalsa spirit are so strong that Gursikhs will never accept themselves as slaves. If someone does, then in my mind he or she is really not the son and daughter of Guru Gobind Singh. You can keep a lion in a cage for 1000 years, but a lion will always be a lion and will not become a jackel. Here is a famous saying by Marcus Arelius: “Our life is what our thoughts make it.” The whole of India before Sikh Gurus was like a sleepy slave victim, but our Gurus woke them up. That is the Sikh spirit and thought should be in the mind of a true Sikh. The Sikhs of the Guru are not victims, not slaves, don’t want anybody’s sympathy, not beggers, not cowards, not haters, not lazy, not alcoholics, not druggies, not cheaters, not liars, not sexists, not terrorists, not killers of innocents.
