Sikhs and Sikhism - A View with a Bias by Dr. I. J. Singh

Sikhs and Sikhism
    A View with a Bias
    by Dr. I. J. Singh -New York

WHO's A SIKH?

These days it has become fashionable to apply two litmus tests to the definition of a Sikh. One is that of political correctness. We have all been to Sikh gatherings where, if your views fall even a hair short of an independent Sikh homeland, you are quickly branded "anti-Sikh." The currently precarious position among Sikhs of the well known writer Khushwant Singh is an example. It seems to me from my rudimentary understanding of Sikhism that the religion allows and even encourages a virtual rainbow of shades of opinions. This is true in theory, the practice often leaves one aghast.

If Zail Singh, the former Indian President is branded a quisling, I can understand. In his official capacity he issued the orders approving the invasion of the Golden Temple and many other Gurdwaras in Punjab on Guru Arjan's martyrdom day in June 1984. His poor judgment and moral cowardice opened a new chapter on state terrorism against the Sikhs and brought India close to fragmentation. A sense of self-respect as a Sikh would have required that the papers he signed be of his resignation. But I am reminded that over the 500 years of our history many Sikhs in responsible positions have acted abominably. After the Jallianwala Bagh massacre in 1913, Sikh religious leaders at the Akal Takht honored the responsible General, O'Dwyer. Almost 200 years ago, some Sikh rulers sided with Muslim hordes against Sikh armies. Two years ago, some Sikhs of Delhi honored H.K.L. Bhagat, the man who may have masterminded the massacre of the Sikhs in 1984. The Sikhs have a right to be furious with these people but the fact that they were Sikhs cannot be denied.

In my view, if Khushwant or Patwant, respectable writers both, fail to publicly endorse the idea of Khalistan, that does not make them any less as Sikhs. You can be furious with them. You can call them misguided or misinformed and they can return the compliment, but to disavow them as Sikhs is grossly unfair. There are many honest Sikhs in that category - General Aurora and Air Marshall Arjan Singh come to mind. Their anguish at how brutally and inhumanely the Indian government has treated the Sikhs is not any less than yours or mine. How the personal lifestyles of these or any other people would stand scrutiny is a different matter indeed, but Sikhs should have other criteria for evaluating each other. And that would raise another question - who has the right and the competence to judge?

For many years Sikhs political leaders like Longowal or Simranjit Singh Mann sought a solution within the framework of the Indian Constitution. It is only now that Mann seems to have despaired of the notion of a unified Indian nation. Yet, no one can deny that his sacrifice in the cause of the Sikhs is clear and significant. Bhindranwale undeniably showed Sikhs how to die with dignity and honor. But in his short life he never raised the slogan for an independent Khalistan, though he has now become the inspiration for its struggle. This is because circumstances have changed. Whereas, only a few years ago it was possible for Sikhs to conceive of a productive life of dignity in India, now many have reluctantly concluded that it is not even a remote possibility. Some still cling to that hope for a variety of reasons. Human motives are complex, judgement difficult and often faulty.

Its been 45 years since Israel became a reality but even today not every Jew is for Israel. Similarly not every Sikh may see the argument for an independent Khalistan. But these are questions on which grown men may differ. People also change with time if they have room to grow. I will address the issue of Khalistan elsewhere but using a litmus test of political correctness to determine one's religious commitment is both irrelevant and perverse. If we find fault with the discernment or dedication of Khushwant or Aurora, let us open our doors to an ongoing dialogue with them and others like them. Both we and they might become the better for it. A political yardstick is entirely inappropriate to determine who is a Sikh.

The second acid test for a Sikh which has come in vogue particularly within the past ten years or so says: Do you as a male Sikh wear the preeminent of the five Sikh symbols - long unshorn hair and a turban? In other words, are you visibly a Sikh? For obvious reasons this criterion has acquired major importance outside India. The question of who is a Sikh has fueled much debate. Historians like McLeod who take a more scholarly approach have been accused of being selective in their interpretation. Sikh scholars understand the issue but because of their feelings for Sikhism, objectivity may suffer and their analysis become vulnerable. In the process, more heat than light is shed on the subject. I confess to being subjective and will pull in only selected historical events to buttress my view. Why? Because religion is a reality to which the historical intellectual analysis alone is ill-suited. Only in part can history and intellect measure the intuitive reality that transcends both. However, without the selective application of logic and reason, religion is quickly reduced to the levels of dogma and superstition.

The requirement that a Sikh be visibly so has merit. In India, if the small minority of Sikhs opts not to look different from the majority surrounding them, they will quickly lose all independent identity and existence. They will then surely be engulfed by Hinduism and disappear from India just as Buddhism did. The oft-boasted tolerance of Hinduism is a myth which deserves closer scrutiny. If Christianity and Islam found roots in India, it was not because of Hindu tolerance, if any. Political power and patronage supported and nurtured them. Now that the rulers of India are predominantly Hindus, the fate of the Muslims and Christians is the same as that of any other minority such as the Sikhs - harassment and denial of basic rights. The history of how Buddhism was decimated in India is not a kind commentary on Hindu tolerance. St. Thomas who took Christianity to India is buried there but, thanks to the Brahmins, he did not die a natural death. How tolerant could Hinduism be of others if it treats almost half of its own believers as untouchables and its women as less than human? One only has to read the Laws of Manu to comprehend the dogmatic inhumanity of Hinduism to its own people. In every religion the followers fall short of the teaching but, in this case the teaching may be seriously flawed.

I recall that some twenty years ago, neither the President nor the Secretary of our new gurdwara in New York were recognizable Sikhs. They were good people, devoted to the cause and as proof of our tolerance, were elected. At about that time, some new arrivals had problems finding employment; the hiring company insisted that they report to work without their long hair or turbans. After a series of hearings and discussions, we won the point. But the issue was a watershed in our presence here. The opposing lawyer had the temerity to point out that since the senior officers of our gurdwara were without long unshorn hair, this symbol of Sikhism could not be very significant. Needless to say, we were on the defensive, our arguments disjointed and the Indian Consulate in New York least helpful. We were relieved to prevail but it was not a reassuring experience. I think sometime soon thereafter most gurdwaras in the United States made it a requirement that all office bearers be recognizable Sikhs.

Such a rule however, opens a Pandora's box. Now, if the differences are political or personal, it is easiest to attack a man at his most vulnerable aspect - his Sikh lifestyle. Because someone looks like a Sikh does not automatically turn him into a good one. Some Sikhs drink alcohol even if just a little and only socially. Many do not follow all of the requirements on completing their daily prayers. Others are businessmen with all the attendant temptations. Despite their best intentions, the personal or family life of many falls short of the Sikh ideal. A certain level of recognizable hypocrisy creeps into our lives and chinks (chasms?) appear between the teaching and our practice. After all, we are ordinary Sikhs on the road to becoming better ones but certainly no angels. And our gurdwara elections show how easy it is to attack and destroy a well intentioned man. The onslaught is always led by assailing a man's commitment to Sikhism and labeling him "anti-Sikh". I wonder what that appellation means. Should we even have elections in a gurdwara but how else should we identify people for service to our community? But that is a different matter to be discussed another time, elsewhere.

I look at the Christians. They have over 250 denominations and some, Roman Catholics for instance, are most reluctant to even admit that the others are Christians nor would they cheerfully intermarry with them. In the early period of Christianity there were more than one pope, each busy excommunicating the others. In the Jews where there are at least three major denominations, the Conservatives recognize no Reform Jews. Even Hinduism has spawned many sects but Hindus are more tolerant of their own divisions perhaps because their theology is so vague and diffuse. Does time extract such a price from all religions?

I wonder if the young, vibrant religion of the Sikhs is headed the same way. Already there are signs of sects and denominations within Sikhism although the lines between them are not yet clearly or rigidly drawn. There are important doctrinal differences among some of them; for example, Namdharis seek guidance from a living person whom they recognize as Guru; whereas, the larger Sikh community following the directive of Guru Gobind Singh, recognizes Guru Granth as the repository of spiritual authority and the Sikh people speaking collectively as the voice of the Guru in temporal matters. Many Sikhs follow particular spiritual teachers and thus differ from others in minor practices but these idiosyncrasies are relatively insignificant. Our religion is young. Will there come a time when we will recognize three different kinds of Sikhs: Those who have been confirmed (Amritdhari) and have taken final vows to maintain all the requirements of the religion; those who look like Sikhs (Keshadhari), maintain long unshorn hair but have not taken the final vows (Amrit) of the Sikh lifestyle; and finally those who follow the time honored tradition of Sikhs who like the Marrano Jews hide their identity, and are labeled Sehajdhari in the Sikh tradition? It is hoped that in time the Sehajdharis will follow the way of the Khalsa to become recognizable Sikhs just as the Keshadhari Sikhs will become more committed to become Amritdhari Sikhs. We have had Sehajdhari Sikhs as an important part of the Sikh community from the time that the Khalsa began over 300 years ago. Many Sikhs, including some associates and contemporaries of Guru Gobind Singh never opted to receive Amrit and become Khalsa, but they were not thought any the less for it. Bhai Nandlal for instance, never became Nand Singh nor did the Guru ask that he should.

We need to look at one more category of Sikh, someone who once was either Amritdhari or Keshadhari and now, for some reason, is no longer a visibly recognizable Sikh. Such a Sikh will be labeled patit. Rarely have the apostate (patit) Sikhs had an honorable place in our history; the patriot Bhagat Singh is a notable exception. And that is eminently fair. Sometimes we fail to make the necessary distinction between the Sehajdhari and the apostate, but it is critical. I have known apostate (patit) Sikhs resent the fact that though gurdwaras welcome them and accept their services or money, yet will not appoint or elect them to any office nor grant them any honor. I think this is as it should be. The doors of a gurdwara are open to anyone and no one, Sikh or otherwise is barred from service or attendance. However, the visibility of appointive or elective office carries with it a public responsibility with ramifications for the life of the community.

I recall a few telephone conversations I had with a Sikh young woman some years ago when I was still unmarried. Somebody thought we should know each other and gave me her number, so I called her. She was bright, witty, educated. After a few pleasant chats she asked: "Are you a modern Sikh?" I was taken aback. I realized what she wanted to know but I resented the implication that a long-haired keshadhari Sikh was somehow less than modern. My response was unfortunately equally thoughtless: "In the sense that I wear clothes when I go out on the street and know which fork to use at dinner, I guess I am not quite primitive and I operate in this modern world. Precisely what do you want to know?" I hope we will not fall into such a trap of dividing ourselves into modern and not-so-modern Sikhs like that young woman. I also believe that how modern we are is determined by what is inside our heads and not by the length of the hair upon them. I also trust that we will remain charitable towards those who fall short along the way. Already there are gurdwaras that cater primarily to one kind of Sikhs or another. And that is unfortunate for it divides us further.

There is an obvious paradox and not a little hypocrisy when those who are not visibly Sikh or are inconsistent in their lifestyle want representatives who at least look like Sikhs. Though true, it is preferable this way. Ideally, all of us would not only profess virtue but also be virtuous. But that is not likely to happen. In an imperfect world vice will exist. Better to have a society where vices are at least publicly shunned rather than lauded. This way the gap between teaching and practice persists but an awareness of the ideal and some ongoing efforts towards it also remain. I agree with William Hazlitt that "He who maintains vice in theory has not even the capacity or conception of virtue." It's a choice between a world of conscious hypocrisy or cruel cynicism.

There seems a certain incongruity in a religion that derives its identity from a legislated act of a government - a statute - made into law when the British ruled India. The whole model of the government sanctioned Committee (SGPC) which manages historical gurdwaras deserves a closer look. At the end of his tenure, Guru Gobind Singh bestowed temporal Guruship on the Sikh Panth, the nation of disciples. None else but the Sikhs, meeting in mindful prayer and acting in an awareness of their heritage, can make the critical decisions on their identity and their future; no government, not even one of Sikhs should usurp that authority. The Sikhs will remain Sikhs only if what they decide is also consistent with their spiritual legacy and tradition. The Sikhs organized their heritage in a Code of Conduct which reached its final resolution in 1935; that document clearly chronicled how the Sikhs view themselves. And ultimately the definition of a Sikh has to be what the community has resolved.

At the individual level however, a Sikh is he who claims to be one, however incomplete, unpleasant or unacceptable he may seem to us. Our institutions and gurdwaras have to accept that. There is no hierarchy as in the Roman Catholic Church to dictate otherwise and that is all to the good. Although we all know that the private person may fall short of the ideal and we should remain merciful to private failings, we also perceive that the Sikh identity within the community assumes a public persona which has ramifications for Sikhs everywhere. It is true that nothing unites us more than the love of our religion, nothing divides us more than the practice of it. The dictates of man are not necessarily the will of God. There is real danger in mistaking one for the other.

I.J.Singh,
August 11, 1992

   Blurb
   Preface
   What readers say about the book?
   Contents
   About the Author
   Roots of Sikhism
   Symbols of a Heritage

Your References Comments Suggestions Feedback

E-MAIL this Page Link to Yourselves or a Friend Just Enter recipient's e-mail: The information goes directly from you to your friend.

Please send us Your Comments and Suggestions             to help make SIKH.NET more useful for every one | Sikh.net Homepage | Community | Network | Juniors | Why-What-When & How's | Sikhism | | The Sikh Collection | Hemkunt | Gurdwaras |  Sikh Publications | Sikh Sites Links | FreeStuff | | TerCentennial | Your Feeback | Seva | References | About Sikhnet | Search the Sikh.net Website |