"Sajjan is the son of a veteran WSO board member, Kundan Sajjan, who led fundamentalist Sikhs in a losing battle with moderates over control of the Ross Street Temple in South Vancouver."

This is perhaps terribly discriminatory, in an odd way, but when I read "fundamentalist Sikhs," it made me think of Sikhs that instead of being nice, kind, generous, people who are accepting of all other faiths and have a tradition of fighting for the rights of others, are instead really, really nice, kind, generous people who are accepting of all other faiths and have a tradition of fighting for the rights of others.

The Sikhs have always been a warrior people—the bangle is a piece of martial jewellery and the kirpan (knife) needs no further explanation. I really hope that Sajjan as a soldier and a former policeman with the VPD,a police force with colossal anger issues won't move us further along the lines of being peacemakers.

I understand and agree with what you say, positively, about the Sikhs but they do have, like every other major religion, a truly nasty fundamentalist side.

So basically he's Canada's Worf.

I am no expert on Sikhs and Sikhism, so I'm curious how would you describe fundamentalist Sikhism? They do have a martial history and tradition, but as I understand it, it is for protecting the rights of the oppressed and defenseless and the politically disenfranchised, both themselves and especially for others. Things have gotten ugly in India over the last few decades, actually ever since the Split of India and Pakistan, where the Sikhs have been, as I understand it, systematically if unofficially excluded from political power and representation. They've really gotten the short end of the deal ever since they were forcefully taken over by the British in the 1840s.

Do we have any Sikhs here in the SE community who can give their opinion?

I'm half South Indian by a long and complicated thread. Guru Nanak layed down the tenets of Sikhism and it is, as you say, a remarkably tolerant faith. One can say that Jesus' teachings pre-Rome were also tolerant (love thy neighbour as thyself, the kingdom of heaven is within you etc.) and in truth, there's much to recommend Mohammedanism in a similar vein. Has everything worked out? Obviously no. Buddhists are massacring Muslims; Jews are fighting Muslims, Christians are...well, you get it.

The separatist movement for an independent Khalistan is a powerful one and the strident Sikh call has been pushed along by the idiocy of the Indian government. It is the blending of religion and politics that causes problems and with this conflict, it's exacerbated by the religion and the martial being part and parcel of the same religious entity. It doesn't help that Sikhs tend to be viewed as lesser by the Brahmins. A group of angry Sikhs have formed what is considered a terrorist group and have been responsible for aircraft bombings etc.

Ah, the dastardly combination of politics and religion. There will always be people who feel that there are no more options left to try than violence. Just look at the Buddhists resisting the Chinese in Tibet. I didn't realize it had gone as far as aircraft bombings in India. Very sad. Thanks for the response.

... one bad ass hipster beard

Is that what they call religious beards nowadays? My Amish brethren were on point.

'Round here they refer to those types of beards as a "Hipster Mullet".

That one may very well be religious in nature however.

You on an extended Rumspringa?

Sikhs don't have religious beards, it's just the head hair they don't cut. He has made some choices here.