History
Sikhism & Hinduism: Divergent Paths
by Dr. NONICA DATTA
"All Muslims living in India are Hindus. All Sikhs are Hindus," asserted the RSS chief, K.S. Sudarshan, at a meeting in Amritsar. Citing Guru Tegh Bahadar, the Ninth Sikh guru, he said: "He himself acknowledged 'Hum Hindu Hain' ".
This is an erroneous view.
Sikhs have always been willing to accept diverse ideas and institutions, but in acceptance they have adapted and transformed their inheritance. Not always able to work the various strands into a harmonious whole, they have not yet lost their identity. This holds good for almost every manifestation of Sikh life and thought.
My own maternal grandmother, a devout Sikh, was married into an Arya Samaj family. Did she define herself as a Hindu? She did not. Her way of life, her association with the Sikh Kanya Mahavidyalaya in Ferozepur, and her perception of India's Partition signified her distinctive identity.
Even though married into Hindu families, many like her were wedded to Sikh values. Without denying the existing bonds and alliances between the Hindus and Sikhs, not much has changed since my grandmother's days.
In fact, the basic flaw in Mr. Sudarshan's assertion is that he disregards the differences that have historically existed between the experiences and the lives of people of the two communities. He must know that no matter what he might say with regard to the origin and development of Sikhism, Sikh consciousness has invariably followed an independent course.
Two scholarly and popular views exist on Sikh identity.
One of them traces its beginning to the Sikh Gurus (1469-1708) and its crystallisation during Ranjit Singh's rule (1799-1839). All this while, so runs the argument, the Sikh religious and cultural heritage ran parallel to, not always antagonistic with, Hinduism.
The other interpretation underlines the Sikhs' fluid identity in the pre-colonial period and brings into sharp focus the role of the Tat Khalsa (the True Khalsa) leadership in heightening a separate and exclusive consciousness in the late 19th century.
It is fair to argue, therefore, that neither Mr. Sudarshan nor any of his predecessors have understood the changing meanings of Sikh identity. They have sought to impose their own worldview, ignoring how Sikh ideologues have understood, categorized and defined their community over the centuries.
Guru Nanak (1469-1539) had rejected the authority of the Brahmans, spurned ritualism and repudiated idol worship. Through gurbani (Guru's Word), sangat (religious congregation) and guru ka langar (community meal), he endeavoured to fashion a radical theology and create a moral community. However, it was the initiative of the Tenth Guru, Gobind Singh (1666-1708), which endowed his followers with a distinct identity.
The Khalsa Sikhs, thereafter, vested the authority of the Guru in the Guru Granth Sahib and the corporate community. This was a defining moment, carried to its logical culmination by the Rehat (Code of Discipline).
By the closing decades of the 19th century, the Singh Sabha Movement defined the boundaries of the Sikh community vis-a-vis the Hindus. Such moves were largely in response to the Arya Samaj movement's strident initiative to incorporate Sikhism within the Hindu fold. In opposition to the Samaj's agenda of promoting Hindi as the official vernacular language, the Sikh reformers championed Punjabi as the medium of education and the language of administration. Moreover, Hindu idols, which had been installed in the Golden Temple premises, were removed.
Bhai Kahn Singh, a Sikh spokesman, wrote and published a detailed exposition in 1899, entitled "We Are Not Hindus".
This sentiment was vividly expressed in the everyday lives and rituals. The Sikhs knew by now who they were not.
Historically, the Sikhs have moved in and out of multiple identities. Yet, their quest for an exclusive identity was the most significant feature of their history in the last century. Although the meanings of identity have differed in certain contexts and in response to various challenges, the Sikhs have hardly ever integrated with any specific version of Hinduism. Consider, their demand for separate electorates (1917) and the role of the Gurdwara Reform movement.
Thereafter, the Sikh Gurdwaras Act (1925) defined a Sikh as "a person who professes the Sikh religion", adding, "I solemnly affirm that I am a Sikh, that I believe in the Guru Granth Sahib, that I believe in the Ten Gurus, and that I have no other religion".
Before India's Independence, the Akalis tried to safeguard the political and cultural interests of their constituency. Thus, through the demand for `Azad Punjab' (1943) and for `Sikhistan' or `Khalistan' (1946), the Akalis sought to safeguard their interests as a distinct and unified entity. The Sikh leadership also mooted the idea of an `autonomous' Sikh area within Pakistan. Their ultimate acceptance of Punjab's Partition was, in fact, conditioned by such communitarian anxieties and aspirations.
After Independence, various Sikh outfits have insisted on defining themselves and their followers as a `minority' living under the shadow of Hindu majoritarianism. This found expression in the demand for separate representation in the Constitution, and was followed by the movement for a State comprising Punjabi-speaking people. The demand for greater autonomy gathered momentum in the 1970s and 1980s, giving rise to the Khalistan movement itself. The Indian Army's assault on the Golden Temple in June 1984, according to Khushwant Singh, widened the Hindu-Sikh gulf, and gave the movement for Khalistan its first martyr in Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale.
The brutal anti-Sikh pogrom that followed the assassination of Indira Gandhi fuelled anti-Hindu sentiments, especially in parts of north India.
Identity rests on the notion of difference with the other(s). Yet, the other is not constant, and keeps changing. Thus, in the 18th century, the Muslims were the bete noire of the Sikhs. In the late 19th century, the `Arya Hindus' took their place. A century later, the British colonial state became the predominant antagonist.
At the time of Partition, the `Muslim' was endowed with a new kind of otherness, especially with the imaginary fear of Sikhs being subjected to Muslim rule. Finally, the `Hindu Congress' became the principal adversary in the 1980s.
The Sangh Parivar harps on all the others, but effaces the presence of the Hindu as other in the evolution and crystallisation of a specific Sikh identity. It denies the fact that if the Sikh communities had demonised the Muslims or the Congress in the past, they did so only to protect their own cultural identity and not to consolidate the Hindutva forces. Like the Muslims, the Sikhs have resisted the Hindutva project of absorption and sameness.
The Sangh Parivar's agenda, of suppressing the contested history and identity of the Sikhs as well as the Muslims, is ahistorical. It is also a contrived agenda, for it rests on a spurious notion of Hindu identity. The political language, as echoed by Mr. Sudarshan, is neither rooted in the historians' histories nor in the diverse communitarian narratives. Finally, his comment degrades the historians' histories, and ridicules a minority's own self-image and perceptions.
The author obtained her Ph.D. from Cambridge University, England. She teaches History at Miranda House, New Delhi, India.
[Courtesy: The Hindu]
May 25, 2011
Conversation about this article
1: Prakash Singh Bagga (India), May 25, 2011, 9:15 AM.
One should understand the word "Sikh" before anyone makes an unacceptable conclusion that claims to establish the identity of Sikhs. If we critically analyze it, we would find that anyone can be a Sikh (like a Hindu on the path of Sikhi can be a 'sikh', similarly a Muslim, etc.), but a Sikh is always a Sikh only. For this very reason, Sikhs require a separate identity so that no one is able to make unacceptable remarks like this. Our younger generation should give serious attention to this aspect of Sikhism.
2: I.J. Singh (New York, U.S.A.), May 25, 2011, 12:55 PM.
Why should the divergence of Sikh and Hindu belief systems with clearer boundaries between them surprise anyone? As an example, for the first 300 years or so, Christian identity was not all that well established, and there was a very strong movement called "Jews For Jesus" that saw in Jesus the Messiah that Jews were waiting for. The movement still exists though it is small - a shadow of what it once was. I am flattered that some Hindus, like Sudarshan, want to enfold Sikhism in the stultifying embrace of Hinduism. Why not just let Sikhs define what they are and Hindus define what they are without trying to encroach on each other's beliefs or practices? Why not let us Sikhs define ourselves as WE see fit? Why must they try to engulf us in their embrace against our wishes? That seems, to me, not a loving embrace but a suffocating one and their reasoning purely asinine.
3: Gurdip Singh Chana (London, United Kingdom), May 25, 2011, 2:48 PM.
Counter attack. Simple. I've read historical texts of renaissance periods throughout our history where our Sikh brotherhood grew in many numbers. I remember Bhai Kahn Singh's visit to the South of India; people embracing Sikhi in such far flung places. Why have we Sikhs stopped? Just looking at all the photos of idols contained within this article just reminds me of the ritualistic, dogmatic, pointless, aimless, and down right superstitious faith modern Hinduism is. So c'mon, brothers and sisters; encourage the Hindus to become Sikhs. Sikhi has the potential to spread all over India as it is the complimentary solution to the needs of Hindus (not stopping short at all of humanity but I don't want to sound like a missionary!)
4: Brijinder Singh (New York, U.S.A.), May 25, 2011, 8:26 PM.
Indeed, the motive is intriguing. It is rather clever to absorb new ideas and repackage them under the same label. The Hindus consider Buddha to be a reincarnation of Vishnu. It was Buddha that coined the idea of Karma as Hindus claim their own today. Which is the accumulation of good or bad deeds. Guru Nanak progressed this idea by stating that one obtains good karma by living in accordance with Hukam. When achieved, one obtains a state of moksha while still alive. Sikhs call it jivan mukti and Buddhists call it Nirvana. The end goal is similar, but the process to achieve it is different. Buddha also championed vegetarianism, whereas animal sacrifice was common in early Hinduism. The Hindu justification for changing practice is that all ideas are facets of a single truth. Curiously, the one facet that has not changed in Hinduism is the purported superiority of the Brahmin and the deities. The latter is referenced in gurbani, but only in a figurative sense. I think the intent of the Gurus was to use terminology that could be understood by the common man. Much like how Buddha used Vedic Sanskrit words, but applied them in a new context. To explain Waheguru, Guru Nanak had to reference what the people understood.
5: Balbir Singh (Germany), May 26, 2011, 2:07 AM.
God's Hukam is the path. Sikhs as well as Hindus are in His Hukam.
6: J.S.H. (Bangalore, India), May 26, 2011, 5:57 AM.
Ironical thing is: it was first published in the newspaper, "The Hindu" :-)
7: Devinder Singh (India), May 26, 2011, 6:51 AM.
The original rehat was verbally communicated by the Tenth Master, Guru Gobind Singh to the Five Beloved Ones in 1699 and was transmitted orally thereafter. Written versions ascribed to Bhai Nand Lal, Bhai Desa Singh, Bhai Daya Singh, Bhai Chaupa Singh and others started appearing ten years after the passing of the Master. The official version was produced in 1936 after consulting 37 rehatnamas and the works of scholars like Bhai Gurdas. Obviously to "standardize" a path when the Guru himself permitted a wide variation during his life is counterproductive. Bhai Nand lal, a poet and scholar in Persian who adorned the court of the Guru as one of the 'navratans', did not take amrit. Was he any less respected as a follower of Sikhi? It was internal rehat he laid stress on, as much as on the outward form - that is, on the conquest of desire, greed, attachment, anger and lust; of surrender to His will; of remembrance of the Divine.
8: Sangat Singh (Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia), May 26, 2011, 8:12 PM.
This has been the perennial claim since the birth of mankind: "My Talibans are better than yours!". This was Waheguru's playful, deliberate manufacturing defect since the Adam and Eve days, who have since not stopped arguing. Let's see how Guru Nanak dealt with this issues with the Hajis of his time. "Baba akhay hajia shub amla bajhu dona roey" - "It does not matter what garb you wear: Your righteous conduct will determine your admission to His Court." [Bhai Gurdas]. The same question was asked of Guru Gobind Singh ji when Bahadur Shah came on the throne with Guru's timely help. He was invited for Bahadur Shah's coronation. This historic meeting gook place on 23rd July, 1702 in Agra. The Guru was received with honour and given the title of "Hind Ka Pir" (The Saint of India). One day, while discussing religion, the Emperor stated that if anyone were to repeat the Kalima - the Muslim creed - he would be saved from hell. On hearing this, Guru gave a rupee to the Emperor's attendant and asked him to go and buy some sugar. The attendant came back empty-handed, saying that he had visited at least half a dozen shops but none would accept the rupee as it was counterfeit. "But, the rupee bore the monarch's image!" said the Guru. "Yes, that is true but if the coin is base, despite the monarch's image, it has no value." Bahadur Shah got the message loud and clear. The merit of the coin was in its intrinsic value and not on the image it sported. When I related this to my good friend Inderjit, his quick repartee was "Oye, don't throw the coin away. Use it for matha tekna in the gurdwara where the Guru would accept "khotay sang keray". See the devil at work, citing scriptures for his purpose!
9: Baljit Singh Pelia (Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.), May 29, 2011, 2:01 PM.
It is interesting to see the debate that is going on with regards to defining and re-defining Sikhism. Ever since the days of the founding father, Guru Nanak, the liberated and evolved minds of the time have aligned to his school of thought regardless of the prevalent faith of the rulers. The Hindus called him Guru Nanak Dev, the Muslims called him Hazrat Guru Nanak and the world calls him Baba Nanak. Alternately, the rulers all along have brutally opposed and oppressed this new religion and it's institutions because it challenges their lawlessness, forced conversions and the domination of a people. This opposition cost the Mughal rulers dearly in spelling their ultimate demise and downfall at the hands of the Khalsa. The revolution under the leadership of Banda Singh Bahadar uprooted the foundation of the Mughal rule. The spoils of the weakened Mughal rule were picked up by the British invading from the southeast whilst India's indigenous Raj Khalsa was pre-occupied in the north trying to plug the hole at the Hindu Kush. They had not only repelled the invaders but tamed them to the extent that they resorted to wearing women's garb as a sign of capitulation. In the short forty years of empire building, Punjab under the leadership of Ranjit Singh had developed a formidable empire that stopped the British in their tracks. This is what the people of the land were capable of under the banner of the governing body of the Khalsa and the spiritual guidance of the wisdom of Guru Granth Sahib. Need I mention that the term 'Hindu' was a derogatory term coined by the invading forces of Babar to define the pagan, idol, animal worshipping, non-believers and superstitious cults of the sub-continent. Mr. Sudarshan and others alike would be well served if they would apprise themselves of their history.