The rash of hate crimes following the Boston Marathon bombings reminds us of the major challenges religious minorities face in this country. Last week a taxi passenger in Northern Virginia verbally and physically attacked his driver for being “a fucking Muslim.” The victim, Mohamed Salim, who served with the U.S. Army in Iraq and currently serves as an Army Reservist, was left with a fractured jaw. This week in California, an 81-year-old Sikh man was brutally assaulted with a steel pipe in a suspected hate crime, from which he suffered a fractured jaw, punctured lung, and head injuries.

While the police investigate whether or not to charge the attackers with hate crimes, politicians and community leaders continue to explore ways to minimize hate-based violence and facilitate the integration of diverse communities in modern America. The U.S. military has an opportunity to contribute in this regard by opening its doors to various religious minorities, many of whom remain marginalized.

In January, the military announced that it would allow women to serve in combat roles. Although long overdue, this announcement comes as no surprise given that the Armed Forces has opened its arms to a variety of communities over the past several years.

Despite this progress, a number of religious minorities are still barred from serving in the military. Sikh, Jewish, and Muslim Americans are among the many communities affected by a policy that does not allow military personnel to adhere to their religion’s articles of faith, usually involving dress or personal appearance, and members from these groups have been working diligently to repeal the policy.

For example, Rabbi Menachem Stern filed a federal discrimination lawsuit against the Army for the right to serve while maintaining his facial hair, which he considered to be an article of faith. In 2011, the Army agreed to a deal that would allow the rabbi to serve as a chaplain and keep his “unshorn beard in a neat and orderly manner while serving in the Army.”

Like Rabbi Stern, three turbaned Sikhs have received exceptions to the Army’s grooming policy and have been allowed to serve in the military. In 2009, Simranpreet Singh Lamba enlisted for and was recruited by the Army, and he applied for a waiver to maintain his Sikh articles of faith. After a 10-month review, the Army approved Lamba’s waiver given that the “religious accommodations would not affect training, unit readiness or cohesion, individual readiness, morale, discipline or safety and health; and as long as proper appearance and guidelines were maintained.”

The fact that the Army has recruited, enlisted, and provided religious accommodations for two more turbaned Sikh Americans indicates that religious minorities can meet the Army’s expectations and go beyond them. In a 2010 interview, Lamba explained that his articles of faith do not affect his duties as a soldier. “I’m wearing the same uniform. There’s nothing about my beard and hair that would stop me from excelling as a soldier. I can do everything other soldiers do. I have the same flag on my right arm. I’m doing the same thing, defending the same country.”

Although these individuals have received exemptions from the grooming standard, the official policy does not currently allow individuals to maintain religiously mandated articles of faith. In the federal discrimination lawsuit filed and settled by Rabbi Stern, the assistant U.S. attorney argued that facial hair obstructs the use of protective masks. But the three Sikhs who currently serve in the U.S. Army have successfully created seals with their protective mask over their facial hair. Concerns with placing protective masks on people with beards first emerged during World War I, but technology has developed enough over the past century to render this a moot issue.

Another common argument is that soldiers with religious head-wear take on additional risk because they cannot wear helmets. But religious minorities have long worn helmets over these articles of faith, including those who have recently received exemptions from the Army. There is no reason to believe that this is a legitimate concern for communities such as Jews, Sikhs, or Muslims.

America has long stood for the rights and protections of its minority communities, and at times, it seems as if we are bending over backward or offering preferential treatment to include others. But as we have seen time and time again, including minority religious communities has strengthened and enriched our societies. We are starting to see key institutions modernize their policies to embrace religious diversity and account for religiously mandated articles of faith. In September 2012, California Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, the strongest and most comprehensive equal employment legislation in the country. Among other issues, this act forbids segregation of individuals who wear religious articles, such as facial hair or head coverings. Furthermore, a few months ago, the British Army and the Scots Guard modernized its policies by allowing a Sikh soldier to wear his turban rather than the traditional bearskin cap while guarding Buckingham Palace in London, England.

Our country has a long tradition of preserving the freedoms of our religious minorities, and the U.S. military can now initiate a process of orderly inclusion. As major institutions around the world work to establish equal rights and equal opportunities for all citizens, the military ought to be ahead of the curve, not behind it. By modernizing its policies to include religious minorities in the service, the U.S. Armed Forces can help pave the way toward a more pluralistic, progressive, and peaceful society in the land of the free and home of the brave.

I had never before seen anyone protest an interfaith gathering. But yesterday as we walked out of our hotel in Kiev, Ukraine, a small group of protestors stepped forward to verbally and physically harass our group consisting of religious leaders and foreign dignitaries. The protestors belonged to the Ukranian Orthodox Church and were angered that representatives of their Christian denomination, including Patriarch of Jerusalem Theophilos III, were mixing with followers of other religious traditions.

We hurried onto our bus and traveled to our session, and upon arrival we discovered that more protestors were awaiting our arrival outside the Parliament of Ukraine. I was fortuitously seated next to Anne-Marie Lizing, who currently serves as the Honorary President of the Senate of Belgium, and we discussed at length the profound challenges to social progress that exist in our modern world. Among other insights, she remarked that such experiences are valuable benchmarks that reinforce the importance of programs like the assembly in which we were taking part -- the Kiev Interfaith Forum. She advised that there is much work to be done in nurturing a pluralistic and ecumenical global society and that we cannot take this task too lightly, especially in the context of our modern world.

The present moment is marked by a world in which technology is rapidly advancing and people are more closely connected than ever before. Globalization has opened the floodgates for increased interactions throughout the world. While the quantity of our cross-cultural encounters has reached unprecedented levels, I am struck by our society's lack of progress in improving the quality of these interactions. The nature of our cross-cultural encounters leave much to be desired, and we can only make progress once we collectively recognize this challenge and begin devoting sustained attention and resources.

One particularly fruitful approach to addressing this issue is to explore models that have successfully engaged in multicultural and religiously diverse contexts. The subject of my dissertation research and the founder of the religion I practice -- Guru Nanak (1469-1539) -- offers a powerful model for building relationships across cultural and religious lines. He was born and raised in the South Asian region of Punjab, a space long heralded as a confluence of diverse peoples, and all accounts of his life illustrate his ability to create deep and meaningful bonds with people of various geographical, religious and socio-economic backgrounds.

I would argue that Guru Nanak possessed a distinctive worldview that allowed him to look beyond the politics of identity that often hold us hostage today. His unique approach could improve the quality of our cultural interactions in this rapidly globalizing world, particularly if we are able to adopt his ability to simultaneously appreciate the oneness and diversity of the world.

Guru Nanak views all matter as being interconnected, and he appreciates each and every aspect of the universe as a Divine manifestation. From his perspective, diversity illustrates the richness of the world, and he repeatedly expressed his delight in looking at his surroundings and seeing divinity within it all, whether it be natural phenomena, various community members, or even mundane and challenging situations.

Whereas we increasingly tend to see plurality as marking distinction, Guru Nanak experienced it as a celebration of oneness.

The life of Guru Nanak illustrates this outlook in action and highlights important aspects of how this approach to plurality can inform harmonious living in a multicultural and multi-faith setting. For example, all accounts of Guru Nanak's life tell us that he traveled across South and Central Asia and engaged in constructive dialogues with people of various religious traditions, including Hindus, Muslims and Yogis. One such conversation has been recorded in the Sikh scripture under the title of Sidh Gosti (Dialogue with the Siddhas).

What we find in these writings is a method of cross-cultural dialogue that differs markedly from the ways in which we tend to conduct our interfaith interactions today. Whereas we often gloss over differences and focus on commonalities, Guru Nanak also openly and respectfully expressed his key differences. The candidness he displayed in these dialogues served to forge deeper and more meaningful relationships in which people could come to better understand one another.

Though it seems easy from a superficial standpoint, it is difficult to adopt this sort of approach. Discussing difference is often uncomfortable, particularly when it comes to religious convictions, and we often shy away from it in fear of offending one another. However, what we see in the case of Guru Nanak (along with countless other successful community leaders) is that harmonious living requires more than simply co-existing and tolerating one another. A truly pluralistic society necessitates sustained effort to cultivate a deeper appreciation and mutual respect for one another. The boundaries that separate us need not be glossed over, but they do need to be softened so that we can more smoothly traverse back and forth.

The first step in this process is to develop a better understanding of one another. Given the phenomenon of globalization and the rapid increase in our cross-cultural interactions, it is imperative that we develop a more nuanced and more sophisticated framework for dialogue that accounts for commonalities and differences. As we learn from Guru Nanak, we do not need to see one another as a homogenous group with homogenous convictions in order to have deep and meaningful relationships. We can appreciate our differences while also recognizing our collective oneness. There is a possibility of living together as a singular yet pluralistic society -- the two are not mutually exclusive.

Two weeks ago, Florida resident and Sikh American Kanwaljit Singh was driving with his 13-year old son when someone pulled up next to him in a pickup truck and opened fire. Two of the bullets struck Singh in the thigh and torso, and after about a week in the Intensive Care Unit, he is now recovering at home  under the care of his family.

According to Lyda Longa, staff reporter for the Daytona Beach News-Journal, "Police believe the victim was the target of a hate crime and was singled out because he was wearing a head turban traditional to the Sikh religion." Longa also reported that the attackers followed Singh's vehicle for miles before opening fire on him.

About two months ago, a woman in New York City, Erika Menendez, was charged with second-degree murder as a hate crime. Menendez was responsible for the death of Hindu American Sunando Sen: He was crushed by an oncoming train when she pushed him onto the tracks of an elevated subway station.

Queens District Attorney Richard A. Brown quoted Menendez as telling the police: "I pushed a Muslim off the train tracks because I hate Hindus and Muslims ever since 2001 when they put down the twin towers I've been beating them up."

Under federal law, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is required to compile statistics about hate crimes in the United States. Although the FBI tracks hate crimes against people from a variety of communities, including Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Muslims and atheists, it does not track hate crimes against Sikhs and Hindus. Such crimes are either erroneously documented as "anti-Muslim," due to an armchair assumption that Sikhs and Hindus are always "mistaken" for Muslims, or relegated to an "anti-Other" category, which the FBI does not dis-aggregate and which is effectively an empty data set. Hate crimes against Arabs are also not documented, even though American-Arabs -- most of whom are Christian -- continue to be targeted by bigots. These deficiencies lead to major problems, including an absence of credible data on hate violence committed against particularly vulnerable communities, and the inability of law enforcement agencies to understand the scope of the problem and address it through efficient resource allocation.

In an attempt to rectify these flaws and help curb the rash of hate violence against Sikhs, Hindus and people of Arab origin in America, Congressman Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.) has taken it upon himself to lead the charge on this issue. He has prepared an advisory letter for the Department of Justice urging them to begin collecting data on hate crimes against Arab, Hindu and Sikh Americans. At the time of this essay's composition, 93 members of the House of Representatives had already endorsed this campaign within two weeks of its circulation.

While pleased with this progress, advocacy organizations are hoping to cull more support from U.S. Representatives. For example, The Hindu American Foundation, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and Sikh Coalition have asked their constituent communities to voice their support for this policy change. Each of these organizations has worked to expedite the process by preparing simple templates that people can use to submit emails to their congressional representatives asking for support on this issue.

An improved approach to data collection will help us better understand the problem of hate bias in our society, and a better understanding will lead to an increased ability to address this problem. Given the rash of recent hate-inspired violence throughout the U.S., including the mass shooting in a Wisconsin gurdwara (Sikh place of worship) that left six dead and four wounded this past August, it seems prudent for us to begin focusing on this issue. Now that we have identified this problem and have a sense of its magnitude, we ought to take on the spirit of American pragmatism and begin resolving this problem before it gets any worse.

As it currently stands, our government is not adequately tracking hate crimes; rather, we are overlooking the violence endured by some of the most regularly targeted communities. Adjusting the current approach to include more accurate data is an important first step toward understanding and eradicating the problem of hate violence within our society.

For this reason, I implore the FBI, Department of Justice and Congress to follow the lead of Rep. Crowley and the 93 signatories from the House of Representatives. I also implore each of you to contact your representatives and urge them to support this effort. We can no longer afford to ignore this problem that has already claimed far too many lives -- it is time for us to begin tracking hate violence against American-Arabs, Hindus and Sikhs.

If you believe the government should begin tracking hate crimes against American Arabs, Hindus and Sikhs, please take 30 seconds to call your Congressional Representative today. Click here to find the contact information for your Congressional Office.

Follow Simran Jeet Singh on Twitter

With more turban colors than a box of crayons, Gurpreet Singh Sarin is the brightest-looking participant in ‘American Idol’ this year. He tells us about the controversy over his appearance and how he started singing in a Potbelly Sandwich Shop.

Channel surfing is a little different this season. Pause long enough on Fox’s iconic show American Idol, and you might catch a glimpse of a 22-year-old with a flowing beard and brightly colored turban. Meet Gurpreet Singh Sarin, a Georgia native who, as of last Thursday, is a participant in this year’s American Idol.

During the tryout stages, the judges openly discussed his gentle voice and unique look before giving him a golden ticket for Hollywood Week, and viewers around the globe took notice as well. Singh Sarin’s appearance instantly lit up Twitter as #Osama and #Turbanator began trending.

While this may have ruffled the feathers of most, Singh Sarin doesn’t let that kind of thing bother him. “I’ve been getting that kind of stuff all my life,” he says, flashing his infectious smile. “I know that if I stay in the contest, people will stop focusing on how I look and start noticing my voice.”

It turns out that Singh Sarin’s assessment has been right. In his most recent appearances, the judges and viewers have started to embrace his Sikh identity and appreciate his diverse musical talents. This past Thursday, Singh Sarin pulled out his guitar and soulfully crooned a hit made famous by Ray Charles—“Georgia on My Mind.”

Although Singh Sarin is busy in Hollywood preparing and filming for his next appearance on American Idol, he took out a few moments to give an exclusive interview to The Daily Beast.

What’s it like being you right now?

Honestly, it’s all very surreal. I still can’t believe I’m here. People are tweeting at me and saying they’re jealous, and I almost feel guilty that I’m living out my dreams right now.

Has the competition been pretty much what you expected so far? Has anything caught you by surprise?

I’m loving the experience, and it’s going far beyond what I’d ever imagined. My favorite aspect of it so far has been getting to interact a bit more with the singing community. It’s beautiful to meet so many people who are so passionate about singing. Even though it’s a competition, sometimes it doesn’t feel like it, because everyone has such a wonderful personality.

What’s been your favorite moment so far? Was it when Nicky Minaj called you her boo-boo?

That was such an incredible moment. I never imagined myself standing in front of superstars like her and getting feedback and validation from them. It’s all just so exciting to me, and I feel so blessed to be here. So many amazing singers have already been eliminated, and for me to have this opportunity is a great blessing and humbling experience. This is something I will always cherish, and I’m just trying to enjoy every moment of it.

What did you like better: when you taught Ryan Seacrest your dance moves or when Keith Urban called himself Keith Turban?

I loved both of them, but man, the Keith Turban comment was hilarious! I heard it was trending on Twitter soon afterwards, and some of my friends texted me some Photoshopped pictures that were circulating around where Keith was wearing a bright red turban. I loved that!

Tell us more about your turban. You’ve worn a different color in every round so far, and on the show you mentioned you have about 50 different colors. What do the colors mean?

There is no rule that says I have to wear a specific color or anything. I like to wear bright colors because they match well with my personality: bright, exuberant, colorful. These are the words people use to describe me, and I love wearing outfits that reflect those qualities.

So far we’ve seen you wear black, lavender, baby pink, and light blue. Are you building up to anything special?

In my first audition I told Nicky Minaj that I’d wear a marigold turban to match her marigold hair, so a lot of people have been asking me to bring that one out. I want to hold on to that one for a bit, though, because I have something even better in store.

I recently bought some designer turbans with this amazing silver lining, and I can’t wait to wear those ones. I hope to get farther in the competition so I can keep showing America all the different styles and patterns that I have.

Designer turbans? Where do you even buy those?

Online. You should check it out some time. They have all sorts of interesting things on the Internet these days.

Take a moment to tell us about the turban. Why do you wear one?

I practice a religion called Sikhism, which is the fifth-largest religion in the world. Sikhs wear turbans as a sign of commitment to their values of justice, integrity, and love. The turban is almost like a police uniform—it signifies to people that I have a certain set of principles, and that I will stand up for them.

So the turban is a religious requirement?

Exactly. And one thing people don’t realize is that 99 percent of people wearing turbans in America practice the same religion as me: Sikhism. This is one of the many reasons that competing on American Idol has been such an amazing experience. It provides me an opportunity to show that people who look like me are just as personable and happy as anyone else.

I love your commitment to breaking stereotypes. I have to admit though that I’ve seen a lot of negative comments about you in social media. For example one of the tweets after your audition said: “Osama bin Laden cannot win AMERICAN Idol. #ThatsUnamerican.” How do you respond to comments like that?

I’ve seen a lot of comments like that one, and although I was a little surprised when I first saw them, I also kind of expected something like that to come my way. I understand that some people are intolerant, but I don’t let the get to me. I just have to keep speaking the universal language of music. I’m being judged for my voice and talent and passion, not for my appearance. For me, it doesn’t matter where you’re from or what you look like or what language you speak. That’s the beauty of music. It overcomes stereotypes and negativity, and it helps bring people together.

I love that. So tell us a little bit about your background. How did you originally get into music?

I originally grew up in Atlanta, Georgia, and lived there with my parents and two siblings for 16 years. Music was part of our daily lives since our childhood. We were raised performing shabad kirtan (traditional Sikh music), and my grandmother’s side actually introduced us to Indian classical music when we were still pretty young. We were trained in different South Asian instruments, and then about two years ago, I started getting into modern Western music.

Wait. So you only really started playing guitar and singing Western music two years ago?

Yeah, exactly. I noticed that there weren’t many people who looked like me in the field, and I figured it was worth a shot. I decided to cover some tracks and post them to my own YouTube channel. After building some followers, I started performing at the Potbelly Sandwich Shop by my house in Maryland. I guess you could call that my first big breakthrough.

From Potbelly to American Idol. I’d call that a step up. And all that in only two years. Since you’re competing to be our next American Idol, tell us who your musical idols were growing up.

I’m from Georgia, so one of my musical inspirations is Ray Charles. One of the things I love about him is that even though other people thought of him as handicapped, he never allowed himself to be limited. He never considered his blindness to be an obstacle. Ray was able to turn a challenge into an advantage, and because of that, he was able to do some beautiful things. I love that, and of course I love his soulful music, too.

This afternoon, I was forced to let someone else touch my turban. It was one of the most humiliating moments of my life.

I attended a conference at Stanford University this weekend and was traveling back home to New York City by way of San Francisco International Airport. I've made this cross-country journey hundreds of times in my life and have traveled all over the world -- but not once have I ever been forced to allow security to pat down my turban.

I understand the importance of security in our current state, and we all agree that it is particularly important to maintain vigilance in airport settings. In fact, like everyone else, I appreciate our country's efforts to ensure our safety.

At the same time though, I believe there is a way of accomplishing this without embarrassing, humiliating, or alienating one another. Can you imagine what it's like to be a dark-skinned, bearded man who is pulled aside by airport security and forced to have his turban patted down?

In addition to feeling helpless and humiliated, I also feel like I am guilty of perpetuating a certain stereotype. I can only imagine what was going through my co-travelers minds as the security officers whisked me away for a private screening.

Although this incident was exceptional, it is not all that different than the additional screening I typically undergo while traveling in the United States. Above and beyond the typical screening process, I am usually asked by the officer to undergo additional screening. I stand in plain view of all other passengers while an officer waves a metal detecting wand over my turban. I am then given the option to pat down my own turban and have my hands swabbed to check for chemical or explosive residue.

While this is embarrassing in and of itself, it is not nearly as upsetting as to have someone else touch my turban. The turban is a mandatory article of the Sikh faith, and it represents the loving bond between the believer (Sikh) and the Divine (Guru). As this relationship is deeply personal, so is the relationship between a Sikh and their turban. In my eyes, someone else touching my turban is a violation of that bond.

I am not asking for a free pass, nor do I expect one. However, with a bit of cultural awareness and sensitivity, I believe our society can learn to treat one another with a deeper level of respect. I would like to see us all come together and embrace policies that are less alienating and offensive.

If we want to increase societal trust, we have to begin approaching one another with more compassion and empathy - and our federal institutions must take the lead.

The Transportation Security Administration has done a wonderful job these past several years of ensuring our safety. Yet as civil rights organizations like SALDEF and the Sikh Coalition have shown us, it is now time for us to demand more. We need our federal institutions to better account for its constituents in a careful and compassionate way.

Currently, we see many of our governmental institutions compromising our freedoms to ensure our safety. I would like to see our nation strike a balance in which we maintain security and account for our values and dignities. This approach will require a thoughtful and concentrated effort, but I have no doubt that our society will be better for it.

A few weeks ago, the British Army and the Scots Guard broke centuries of tradition by allowing a Sikh soldier, Jatinderpal Singh Bhullar, to wear his turban rather than the traditional bearskin cap while guarding Buckingham Palace in London, England. Meanwhile, U.S. policies still bar turbaned Sikhs from serving in the military.

In December, the White House hosted an event celebrating the life of Guru Nanak, the founder and first Guru of the Sikh religion. There a number of national community leaders and public officials recounted their shared commitments to equality and justice for all American citizens. One of the speakers -- Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez from the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice -- spoke with passion and conviction about the status of civil rights in America.

The Assistant Attorney General opened by speaking of his experiences in Murfeesboro, Tenn., a town that received national media attention for the public controversy surrounding a mosque construction. The Civil Rights Division played a key role in ensuring and securing the right to build the Islamic Center of Murfeesboro, which has been the target of protests, arson, vandalism and even a lawsuit claiming that a) Islam is not a real religion and b) Muslims planned to replace the Constitution with Islamic Law. He expressed his disappointment with the ignorance and bigotry still present in this country, and he also praised targeted communities for the poise and humanity with which they have responded.

Perez recounted a story about a member of the Muslim congregation who also happened to be the only interventional cardiologist in Murfeesboro. This doctor was visited by one of the leading opponents of the mosque, who was experiencing a life-threatening heart condition. The patient's brother was present during this visit, and despite the seriousness of the situation, he adamantly refused to allow a Muslim doctor to administer treatment. During this refusal, the patient's brother also suffered a serious cardiac condition that proved to be life threatening.

How did the Muslim doctor respond? He saved both of their lives.

The Assistant Attorney General explained that he draws inspiration from this compassionate act and that he sees numerous parallels with the Sikh community's response in Oak Creek, Wis., which experienced a horrific shooting rampage by a white supremacist this past August.

Perez has visited the community numerous times since the hate crime, and he shared his admiration for its resilience, optimism and fortitude. He then repeated a constant refrain he has heard from the Sikhs in Oak Creek: "We love this country and want to show our love for it. But we still aren't allowed to serve in the military." The Assistant Attorney General then said he would elevate the Sikh desire to serve in the military to the highest levels of the Obama Administration.

Perez's commitment to sparking high-level discussion that could end the ban on Sikh service demonstrates a clear understanding of the Sikh American experience. The ban is a double-bind faced by Sikhs in this country: While others continue to look at Sikhs as foreign and alien, Sikh Americans are unable to counter this stereotype by giving their lives to this country.

In the last decade, three turbaned Sikhs have received exemptions from this ban and have been allowed to serve in the U.S. military. In fact, one of them -- Major Kamaljit Singh Kalsi -- was honored with a Bronze Star for his life-saving efforts in Afghanistan. Rather than having to incessantly argue to receive exemptions from the ban, the Assistant Attorney General, myself and a number of civil rights advocates would like to see a repealing of this ban altogether.

In September of 2012, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, the strongest and most comprehensive equal employment legislation in the country. Among other issues, this act ensures that religious practitioners will no longer be subject to discrimination on the basis of religious articles such as facial hair or head coverings. As legislators around the nation strive to realize these freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, this seems to be of little use if the U.S. Military -- one of our largest federal employers and institutions -- continues to bar minorities on the basis of religion.

Sikhs have a rich history of military service across the globe -- in India, the United Kingdom, and the United States, among others. For example, in 1918, Bhagat Singh Thind became the first turbaned Sikh to be recruited by the U.S. Army to fight in World War I. He was quickly honored for his talent and promoted to Acting Sergeant.

America is becoming increasingly diverse and pluralistic, and our policies must reflect this progress. We hope that Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez's comments, as well as the Sikh guardsman serving outside the Buckingham Palace, will help spark a movement to repeal the policy that bars turbaned Sikhs from serving in the U.S. Military.

After a white supremacist opened fire at a Sikh gurdwara in Oak Creek in August, significant media resources have been devoted to describing, analyzing, and attempting to explain the event. A few of the prominent themes have included buzzwords such as "unprecedented," "victimization" and "suffering" endured by Sikhs in America.

Although these buzzwords rightfully point to the challenges faced by Sikh Americans, they fail to aptly capture the spirit and attitude with which Sikhs have embraced such challenges throughout history.

Traditionally, the Sikh community does not lament periods of persecution and hardship but instead celebrates the contributions and sacrifices made by the community members and greater society living within those moments.

History offers a broad perspective for viewing this unique approach, and one instructive example is that of Bhai Mani Singh (d. 1737 CE), a prominent leader of the Sikh community in the early 18th century.

After a brief moment of political success in the early 18th century, the Sikhs quickly became targets of persecution. The ruling elite of India literally placed a price on the head of every Sikh, and official policies made it difficult (or, from time to time, illegal) for Sikhs to assemble in public settings. Political oppression was particularly high in the 1730s when Bhai Mani Singh petitioned Gov. Zakariya Khan to allow the Sikhs to gather in Amritsar for the purpose of community-building, social gathering and decision-making. Khan agreed to the request with the stipulation that the Sikhs would pay the state a hefty tax in return.

Traditions recount that state authorities planned to let the Sikhs gather in Amritsar before unleashing a military strike that would decimate the community. Fortunately, Bhai Mani Singh caught wind of this plan and called off the gathering.

In response to the state's fear-mongering and its oppressive practices, Bhai Mani Singh decided to make a statement. He publicly called out the government for reneging on its agreement and therefore refused to pay the taxes.

The state responded with a statement of its own. After arresting him, the authorities transported this community leader to Lahore and ordered that he be publicly executed in a most gruesome manner - dismembered, joint by joint. Traditions recount that the executioner sympathized with Bhai Mani Singh's plight and planned to spare him the torture by dismembering him limb by limb instead.

However, Bhai Mani Singh looked up at his executioner and announced: "You don't need to feel sorry for me. Follow your orders and start the execution at my finger joints rather than my limbs."

To this day, Sikhs do not grieve Bhai Mani Singh as a victim of oppression, but instead celebrate his contribution to the community and remember the price he paid in standing up for justice with the regularly repeated words: " band band katae (dismembered, joint by joint)."

The account of Bhai Mani Singh demonstrates the Sikh commitment to battle oppression, and his memory illustrates the Sikh spirit of celebrating those who have made sacrifices to stand against injustice. Sikhs do not remember him as a helpless victim but as a heroic activist.

The recent narrative of Sikhs in America as victims is overly simplistic and incongruent with Sikh traditions. It is time for us to revisit this victimization narrative and account for the Sikh spirit of chardi kala (perpetual optimism). This approach will help us better understand perspectives of the Sikh community, from the celebratory memories of Bhai Mani Singh to the positive responses following the hate-inspired massacre in Oak Creek.

Photo by Tony Fischer Photography, via Flickr Creative Commons.

More than any of the other mass shootings our country has witnessed over the past decades, this tragedy forces me to ask the same question that Guru Nanak asked in response to atrocities committed against innocent civilians - "eti mar pai karlane tai ki dard na aaiaa (O God! Didn't you feel pain upon witnessing such a slaughter?)."

One young mother whose daughter survived the violence in Connecticut described that her "heart is shattered in a million pieces." In his emotional statement following the shooting, President Obama expressed that "our hearts are broken today."

Heartbreak and suffering is a part of the human experience, a reality that we all know far too intimately. Countless leaders and thinkers have devised countless systems to help people transcend suffering, and these leaders include religious prophets, secular philosophers, political leaders, and self-help authors. One of the better known efforts among these is the Buddha's system of the "Four Noble Truths," an approach that recognizes the existence of human suffering (dukkha) and offers a method for going beyond it.

As a shared human condition, suffering serves to bind us all together. Tragedies such as the shooting of schoolchildren in Connecticut strip away the distinctions we make among ourselves (e.g., race, nationality, sexual orientation, gender) and remind us of core aspects of our shared humanity. In moments like these, we forget our differences and come together to mourn and heal as one. We all identify with the suffering of the affected families, and we all collectively grieve the loss of these young, innocent lives.

Over the past four months, I have experienced the power of collective mourning following the hate-inspired shooting of Sikhs in Oak Creek. Despite the deep suffering inflicted by this violence, the tragedy brought the nation together in a collective healing process and therefore allowed us to realize our shared humanity.

I would like to respond to the mass shooting in Newtown, Connecticut as I did with the mass shooting in Oak Creek, Wisconsin four months ago - I still refuse a life driven by fear and negativity, and I still retain my faith that humans are not hateful and malicious.

With this said, I think we can all agree with President Obama that as we will hug our children tighter in the days to come, we must also commit to addressing the gaping holes in our society. While many of us might differ in our approaches, we can all agree on the importance of reducing our collective suffering.

The rash of mass shootings in America requires our immediate and serious attention. This is the only way for us to move forward and "heal the broken-hearted and bind up their wounds (Psalm 147:3)."

Co-Author: Prabhjot Singh

Do American Sikhs count?

The horrific shooting at a Sikh temple in suburban Milwaukee on Aug. 5, in which a white supremacist, Wade M. Page, killed six people before fatally shooting himself, elicited an outpouring of sympathy from American leaders and a greater understanding of the role Sikhs have played in American life.

But there are two disturbing aspects of the response to the shooting that deserve wider public attention.

First is the notion of “mistaken identity” — the assumption that Mr. Page, who had long-established ties to radical right-wing groups, mistook Sikhs for Muslims, his presumed target. The second is the government’s failure to accurately measure the extent of anti-Sikh violence in America — a gap that must be remedied.

Whatever the roots of Mr. Page’s hatred, it is wrong to assume that every attack against a Sikh is really meant for a Muslim. That assumption overlooks the long history of discrimination and hatred directed at Sikhs in America.

Indeed, the first documented race riot targeting American Sikhs occurred in 1907 in Bellingham, Washington. Their distinct religious identity (uncut hair, turban, beard) has historically marked Sikhs, particularly men, as targets for discrimination, both in their homeland in South Asia and in the various communities of the Sikh diaspora. And of course, 9/11 brought about a surge in fear and persecution directed at Sikhs, Muslims and other minorities with ties to the Middle East and South Asia.

There is also the question of whether white supremacist groups have specifically targeted American Sikhs. The authorities in Southern California, where Mr. Page was active in the white-power music scene, are investigating whether he was involved in the killings of two elderly Sikh men in Elk Grove, California, in March 2011. Just after the temple shooting, a Sikh man in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, reported that a white man had pulled up next to him in a pickup truck, shaped his hands like a gun, and pretended to shoot him six times before stating, “We want to kill all of you.”

And on Aug. 15, 10 days after the Oak Creek shooting, another member of the Sikh community there, Dalbir Singh, 56, was killed in the armed robbery of a local convenience store. (While the police have not uncovered any evidence to treat the killing as a hate crime, many Sikhs have wondered if the violence was more than random.)

White supremacist Web sites clearly demonstrate intentional, targeted anti-Sikh sentiments. For example, the leading neo-Nazi figure Alex Linder was quoted as saying on a right-wing Web site: “Take your dead and go back to India and dump their ashes in the Ganges, Sikhs. You don’t belong here in the country my ancestors fought to found, and deeded to me and mine, their posterity. Even if you came here legally, and even if you haven’t done anything wrong personally. Go home, Sikhs. Go home to India where you belong. This is not your country, it belongs to white men.”

The “mistaken identity” assumption is directly associated with a second problem: a lack of data about the extent of anti-Sikh hatred.

The F.B.I. currently classifies nearly all hate violence against American Sikhs as instances of anti-Islamic or anti-Muslim hate crimes. As a result, we do not have official statistics on the extent of hate crimes in which Sikhs are targeted, despite a long history of such violence.

Why is this so? The F.B.I. tracks hate crimes on the basis of bias motivation, even if the victim is not part of the group that was targeted. The official Hate Crime Incident Report allows authorities to register a hate crime under one of five categories: race, ethnicity (including Hispanic identity), religion, sexual orientation or disability. Within those five categories are 22 subcategories, none of them designated “anti-Sikh.” Thus the F.B.I. classifies anti-Sikh crimes as “anti-Islamic (Muslim).”

We call on the F.B.I. to begin tracking anti-Sikh violence. This does not require legislation or executive order. Since the original enactment of the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990, the F.B.I. has updated its reporting methods. For example, the bureau has revised its approach to tracking hate crimes based on sexual orientation, and now includes “anti-L.G.B.T.,” “anti-heterosexual” and “anti-bisexual” along with the “anti-gay” and “anti-lesbian” subcategories.

The legacy of anti-Sikh violence and its contemporary prevalence make it painfully obvious that anti-Sikh violence is often purposeful and targeted. The government must begin tracking and counting anti-Sikh hate crimes, just as it must continue to vigorously combat bias and discrimination against all Americans, including Muslims. We must do away with a flawed and incomplete assumption of “mistaken identity” regarding Sikhs; until we do, we will all be the ones who are mistaken.

Simran Jeet Singh is a doctoral candidate in religion at Columbia and the deputy director of the Sikh Spirit Foundation. Prabhjot Singh is an assistant professor of international and public affairs at Columbia and a resident in internal medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital.

Image by calsidyrose, via Flickr Creative Commons.

Co-Author: Rajdeep Singh

As we reflect on the massacre of Sikh worshippers in Oak Creek, Wisconsin earlier this month, we are especially concerned about the effect it will have on Sikh morale, especially the desire among Sikhs to continue wearing turbans. For this, the Sikh communities of Milwaukee, the U.S., and all across the globe can derive inspiration from a national hero: Bill Baxley.

Between 1971 and 1979, Baxley served as Alabama’s Attorney General. During his tenure, Baxley famously prosecuted one of the men responsible for the 1963 bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church, an act of domestic terrorism that resulted in the death of four girls between the ages of 11 and 14. This infuriated the Ku Klux Klan, which issued a written threat to Baxley. Not to be deterred, the Attorney General responded on official state letterhead as follows:

“My response to your letter of February 19, 1976, is—kiss my ass.”

Baxley’s response falls right in line with Sikh traditions.

Sikhs of the 18th century banded together to resist bigots who terrorized and oppressed minority communities. Because Sikhs staunchly insisted on standing up against injustice and inequalities, the rulers of the day focused on persecuting Sikhs such that their numbers dwindled into the low thousands. The regime literally put prices on the heads of Sikhs, offering to pay citizens who helped wipe out the whole community. In fact, Sikhs remember two particular periods in the 18th century as “The Lesser Holocaust” and “The Greater Holocaust.”

According to Sikh historians, the state issued an official declaration in 1739 that the entire Sikh population had been exterminated. In response, two Sikhs—Bota Singh and Garja Singh—emerged from hiding, occupied a major highway, and expressed Sikh sovereignty by collecting toll taxes from travelers. Although Bota Singh and Garja Singh were eventually arrested and executed by the state, their legacy is a thriving community of over 25 million Sikhs throughout the world.

Just as the 1963 bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church could not suppress the American Civil Rights Movement or, later on, Bill Baxley’s pursuit of justice, the attack on the Oak Creek Gurdwara will embolden Sikh Americans to preserve their traditions and to continue to promote freedom and justice for all Americans. In recent years, for example, the Sikh American community spearheaded the passage of the first anti-bullying law in New York City; the repeal of an 87-year-old Oregon law that prohibited teachers from wearing religious dress in the public schools; and the introduction of a California bill that protects workers from religious discrimination.

Attacks like the one in Oak Creek will only encourage us to respond with the spirit of Bota Singh, Garja Singh, and Bill Baxley—we will stand up against all forms of discrimination and redouble our efforts to eradicate bigotry. As a community, we will put a tax on hate.

Photo by acnatta, via Flickr Creative Commons.