Questions regarding media coverage of tragic East London stabbings

Sadly yesterday 3 Punjabi youths tragically lost their lives in a knife crime attack. According to more recent news reports, the 3 young men were part of a drunken brawl over unpaid work which led to a knife attack. Thoughts and prayers for their families who have lost such young adults to senseless violence. 

Bhai Mankamal Singh Ji has highlighted on social media that UK media outlets are inappropriately portraying this as a “Sikh gang bloodbath”. The UK mainstream media are time and again referencing to the individual’s association to the Sikh faith when they have never highlighted the faith association of hundreds of knife crime attack victims or perpetrators in the past. As a consequence of the news emphasising "Sikhs" have been involved in a gang fight and knifed to death, I immediately thought of a someone in Sikh visible identity (ie Kesdhari, wearing a Dastaar) must be involved and the knife may sadly be a Kirpan. Why else stress “Sikh” I thought? However, this was far from the truth. If I was confused and feeling this way, imagine how non-Sikhs would be feeling about Kirpans and Sikhi Saroop from such headlines?

But something for us all to think about is the recent argument being made that Sikhs should be recognised as an ethnic group and not just a religion. This has the ramifications that you can use headlines of “Sikh gang”, “Sikh criminal”, “Sikh drug-dealer” or “Sikh rapist” and get away with it by saying that you are referring to their ethnicity and not their religion. But we would all agree that the above hypothetical incidents would have nothing to do with Sikhi or represent a Sikh cause, and be very negative for the Sikh faith community who are already are under-represented in the media. 

I think where religion has no involvement in an incident, no link to the appearance of an individual, and no link to the ideology driving behind the incident, it would be more appropriate to refer to their ethnic group. Using “Punjabi” as an ethnic identity would be the more befitting than “Sikh”. I understand many Sikhs, rightly, do not identify as Indians. However, I don’t think that can lead to the conclusion that our ethnicity is Sikh. Otherwise you could have an ethnic Sikh who is an atheist or an ethnic Sikh who is a Christian. Would a Spanish or African convert to Sikhi be an “ethnic Sikh”? 

Clearly it is confusing. I agree with the sentiments but I think the way forward is to identify Punjabis separate from Indians as Punjabis have a long common history, heritage and language which connects them and ultimately most Punjabis, irrespective of faith, have adoration for Guru Nanak Sahib Ji.  

Sikh concepts such as “Panth” and “Quam” cannot be divorced from religion, unlike the term ethnicity which can exist without religious belief or observation. Can you have a “Sikh Koum” devoid of “Sikhi”? Miri-Piri (socio-politics and spirituality) are intertwined concepts in Sikhi and not separate entities.