Sikhs and Sikhism: A View With A Bias: I.J. Singh

Sikhs and Sikhism
A VIEW WITH A BIAS.

Digitized by the Internet Archive
In 2022 with funding from
Kahle/Austin Foundation
https://archive.org/details/sikhssikhismviewO0OOsing
SIKHS AND SIKHISM
A VIEW WITH A BIAS
SIKHS AND SIKHISM
A VIEW WITH A BIAS
SECOND EDITION
I. J. SINGH
ie
ithe
The Centennial Foundation

Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data
Singh, LJ.
Sikhs and Sikhism : a view with a bias
ISBN 1-894232-00-3
1. Sikhism. I. Title.
BL2018.S515 1998 294.6 C98-900492-9
First published 1994

by Manohar Books, Delhi, India, for distribution in India; Reprinted
1995, 1997; and
by South Asia Books, Columbia, MO, USA, for distribution in North
America; Reprinted 1995, 1997.
Revised edition published in 1998

by the Centennial Foundation, Guelph, Canada, 1998; Reprinted 2002.
THE AUTHOR
I. J. Singh was born in Gujranwala (now in Pakistan), and educated at

Simla and Amritsar. He went to the United States in 1960 ona
Fellowship awarded by the Murry and Leonie Guggeheim Foundation.
He was awarded the Ph.D. in Anatomy by the University of Oregon
Medical School and a D.D.S. degree by Columbia University. At
present, he is Professor of Anatomy at New York University.
We are grateful for the generous support of the sponsors of the
Baisakhi 299 project, of which the publication of this book is a
part:
Balcorp Limited
Bank of Nova Scotia
Canaccord Capital Corporation
Eglinton Carpet Corporation
Jobal Industries Limited
Malton Trade and Employment Centre
Vi
CONTENTS
|S te SUS Tel 245)

510 ea a ae oe) SO ee 1x
PCP aCe at SECON BLULIOM Pina ha. ScGd8 Jean She, Ween
io ack x1
Iniroductonme—— First PGition , « vascb s'cesca cocess Bineshontns xiii
Introduction = Second Edition... os Qed es uiadenun oaks XV
Brolocticrand a Little History: ), ess cia. ee ee. Ke
Chapter
] On being and BecOmme aA gIKN.... a, hs cee es es l
EPion Sime | OLE COUT fh dene 6 wath Se is eee ay 5
oval TOR Ad oeascONS. ssh cxtce eke ees Cah oe ne ee 9
LSE ROOTS Eee MSIL
R S ese ek ein eee ie es 13
liadinonsor Habits of ine Heart. ac. a ea suyci, ees oh 23
ae eae
ck 7 ti
Tie ViTiDOlsOr Aten Ave sta Se Zo
Wy tise Pleat vyOLIN icetaaeer. crs setter oe a cs 35
Life and Death — Some Random Thoughts............. 39
WN
FW
nN
A Parshad:the Mystical
Omer Communion? 44.5 .s6..5 f40%.. 0% 45
Wrilduls stauvalic, enh on wrk yee ee ae Pa ee eG Ves sy49
NG oiKel WiAtliage CallAncl Wdtal) ve mee ces ont se. ale. ss 53
BOOU tTADOOS tit oIKDISIN aa 0.0 estan. say eee re wn cas 59
NV Renilcid Siki enenaias toein Oh gece Muha aaanohe id oa Gems 65
CONG UL Walas as NUISCIICR sins Grea es yet eer ts tas oe 123
The Grant: Priest, Rabbi or Minister? ........ 0.2.5... He
Onaine Politico ol Crud warns... tattctemiet muerte cues 85
NA Religion and Politics — What a Mix!..............005. 93
ee
CO
K&
WON
Hh
NA
Vii
SIKH AND SIKHISM: A VIEW WITH A BIAS
18 Khalistan? One Sikh’s: View a... eto ee eee 99

19 Identity and Intesrationy sg. see rir eee
eee eee 107
20 Dissent-and Prior Restraint) as eee is
Zl TurnOn; Tune In, Drop Out air... acral
er ee li
oe Some, Thoughts on Racisin and Sexicin garners
ee 127
23 Men and Women: Sex, Sexuality and Some
Gender Issues ch swaee tree See ee ee 133
24 Environmental and Ecological Concerns in Sikhism ..... 145
Ppiulogueé:. 247 3% Sach So see os See ae a 149
GIOSSAary sist 2 eee ee ee ee ee 153
Viil
PREFACE
FIRST EDITION
Of the many journeys that life requires, of the many places to visit and
of the many pilgrimages that one must make, to travel within is to trav-
el the furthest. It is the most lonely path, a never-ending one, yet in-
comparable and seductive in its winding loveliness; to paraphrase
Frost, the woods are indeed lovely, dark and deep. One must travel
within to understand and master what lies without.
The institutions that sustain us, whether religious or secular, de-
fine for us the world outside in terms of the universe within us.
The essays in this collection define an ordinary Sikh’s journey into

the mystery and reality of Sikhism while living in a predominantly
non-sikh milieu. Since a man, in many ways, is shaped by his heritage,
these essays present one Sikh’s meandering through the highways and
byways of his heritage. A journey that is, at once, tortuous and ardu-
ous, endless yet satisfying, but above all, is a journey of love. The es-
says present a non-scholarly view of the Sikh way of life.
In these writings, therefore, rational, intellectual conceptualiza-

tions are avoided as an unnecessary indulgence; they are better left to
scholars. The opinions expressed are my responsibility and are indic-
ative of my biases, yearnings, defeats, successes and excesses. Hope-
fully, my views can be supported by references to Sikh sources of
authority whether scriptural, historical or anecdotal; however, such au-
thoritative underpinnings for the arguments presented are deliberately
kept to a minimum. The essence of writing is best expressed by T.S.
Eliot: “Common words exact without vulgarity, formal words precise
but not pedantic.” Many of the essays are somewhat terse, others are
rambling. I wish they could have all been shorter for words should be
weighed, not counted.
ix
My mother taught me that the reality of religion transcends logic.

From my father I learned to enjoy the intellectually rigorous approach
to Sikhism. It took me half a life-time to realize that the appreciation
and understanding of Sikhism requires that it be accosted both devo-
tionally and analytically; either technique alone remains insufficient.
Thinking about these matters was not always easy or comfortable

but in the end, it was satisfying. Living and working with friends and
foes alike resulted in this effort. The former made it possible, the latter
made it necessary; I am grateful to both. Jerry Barrier has been a most
encouraging source of support. I deeply appreciate his kindness as well
his generous “Introduction” to these essays.
The question must be asked: Why write? It is a luxury, a form of

self-indulgence but it remains the most precise and economical way of
examining oneself as minutely and microscopically as one’s inclina-
tions and talents allow. A good mirror can reflect with brutal honesty.
In many ways these essays are talks with my father and daughter
that could not occur.
I. J. Singh
New York
January 1, 1993
PREFACE
SECOND EDITION
The response, particularly of young Sikhs, to this book since it was

first published in 1994 has indeed been one of the most exhilarating
experiences of my life. The book was reprinted in 1995 and again in
1997. Through the efforts of T. Sher Singh, Esq and the Centennial
Foundation, this book is offered in a paperback, revised, second edi-
tion. A major change is the addition of a new essay on Men and Wom-
en: Sex, Sexuality and Some Gender Issues. \ had briefly touched upon
this in one of my earlier essays, but the subject is such that it demanded
a longer provocative piece. So one has been added, less to provide an-
swers and more to generate discussion and debate. It is, I believe, in
discussion and debate that we sharpen our focus, define our goals and
hone our skills. J am most grateful to Sher and his associates at the
Foundation for their generous support and encouragement.
I. J. Singh
New York University
March 10, 1998
xl
INTRODUCTION
FIRST EDITION
My encounters with Sikhs and their religion have provided me with

some of the most exciting and meaningful experiences of my personal
and intellectual life. Often the same encounters, however, have been
accompanied by frustration and tension, mixed with bewilderment at
times engendered by the seemingly enormous gaps between how Sikhs
view the world around them and my outsider’s prospective.
This volume of essays deals with the type of issues that have en-
riched and occasionally confounded a general understanding of Sikhs
in the modern world. Dr. I. J. Singh’s honest discussions of tradition,
current practices, and contemporary controversies marks a new depar-
ture in literature on the recent Sikh experience. Scholarly and quasi
scholarly studies on some of the topics abound, as does the polemical
literature in the form of books and issues of important periodicals such
as the Sikh Review and the World Sikh News. None, however, attempt
to address such a wide range of the Sikh religion and lifestyle as his
reflections. There is a parallel between the work of Teja Singh M.A.,
a scholar and teacher in the 1920s, and the essays of Dr. I. J. Singh, a
self-trained commentator on the Sikh experience. |) Both lived in tran-
sitional periods. Teja Singh wrote extensively to explain Sikhism to a
broad audience while at the same time aiming much of his discussion
at the many factions and controversial figures surrounding him within
the Sikh community. I. J. Singh does the same. Those without prior or
limited knowledge of the Sikh heritage can learn much from his clearly
written studies, but embedded within the essays is a very rich set of
ideas and interpretations that should make sense to Sikhs in a variety
of social and cultural settings.
Xill
The essays have grown out of I. J. Singh’s attempt to deal with his
own heritage while working and living within a cultural context quite
different from his Punjabi roots. There have been several waves of
Sikh immigrants in North America. The first group, in the thousands,
primarily came to work in Western Canada and along the West coast
of America. They settled as farmers, transferring institutions from the
Punjab, and adapting as best they could to a new culture. By the 1920s:
severe limits on their constitutional and immigration rights led many
of these Sikhs either to return to India or to loose much of their attach-
ment to Punjab culture and their religious traditions. 2) A second wave
of immigration began in the late 1940s, students and professionals who
settled and in many ways became American. Although aware of their
religious roots, many of those Sikhs were not as concerned about sym-
bols and the details of doctrine as were some of their compatriots in the
Punjab who for political and religious reasons felt threatened and
therefore had a need to police boundaries separating them from other
religions, particularly Hinduism. As the author indicates in the pro-
logue, they developed a hybrid culture but remained in religion Sikh.
There followed new generations of immigrations, with varied views of
the past and a tendency to quarrel over politics and issues.
All these Sikhs, of whatever group and ideology, share to some ex-
tent the same concerns that I. J. Singh clearly voices in his essays. The
first revolve around what it means to be a Sikh, to constantly search for
truth and to evaluate a learned tradition against a changing backdrop
of cultural and psychological challenge. There are distinct signposts
and symbols, which he discusses (the Guru, the Guru Granth Sahib,
the historical Gurus and teachers, physical and mental discipline), but
often these are discussed and made flesh in very particular institutional
settings. Especially valuable are I. J. Singh’s attempts to compare
Sikhism with other religions and his appeal, reflected in several es-
says, that concern with boundaries and “true religion” not get in the
way of the basic humanity and sense of service and love found in early
Sikh traditions. A second section deals with Sikh practice, ranging
from distinctive approaches to baptism and marriage to taboos on spe-
cific foods and approaches to environment, sexuality, and race rela-
X1V
INTRODUCTION — FIRST EDITION
tions. A third group deals with politics, either internal as demonstrated

often in struggles within gurudwaras, or the ongoing debate over Kha-
listan and how Sikhism can be protected in particular political settings.
Many Sikhs may not agree with some of I. J. Singh’s assessments,

but that really does not matter either to him or to the overall value of
the interpretations. The toleration and openness expressed in his es-
says are necessary components of the Sikh tradition. Without such at-
titudes, individual Sikhs and organizations can never transcend
parochial roots and rightly claim Sikhism’s place as a major world re-
ligion. Hopefully the essays will challenge the community to rethink
its divisions, its past, and options for the future.
For the more general audience, I. J. Singh introduces many key

components of Sikh religion and culture in lay language. He does not
claim to be a technically trained scholar of Sikh religion, but his judge-
ments make sense and reflect decades of debating issues and making
sense of sometimes complex concepts and institutions. Whether in the
form of a sermon, as for instance ““A Man for All Seasons’, or a clear
evaluation of the nature of parshad and ritual, his discussions should
help make Sikhism more accessible to those outside the faith.
Why write and publish such often personal essays? The answer re-
ally lies on how I. J. Singh has handled the various transitions in his
life. One way to try to understand what has been happening to him and
Sikhs around him is to attempt to capture ideas and feelings in written
form. By examining his own development, he has helped us all under-
stand not only one individual but the culture, the conflicts, and the rich
tradition inherent among Sikhs in North America today.
N. Gerald Barrier
Professor of History
University of Missouri
December 26, 1992
XV
NOTES
[3 General intellectual issues reviewed in the proceedings of the To-

ronto Sikh Conference, Sikh History and Religion, ed. Joseph
O’Connell, et al (University of Toronto South Asia Centre, 1989).
NO Immigration and consequent challenges discussed in the essays in

N.G. Barrier and Van Dusenbery, eds., The Sikh Diaspora (South
Asia Publications, 1990). For monographic assessment of particu-
lar groups and time periods, Bruce LaBrack, The Sikhs of Northern
California (AMS, 1990) and Karen Leonard, Making Ethnic
Choices (Temple University Press, 1992).
The challenges confronting modern Sikhism discussed in essays

by specialists in Jack Hawley and Gurinder Singh Mann, eds.
Studying the Sikhs (SUNY Press, 1993).
XVi
INTRODUCTION
SECOND EDITION
Sikhism is a practical religion. Sikhs are a practical, down-to-earth

people.
The absence of a priesthood or any form of brokerage between

God and creation; the direct access to the scriptures written in the ver-
nacular; the passionate and unwavering monotheism; the rejection of
monasticism and the stress on family life and community obligations;
the concept of the sant sipahi, the well-rounded individual; the abhor-
rence of the multi-tiered caste system; the demolition of every tradi-
tional excuse used to perpetuate gender bias; the three pillars of Sikhi:
naam japnaa/prayer, kirat karni/work, wund chaknaa/charity; meeri/
peeri: the balance of the spiritual with the temporal; the cultivation of
chardi kalaa, the art of eternal optimism; the aspiration to man neevan,
mat uchi: wisdom, grounded in humility; and the ultimate goal of sa-
haj/equipoise in every aspect of life — all of these elements constitute
a religion of the people, by the people, for the people.
Sikhs have a great regard for scholarship into the history, philoso-
phy and culture of their faith. And recent years have witnessed a resur-
gence of study and research which might yet lead to another
renaissance reminicent of the Singh Sabha movement of the last turn
of the century.
But while there continues to be a dire need for ongoing scholar-

ship, the greatest value lies in the study and interpretation of the Faith
by the actual practitioner, that is, by the one who stands where the pro-
verbial rubber hits the road.
XVii
Scholarly works are meant to assist in the practice of one’s faith,

not to replace it. Many are the dangers in getting overly pre-occupied
in and distracted by philosophical niceties and historical details, and
losing sight of the real goal: to move along on the spiritual path.
LJ. Singh’s SIKHS & SIKHISM: A VIEW WITHA BIAS is, as the
title bluntly acknowledges, an individual’s celebration of his faith: the
way he sees it, interprets it, practices it. He is indeed a scholar in his
chosen field of professional endeavour, which is not Sikh or religious
studies. However, it is his observations as a practitioner of the Sikh
Faith and his willingness to share his personal struggles and affirma-
tions that will prove most valuable to the reader.
The project that the author has undertaken — a self-examination

of why he is a Sikh, and his view of the world from that perspective —
is an ideal exercise that every Sikh goes through, or should go through,
from time to time.
We may or may not agree with some or all of the things the author
says. But the real value lies in the exercise itself and in the sharing of
the product, not in seeking a general consensus on the views expressed
therein. He does not claim authority. Neither does he ever suggest he
has found the “truth”.
Truth, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. It is therefore a

pleasure to see Sikhi through the eyes of this enlightened and articulate
beholder. It is not a perspective that needs endorsement by any institu-
tion or organization. In fact, the very strength of the exercise lies in the
fact that the Sikh Faith permits, nay, encourages such personal seeking
and searching. After all, the Sikh is but a learner, a student, a pupil, a
disciple a.
The Centennial Foundation, as part of its mandate to commemo-

rate the Centennial of the first Sikh settlement in Canada (1897-1997),
and as part of its preparation for the oncoming Baisakhi Tercentenary
(1699-1999), has chosen to publish this revised (second) edition of the
book. It proudly presents it to the community at large, not as an en-
dorsed or definitive work — I.J. Singh’s contribution would only be
XViil
INTRODUCTION — SECOND EDITION
belittled if it was reduced to an “approved” or “official” treatise — but

as food for thought.
If it generates a dialogue in every household that it finds its way

into, what greater result could we hope for?
Wishing you, dear reader, a happy Baisakhi 299!

Canada
April 1998
Kix
Pde RSs fa dines
se a
PROLOGUE AND A LITTLE HISTORY
In this preamble there is a little nostalgia and some history. In a round-

about manner, it is also the raison d’etre for the essays that follow.
There have been three significant migrations of Sikhs to this coun-

try, and a fourth presence now. Sikhs came here before the turn of the
century over a hundred years ago. This was brought home to me over
thirty years ago when driving around Portland, Oregon, I came across
a sign, “Panjab Tavern.” Curious, I stopped. There was an old lady be-
hind the bar. Obviously pleased to see a Sikh, she talked about her
youth 50 years earlier when Sikhs had lived in that area. I found out
that the wild West was not tamed by the likes of John Wayne alone;
Sikhs had a hand in opening it, as also in the building of the Panama
canal. Good farmhands and excellent workers, almost all of these
Sikhs moved to Canada or California, where the political climate was
more hospitable and economic opportunities more plentiful. I met one
of them in Portland. He had been in the United States over 50 years and
was then an old man in his seventies, making a precarious living driv-
ing a popcorn wagon around town. He had not seen a Sikh in many
years and insisted on taking me home for a typical Punjabi dinner. His
chappaties were irregularly polygonal but I can still vividly recall his
affection and pleasure.
Eighty or ninety years ago, the Sikh quest for an independent iden-
tity was not as well established. Also, most of the immigrant Sikhs
were poorly educated and had little understanding of their own roots.
Perhaps a rare one of these early arrivals survived as a recognizable
Sikh, although they built some gurudwaras. They were poor and un-
educated when they came but not uncaring for they spearheaded a sig-
nificant rebellion against the British (the Ghadar Party) from this
continent.
XX1
The second migration of Sikhs followed India’s independence in

1947. After the second World War the United States became preemi-
nent while opportunities in Great Britain started to dwindle. Instead of
going to Britain for higher studies, many young Sikhs started coming
to the United States, especially because of the fellowships and schol-
arships available here. This trend became particularly noticeable in the
mid fifties. Iam part of that generation. Most of us were young and sin-
gle. We were Sikhs because we came from Sikh families, many of us
were products of christian education. Certainly systematic instruction
in our Sikh roots was wanting in almost all of us. Add the fact that this
country is large, a continent where most of us found ourselves isolated,
as I did — a lone Sikh at a campus miles from anywhere. As a result,
many of these married non-Sikh fellow students and settled here. Very
few remained recognizable Sikhs. Yet a few found in that situation a
need and the opportunity to confront their own roots. Culturally they
became successful hybrids but in religion, Sikh. These few saw that
one does not value something until he has been deprived of it. They
recognized the beauty of their very liberal, pragmatic and progressive
heritage, and that to be a good Sikh and a good American were not mu-
tually exclusive ideas. I am one of that generation and these essays are
the result.
The third wave of Sikhs started coming here in the mid sixties
when immigration quotas were relaxed but most of them were already
established professionals and businessmen in India. They came with
their families to seek better opportunities. They came not because they
had to but because they chose to. That fact alone delineates them from
many of the other immigrants to this country. These Sikh families built
the institutions and the gurudwaras that we see today but their needs
are different. They have transplanted the Sikhism that they knew in In-
dia to this country but have rarely had to come to grips with their roots
as the Sikhs of the second surge. Now we are dealing with a fourth
presence which again has two parts with very divergent needs. There
are the young people, the children of the second and the third waves
who were born or, at least, primarily raised here. Many of them have
a better sense of the religion of their neighbors — Judaism and Chris-
tianity in all their hues — than of the one of their forefathers. Their ap-
XXil
PROLOGUE AND A LITTLE HISTORY
proach to Sikhism is also different. They think differently. They are

not afraid to challenge what they are told. Their experience of Sikhism
is less cultural and emotional, more intellectual. Culturally they are
more American than they are Indian; in religion they are Sikh. Fre-
quently, their parents cannot easily communicate the meaning of their
own heritage. Then there are the newest arrivals, often the lesser edu-
cated Sikhs and relatives who are attracted by the opportunities and by
the comforting presence of a community; they want institutions that
reflect the cocoon that nurtured and sustained them in India.
The old world Europeans often look askance at the bold and brassy
North American Yankees, and they in turn are disdainful of the Texans
who appear to have a special corner on life. To most Indians deeply
steeped in culture and tradition, Punjabis seem a lot like the Yankees
do to the Europeans, and the Sikhs unquestionably like the Texans —
generous, outer directed, loud, boisterous, somewhat larger than life.
At times, there is some scorn and laughter but there is lot more envy in
these perceptions.
Many of our raucous and disagreeable differences reflect the vari-

ety in the make up of our community. Also, political events in India,
particularly in the last eight years, have left no Sikh unaffected, no
matter where he lives. Clearly no single gurudwara or institution can
satisfy the needs of such a diverse community. The predictable result
is that we capture headlines not for the good we oft might attempt but
for our quarrelsome politics and nettlesome personalities; we seem to
spin off new gurudwaras by fission and not as a result of coherent and
thoughtful planning.
When I look back at the more than three decades that I have spent
in this country, it has been a most extraordinary odyssey. When I came
here, I was a callow youth. There were two Sikhs in New York City,
many parts of the country had none. The people sat on chairs in the one
gurudwara in Stockton, California. I returned to New York ten years
later and found perhaps 20 or 30 recognizable Sikhs. We would rent
the hall of a church school for a weekly service. The community meal
(langar) was not possible; tea and cookies were the lubricants of social
XXili
interaction. I recall when the New York congregation bought a build-

ing. The community split over the issue — the building appeared to be
so far away and so large. Would we ever have enough people to fill the
cavernous hall? Now there are six gurudwaras in the New York met-
ropolitan area. On the holy days the crowds are so enormous, it seems
the buildings are going to come apart at the seams like an egg. As im-
migration policies relaxed, many more Sikhs sought new lives here:
Each generation of Sikhs has paid its dues to this society; we have
made a home here with our blood, sweat and tears. We too have carved
a niche in the complex mosaic that is America.
When I was one of the few Sikhs in town, it was not uncommon
for a church to ask me to come and talk about Sikhism. It is always in-
teresting to see ourselves as others view us. Keep in mind that western
interest in eastern religions has rarely extended beyond myth, magic
and ritual. I also found out that I knew very little of Sikhism that I
could convey in a systematic, organized, formal manner. It seemed
that much of what I knew, I had learnt by osmosis.
These essays are an odd collection much as any life is but in a

sense they chronicle how this one individual, I, came to grips with his
heritage. They address concerns that have troubled and molded my
thinking and my life. Many of my friends will take issue with what I
say or how I say it, and I hope they do. Sikhs are a vigorous, open peo-
ple, as is their religion. There should be neither the need nor the expec-
tation of homogeneity of thought or uniformity of opinion. The
purpose here is to stir the pot of discussion and debate. Are Sikhs and
Sikh institutions ready for the twenty-first century or are they going to
be dragged into it kicking and screaming?
Sometimes I think that reason does not govern or direct us very

much when we make the most important choices in life, our criteria
transcend rational logic. Later we muster whatever intelligence we
have to justify our choices. 1am convinced this applies to the facets of
our lives that we care most deeply about — our children, our parents,
our friends and our religion.
XXIV
1
ON BEING AND BECOMING A SIKH
For over twenty years it has been gnawing at me. Some of us were sit-
ting around discussing for the umpteenth time the politics of our na-
scent gurudwara in New York. One of us — bright, young, ambitious,
highly educated, better read on Sikhism than most of us but unfortu-
nately not a recognizable Sikh — blurted out, “I am just as good a Sikh
as any of you, if not better. I have read more about it than perhaps all
of you put together.” The boast rankled me. Quick as a whip, I lashed
out: “Any Sikh who claims to be a good Sikh is not.” It sounded apt
and clever. It certainly hit the mark. Everybody laughed except the
poor target. It has been twenty years but he never spoke with me again.
Many times I have thought about that day and what it means to be a
Sikh.
A farmer dies and his farm goes to his child. A tradesman can
leave his shop and a businessman his business, to his progeny. The
shop and the profession continue. One can confer an inheritance of
millions, even a legacy of generations of Sikh history to one’s family.
One may bestow truckloads of artifacts, tons of books and libraries of
literature on Sikhism. But can one award the spirit of Sikhism to one’s
children?
There are families which have for generations treasured handwrit-

ten letters and documents by Guru Nanak, Guru Gobind Singh or oth-
ers close to the Gurus. There are many who claim to be descended
from one Guru or another. There are the so called scions of the Gurus
SIKHS AND SIKHISM: A VIEW WITH A BIAS
who travel around India from village to village collecting donations

from gullible Sikhs who feel honored by the touch of the son of a son
of a son of a son of a Guru. Can that make them good Sikhs? Can one
will the grant of Sikhism?
Isn’t it best, as Abraham Lincoln is reputed to have said, to be less

anxious about who your grandfather was and more concerned with
what his grandson is up to? If the sons of Guru Gobind Singh were
brimming with the spirit of Sikhism, it was not because they were the
sons of a Guru. Other sons of other Gurus have found no place in our
hearts or in our history. Where others had failed the sons of the tenth
Guru had assimilated the lessons of Sikhism. They had earned
Sikhism, not inherited it. The sons of Guru Gobind Singh are remem-
bered every day in our prayers not because they were sons of a Guru
but because they had worked their way into the marrow of our collec-
tive consciousness. Many other sons of other Gurus were quickly for-
gotten and merited unmarked graves.
It is true that you cannot take the material things of life with you;
you can bequeath them to your descendants, friends or a worthier
cause. If you don’t, the government might steal a chunk. But it is also
true that you cannot donate to anybody else the spirit of Sikhism that
you have integrated within yourself. One cannot inherit Sikhism for
that is not how Sikhs are made. One can be born in a Sikh household.
One can acquire the Sikh uniform. One can even learn the protocol,
formality and etiquette of the religion. All that does not make a Sikh.
The rituals that one masters remain exactly that — rituals; the uniform,
a disguise or an empty shell. Only the individual prayer and the Guru’s
grace may transform them into sacraments, and the best prayer is hon-
est self-effort.
By teaching, by example and through the Guru Granth, the Gurus

have shown the student Sikh how best to direct his individual efforts.
But each person has to discover the path by and for himself. This voy-
age of discovery is an inner journey and a lovely one which every pil-
grim must undertake on his own. The lives of the Gurus and the
teachings of the Guru Granth provide a map only. The map has to be
ON BEING AND BECOMING A SIKH
read and the path chalked by each traveler himself. And for the pilgrim
who sets foot on the seemingly lonely path honestly and boldly, the
Guru promises to show the way and provide the finest company.
It is no coincidence that the religion is called Sikhism and the fol-

lowers Sikhs — literally, students. It is a constant reminder that the
Sikh, to be true to his label, cannot afford to be anything but a student
all his life. He or she remains a student of the way of life as enunciated
by the Gurus. Quite simply then, the emphasis shifts from being a Sikh
to the developmental direction of becoming one. And the continuous,
ongoing, life-long, active process of metamorphosis — internal
change — becomes the focus.
Concomitantly, one also becomes aware that Sikhism is not now a

static or dormant discipline nor was it ever. For the two hundred years
from Guru Nanak to Guru Gobind Singh it remained in a state of con-
tinuous flux and development. Now three hundred years after Guru
Gobind Singh, Sikhism continues to grow and wrestle with new issues
that engage it — from ecology, peace and disarmament, gender and ra-
cial discrimination to the population explosion, reproductive rights
and AIDS — matters that affect us all. Not that Sikhism ever does or
should take clear, unvarying positions on many of these matters, but it
provides the Sikh a highly developed, structured sense of ethics so that
individually or collectively, he can make responsible choices in all
things. Sikhism acknowledges that many of the judgments that we
make today on these and other issues might change in time and with
individual circumstances and greater social or scientific awareness.
What does it mean to be a good Sikh? An excellent student is one

who has never yet failed an examination. But that record of success
speaks only of the past, the future is yet to be. Even the best student
will falter, and fail a test — sometimes. The glory lies not in never fall-
ing but in rising every time one falls. It is a never ending process.
There are many stages in all aspects of one’s development, be it phys-
ical, mental, psychological, spiritual or even financial. Life shows
many milestones in its path; they are like the rites of passage. In one’s
professional growth, a diploma is hardly the end of learning and grow-
ing. In reality it marks only the beginning of a life-long career, a com-

mitment in which one continues to develop as one practices the
profession over the years. A true professional can ill afford to be any-
thing but a student all his life.
By this reasoning, even the rite of confirmation in the Sikh religion

(Amrit) becomes a rite of passage, an important rung in that ladder and
a stage in the developmental process of becoming a Sikh. For a con-
firmed (Amritdhari) Sikh to become haughty or smug of his status or
self-satisfied and vain of his dedication would be unbecoming. He has
reached a recognizable, enviable and honorable rung on the ladder, but
the ladder is tall and its end nowhere in sight. While we can commend
him for his effort and progress, a little feeling for the path yet untrav-
elled would be more seemly on his part. A sense of gratitude to God
from whom all things flow coupled with a little humility is necessary
for anyone might slip.
In essence every Sikh is a convert to the religion, being born into

it merely gives one a head start on the rules and the layout of the track,
if one so chooses; it does not automatically make one into a winner.
Being a Sikh is often only an accident of birth; the developmental
process of becoming a Sikh is indeed much more significant. Sikhs are
not born but made.
2
THE SIKHS AND THEIR GURU
The Sikh religion is unusual in many ways, not the least of those is the
unique relationship of the Sikhs to their Guru. A sacred bond exists be-
tween the Sikh and the Guru. The light of God burns in all though in
most of us it is considerably dimmed by the desperation of our lives.
In the Guru, that light is bright as the sun which can give life to many
if only they are willing. Yet, the Sikh does not worship the Guru —
Nanak or Gobind Singh. Worship only the immaculate, infinite one
who is never born and never dies and is subject to no human calcula-
tions or formulations, so said the Sikh Gurus. For two hundred years,
the spark lit by Guru Nanak was fanned and more kindling was added
until it was a roaring fire of a spiritual revolution. Guru Gobind Singh
then baptized the first five Sikhs. But then he knelt before them so that
they could in turn baptize him. In a sense, he elevated them to his own
level. Yet a Sikh remains forever a ‘sikh’ —a pupil, a learner — at the
feet of his Guru.
When the time came for Guru Gobind Singh to anoint a successor,
he recognized that his followers had come a long way along the path
of self-realization from the time when Guru Nanak first ignited the
spark. He established, therefore, Guru Granth as the repository of all
spiritual authority. He also understood that many of the problems of
daily living that people will face are time-bound or culture-based and
will have to be decided by people according to the needs of the times,
but consistent with their history, spiritual heritage and tradition. There-
fore, he vested his Sikhs with all temporal authority. The mystical
presence of the Guru, therefore, manifests in the congregation in mind-

ful prayer (Sangatand) the Guru speaks to us through the Guru Granth;
the operational words here are “mindful prayer.” When the aura is
such that the joy of love, devotion and commitment meld the Sikh to
the word of the Guru Granth, then no disparity remains between the
Sikh and his Guru.
In many ways the Guru Granth is like a book of recipes or pre-

scriptions. Just reading such a book is not going to assuage the hunger
or cure any ailment. To savor the delights of the food one would have
to labor and prepare it first. The recipes in the Guru Granth can be a
panacea for one’s soul only if they are formulated and internalized.
The Guru in the granth comes alive only when the reader imbibes and
assimilates the message that he recites. For a Sikh, the Guru Granth is
a book to be read, pondered and absorbed, yet it is more than that. The
whole relationship of the Sikh to the Guru Granth serves to integrate
the man of action with his spiritual self, so that in every moment of life
and in everything he does, he acts with an awareness of the infinite
within him. Our senses cannot perceive him, and our intellect cannot
plumb his depths, yet our souls can commune with him. Yet, when I
say “Him” or “He” or in another turn of the phrase refer to God as
‘She’ or “Her,” the limitations of the English language and the paucity
of the human imagination and experience become apparent; they force
me to describe and define a lesser, partisan “god.” Many times and in
many places in the Sikh scriptures God is defined as free of form, race,
caste or gender. As the repository of all spiritual authority, to the Sikh
the Guru Granth becomes more than just another “holy book.” In that
sense, it is not like the Torah, the Bible or the Koran.
With this prelude, it is easy to understand the ceremonies and rit-

uals that serve to define the relationship between a Sikh and Guru
Granth. A Sikh starts and ends every day by appearing before his Gu-
ru. He does so by going to a meditation room in his house or a gurud-
wara or by spending a moment in meditation by himself or with
family. A reading from the Guru Granth becomes a command to guide
his day — a day to be spent in honest labor, love and sacrifice. A Sikh
THE SIKHS AND THEIR GURU
appears before his Guru as if in the court of the mightiest monarch, the
creator of us all — with humility, prayer and confidence. The rules of
behavior become simple and depend upon history, culture and com-
mon sense, not canon.
The room for the Guru Granth should be clean and free of negative
vibrations. Drugs, alcohol, tobacco or other intoxicants are not admis-
sible. The devotee appears without shoes and with covered head, Non-
spiritual, secular matters are best left outside that room. The canopy,
the vestments and other accoutrements of the Guru Granth need not be
elaborate or extravagant. They need only be clean, consistent with
one’s economic resources and reflective of one’s devotion. The best
devotion would be such reverence for the word of the Guru that it be-
comes integrated into one’s life. Temples to God can remain God-like
only if they stay simple in keeping with the resources of the people,
else they become monuments to the ego of the builders. Only a lesser
god would have very elaborate needs and he or she would not be de-
serving of worship.
The atmosphere surrounding the Guru Granth should be such that

it compels one to immerse oneself in the word and presence of God.
Extraneous conversation and activity would be a distraction. Monetary
or other offerings should be presented with devotion and not thrown as
if at a beggar. One must give one’s soul before one’s money finds ac-
ceptance in the house of the Guru. In a gurudwara needless interrup-
tions whether to announce lists of donors or to comment on events or
programs are unwelcome. In short, whatever robs the atmosphere of a
spirituality in which one can lose oneself is unacceptable, whatever en-
hances that aura is desirable. The Guru Granth speaks of this aura as
such that one becomes attuned to vibrations of the divine music within
the self.
Appearance before the Guru can be likened to a retreat. It should

prepare and allow one to venture forth into the secular world with spir-
its high, a mind at peace and a heart full of love and joy. Every time,
therefore, that we appear before the Guru, we renew ourselves. The
ambiance and the worship must be such as to transform the galloping
restless mind so that it can, if only for a trice, become one with the in-
finite; where traditions, history and human hopes merge; where the
past, present and future come together in an endless moment.
THE MAN FOR ALL SEASONS
The Sikhs have some remarkably different and contradictory ways of

looking at their Gurus. Their religion says that God is free from the cy-
cle of human birth, hence is never born nor dies. We also believe that
God speaks to us through the Gurus and their teaching. What then of
the divinity of the Gurus from Nanak to Gobind Singh? If Jesus was
the son of God, how about Guru Nanak or Guru Gobind Singh? For
that matter, how about you and I? When Guru Arjan and Guru Tegh
Bahadur were martyred, did they feel the pain? Did Guru Gobind
Singh suffer the loneliness of war and desertion, and the anguish of ev-
ery parent when he lost his sons in battle?
These and other questions were brought home to me two or three

years back. I had been asked to formulate a series of questions based
on a book on Guru Gobind Singh for a discussion group. One general
question asked: “What kind of a man was he?” Some Sikhs who had a
preview of the questionnaire took offence. Guru Gobind Singh, they
insisted, should not be referred to as a man for he was divine. My
words were blasphemy to them. I hid behind a verse of Bhai Nandlal,
a poet who knew and traveled with Guru Gobind Singh and referred
affectionately and reverently to the Guru as “A man — nonpareil.”
We recognize at a certain level of awareness that men like Jesus,

Nanak, Gobind Singh were special — beyond human understanding
— so much so that we unnecessarily free them of all human experienc-
es, particularly those that are universally recognized as painful or nox-
ious. The epitome of such reasoning is seen in Christianity, where in

order to emphasize the uniqueness of Jesus, theologians have recast his
birth and death in terms which deny him his humanity. To be virgin-
born is not human, nor is it to be raised from the dead. The claim of
virgin birth is not unique to Christianity; it is found much earlier in
Egyptian mythology and in the life of Buddha as well. Similar reason-
ing is encountered when Christ is viewed as the only son of God, be-
gotten not made like you or I. If God does not assume human forms,
such claims cannot be taken literally. It seems to me that as sons or
daughters of God you and I are no less, the difference between Jesus
and us may lie in the inadequacy of our lives and surely it is a quantum
difference. In Guru Gobind Singh’s words, God said to him: “I ordain
you as my son. Go forth .. .”. Such words in Christianity and in
Sikhism need to be interpreted with some sensitivity and intelligence
not transliterated. In very blunt language, Gobind Singh also directed
his followers not to worship him as God.
Such claims as we make on behalf of our prophets and seers are

merely indicative of our own very human inadequacies and insecuri-
ties. These claims are unnecessary, and to dismiss them would not di-
minish any great men of God. The uniqueness of Christ, Buddha,
Nanak or Gobind Singh lies in how they lived and what they taught,
not in how or where they were born or what happened to them after
they died.
If at martyrdom Guru Arjan and Tegh Bahadur felt no pain then

they did not suffer. If they did not suffer as we lesser mortals do, what
can they tell us about human suffering? How can they show us the
way? Christ was not without suffering when he wailed: “Father, why
have thou forsaken me?” When Guru Arjan was tortured 1600 years
later, he felt the pain though he did not lament his suffering. God the
Father had not abandoned him. Instead, Guru Arjan essentially said:
“Thy will be done.” His words at that time were of cheerful acceptance
of the will of God and the wish always to be imbued with the love of
God. Guru Gobind Singh saw his two young teenaged sons go to war,
never to return. He knew when his two younger sons were bricked up
10
alive but did not recant their faith. His answer speaks of the man:
“What if Ihave lost four sons, there are countless more.” He was point-
ing to his followers then. Surely, he knew a father’s pain. Certainly,
the Gurus shared our human experience but were able to transcend it.
Otherwise, they would have little to show us and nothing to teach us.
If they felt no pain, what can they tell us about it? If they faced no
temptation, they can hardly teach us how to manage ours.
On the other hand, I look at the political divisions and factions in

our young Sikh community. I have come to see how difficult it is to
knit our vibrant Sikhs into a unified group and lead them towards a
common goal in a single direction. The Gurus created a pride of lions,
not a flock of sheep — a nation of individuals, fearless and not afraid
to go alone. Yet, these same Sikhs who follow no man, willingly and
freely followed their Gurus through pain, suffering, war and often to
certain death; and now hundreds of years later, in the name of their Gu-
rus, they still walk that road and the extra mile. I wonder if there can
be a more vivid proof of the Gurus’ divinity. I think in fruitless argu-
ments about the humanity or divinity of the Gurus we miss or devalue
the essential elements of their teaching.
The core of Sikh teaching — how to live and die with dignity -had
to be taught by example. Mere words would lose relevance with time.
The Gurus taught that salvation does not lie in renunciation but in a life
of involvement as a householder. Marry, have a family, make an hon-
est living, share the rewards of life with your fellow beings, and spend
a life with your mind attuned to the infinite reality within. In a life de-
voted to truth, be prepared to lay your life on the line for honesty, in-
tegrity and honor. These are the essentials of a useful, productive life.
The Gurus taught that empowerment of a people occurs only when

they have learned the essentials of a good, centered life where God is
sought through a responsible, ethical life of honest self-effort and ser-
vice to mankind. The inner life must be consistent with and effortlessly
merged with the external reality of action in the society and this world.
Worship no one but the infinite within, serve no master but truth, live
a productive life within the community, taught the Gurus. Truth and
11
truthful living were the first lessons of Sikhism that Guru Nanak gave.
He taught the way to responsible, ethical, honest family life. By exam-
ple and by teaching the Gurus rejected the caste system, elevated
women to equal status, taught people to share, and so on.
The Gurus lived at a time and in a society where life and liberty of
a non-Muslim were not safe. Practices such as the caste-system, fe-
male infanticide and sati dominated Hinduism. A multi-dimensional
struggle for a just society was necessary. However, much as one does
not entrust a bankbook to a child or a car to one who cannot drive, Nan-
ak did not ask his followers to take up arms against tyranny and injus-
tice. The followers had to develop the maturity, judgement, and
discipline for that. Before you pick up a weapon you must know what
it is to die. Before you acquire power you must learn what it is to be
powerless, lest you become a despot. To command one must learn to
serve. Each Guru added a chapter to this book of lessons started by
Nanak; each lesson added another dimension to the Sikh — the new
man, a man for all seasons.
But it is one thing to preach and quite another to do. The Gurus
therefore, lived what they taught. Now as long as Sikhs remember their
history, they will retain the lessons.
The Gurus had shown what it is to lead a life of service. Guru Ar-
jan and Tegh Bahadur had shown how to die with dignity for a princi-
ple. Guru Hargobind and Gobind Singh could now ask this new man
— the mature Sikh — to maintain weapons but use them only if abso-
lutely necessary for justice. By the time that the Sikh was given the
power of a giant he had learned not to use it like one. Guru Gobind
Singh’s life was a demonstration-lesson on what it is to be completely
human and a complete man in all of human dimensions — a man for
all seasons.
Not so long ago when my hundredth research publication ap-

peared in print, I felt proud as a peacock. To me and my friends it was
quite a landmark. But what is the measure of a man? Guru Gobind
Singh showed a different yardstick. He lived the family life, married
1?
and had children. His children turned out well for none betrayed him
but lived a life of rectitude, nobility, character and bravery. What more
can a father ask? Guru Gobind Singh was an accomplished soldier and
a General. He created a productive, fearless and honest nation out of
powerless people at the fringes of society. He created leaders out of or-
dinary men and then subjected himself to the will of his followers. He
created a nation and then credited his followers for all that he had ac-
complished. His door was open to the powerless as well as the elite of
the day. What greater administrative skills and dedication to the public
good can one have? He was a philosopher, a writer, a poet extraordi-
naire. To pen over a thousand pages of verse in a variety of languages
is no mean achievement. To dictate the whole Guru Granth — all 1430
pages — from memoty is no ordinary skill. A connoisseur of the arts,
52 poets and many musicians sought his patronage. Guru Gobind
Singh’s life illustrated all the dimensions of the human existence. And
he lived for only 42 years — an age at which many of us are still find-
ing ourselves. Where most of us once dead are soon forgotten, three
hundred years after Guru Gobind Singh people argue about whether he
was divine. Now that is a yardstick for the measure of a man.
The concept of original sin is not found in Sikhism, nor the idea
that woman is conceived any differently — from Adam’s rib, for in-
stance — or is any less. In the Sikh view human birth is special for in
the human condition man can aspire to be divine. Sikhism is a religion
of joy, not of sin. Human birth is not a fall from grace but not to fulfill
its potential and its destiny would be. Knowledge is not sin, its abuse
and misuse would be sinful. The sin is not in being human but in not
becoming all we can be as humans.
“Man is a useless passion” Sartre claimed. Sikhism would pas-

sionately disagree. Sikhism holds for a state of impermeable equanim-
ity like that achieved by a candle in a windless place, where one is in
tune with the vibrations of divine music — suffused by bliss, undimin-
ished by joy or sorrow, loss or gain, unaffected by the slings and ar-
rows of outrageous fortune. The ultimate measure of one’s divinity lies
in one’s humanity. To be completely human by developing all that is
13
human and noble is to become divine. That is the only divinity, the
only eternity, the only immortality open to man. To be more is not pos-
sible, to be any less is not to be fully human but to remain incomplete.
14
THE ROOTS OF SIKHISM
I think it was the historian Toynbee who said that Vedantic and Judaic
disciplines — the two great religious systems of the world — met in
northern India. Collided would be more like it. Their confrontation
spawned a new order — Sikhism — which has some elements of each
but in other matters, rejects both. Toynbee saw in Sikhism a synthesis
of the best of the two noble religious systems. Most Sikhs look at their
religion not as a philosophy of synthesis but as a new, revealed religion
with little debt to the existing traditions.
Clearly, religions or any philosophic systems for that matters do

not arise in a vacuum. A novel, fresh way of living must reflect on the
old even if only to reject it but in that process becomes influenced by
what is rejected. Therefore in most beliefs and practices, a pattern of
continuity between the old and the new is never very difficult to dis-
cern. That is no proof.that the new is merely a revamping and repack-
aging of the old, nor that it is a new superstructure constructed entirely
or primarily on the old substructure. Some historians spend lifetimes
counting bricks to see which ones or how many in the foundation of
Sikhism are from the old edifice, others expend their energy denying
in toto the existence of any old masonry in the new institution.
Even the most radical new design must derive in some part from
the pre-existing one even though in some fundamentally new ways.
All new life emerges from the old and revolutions do not occur in a
void. In the final analysis, the proof of how new is new rests with how
15
revolutionized, changed, charged or new do the believers feel. If both

Hindus and Muslims lay claim to some features of Sikhism (as they
do), that is a compliment to the Sikhs and their dynamic, young reli-
gion. Nobody wants to assert a kinship with one not admired. And
such contentions do not detract from the revolutionary or the revealed
nature of Sikhism though many Sikhs would like to disavow any con-
nection to the old roots, whether Semitic or Hindu Vedantic.
Like the semitic religions — Judaism, Christianity and Islam —

Sikhism is a religion of the Book, Hinduism is not. Where Hinduism
has a virtual army of gods and goddesses, Sikhism is like Judaism —
strictly monotheistic. The Judaic God is an immanent God and an an-
gry, wrathful, revengeful one. With Christianity came a transforma-
tion and humanization of this God into a loving, forgiving father
image. Because of the plethora of gods and goddesses, the Hindu God
is not so easily defined but is probably transcendental in nature. The
Sikh concept of God is one who is both immanent and transcendental,
righteously just but also merciful. Where theologians and their ilk love
to write treatises, this very short treatment will have to suffice even
though it is equally unjust to the Judaic, Hindu or Sikh views of God.
Part of the problem in our understanding lies in the fact that both
Judaism and Hinduism are ancient systems with their origins lost in
antiquity. When it comes to Hinduism the historical record is even
murkier. The old, diffuse religions of mythology prevailed not only in
Greece, Norway, Rome or Egypt but similar conceptualizations were
also the underpinning of ancient Indian civilization. To me, many of
the gods and goddesses of Hinduism are not so different from the he-
roic and some not so noble figures of Greek mythology, and should be
similarly interpreted. Certainly the stories about Echo, Narcissus, Her-
cules, Aphrodite etc in Greek mythology have no literal reality. The
stories in Hindu mythology about Brahma, Indra, Shiva, Durga, Lak-
shmi, beginning of the world, even the Ramayana and the Bhagvad
Geeta are apocryphal and not meant to be literally understood. In spite
of India’s astronomical population, there are perhaps more gods and
goddesses in Hindu mythology than people.
16
In Europe however, a new religion with a defined theology —

Christianity — unrelated to the native mythology and independent of
it in origin took hold and supplanted it. Pre-Christian mythology surely
influenced many Christian beliefs and practices but it is easy to see
that the two — Greek mythology and Christianity — are distinct enti-
ties and remain so. Mythology served its purposes in helping early
man define his place in the universe. Later, the organized religion of
Christianity provided a clearer ethical framework, a more sophisticat-
ed system for defining the nature of man and his inner reality in rela-
tion to society.
In Hinduism however, a radically different kind of development

occurred. The Vedantic system was superimposed on the existing my-
thology but did not displace and replace it. Instead the religion of my-
thology became overlaid with a patina of highly sophisticated
Vedantic philosophy; the two become so inseparable that Hinduism
came to be defined through mythology. Mythology and philosophy be-
came so enmeshed in the common mind and daily practice that it be-
came well nigh impossible to identify the individual strands. That
remains true even today.
At least two major religions — Buddhism and Sikhism — devoid

of mythological baggage did originate in India. Buddhism has been
pretty much lost to its native soil although it is widely extant in many
neighboring countries. Sikhism has endured because of its discrete
theology, its proven ability to fight for survival and its distinct sym-
bols. Though under constant assault it may even be at the threshold of
a renaissance at this time.
Hinduism contends that God has taken human birth nine times and
will once again, sometime in the future. Christianity presents passion-
ate arguments for Jesus as the son of God — begotten not made. The
preamble to Sikhism defines God as one who is free of birth and death.
Worship only the one Immaculate, all pervasive Creator, not the Gurus
and not any holy book, say the Sikh Gurus. And we are all sons and
daughters of God. God is to be found neither on a mountaintop by a
recluse nor by the celibate clergyman in the service of the Church.
17
Marry, have a family and live a productive life of honest earnings and
share what you have, keeping your mind attuned to the infinite within
you.
God the creator is revealed through his creation, not to live in har-
mony with it is a sin. Ritual animal sacrifice is therefore, not right
though Sikhs are not vegetarians by any religious law. In referring to
God as the male father figure, we are limited by the paucity of lan-
guage and thought in expressing ideas. God in the Sikh view has no
gender, race, lineage or form; He is free of all physical attributes that
man can conceive. Sikhs refer to God as father, mother, brother, sister
and friend. A god who is a he or she is a lesser god not worthy of wor-
ship.
God is to be remembered not for an hour in a temple or a church

on a Sunday but must become an integral, internalized part of one’s
life, one who is never forgotten even for a moment. By analogies from
farming — “The body is the soil, good deeds the plough,” from trading
or from ordinary habits of simple people — “Make truth your prayer,
faith your prayer mat” — the message of Sikhism was simple yet di-
rect: Truth is high, higher yet is truthful living. Therefore, Sikhs do not
speak of a sabbath, a holy day of atonement or remembrance, nor do
they ascribe special significance to any day of the week or month or
any hour of the day. Any chore no matter how mundane, performed
with an awareness of the Infinite within is sacred; even the most sacred
task accomplished without that perception is profane. Similarly a day,
an hour, even a moment spent in God’s grace is sacred, else it’s wast-
ed. One cannot buy indulgences from God by asking a holy man to per-
form prayers, rituals or ceremonies on one’s behalf, no matter how
pious the priest or how expensive the ceremony.
A literal interpretation of mythology can be risky and Guru Nanak

offered a surprisingly modern view of creation when he spoke of the
void before creation, and of many galaxies and universes — without
end and innumerable. He clearly refuted as nonsense any claims to
knowing exactly what hour, day or year the world began or when it
would end.
18
Perhaps the most visible point of divergence of Sikhism from Juda-

ic philosophy lies in the concept of original sin which is not found in
the Sikh view. Sikhs believe that human life is special — a rare oppor-
tunity to serve both man and God. The human body is the mansion of
God, a temple to be maintained well and healthy. There is no room for
mortification of the flesh, whether by fasting or otherwise. The sin lies
not in living comfortably or well but in not using one’s blessings in ser-
vice to others, for that is the way to find God. To leave the world a little
better is a duty; not to try, a sin.
Sikhism asserts that the kingdom of heaven is open to all irrespec-

tive of caste, creed, sex or ethnic origin. Sexism and racism of any sort
thus become failures in the practice of Sikh teaching. Those who are at
one with God and Guru are the chosen people, not those of any partic-
ular caste, creed or ethnicity. Between man and God no middlemen ex-
ist, no brokers are necessary. This also means that the authority and the
role of the clergy are limited — defined by the scholarship and the per-
sona of the man, not by canon.
In biology hybridization is known to produce a more spirited

stock. This is true of horses as it is of people and I suspect, equally val-
id for philosophies. Whether it was the Aryans from the Caucasus, the
hordes of Alexander the Great or the innumerable invasions through
the Khyber Pass, Punjab was the fertile field for such mixtures of both
people and ideas. The Punjabi stock therefore, turned out more vigor-
ous, energetic and outgoing. So is their new ideology of Sikhism — a
religion of joy, not suffering.
When Christianity was young many Jews accepted Jesus as the

promised Messiah but remained Jews — for Jesus. Now 2000 years
later, the movement is not as strong but still exists. Sikhism is only 500
years old and if you count from the time that Guru Gobind Singh gave
it the present form, about 300 years young. Three centuries are barely
a drop in the bucket of human history. It is hardly surprising that some
followers have one leg in the boat of Hinduism and another in Sikhism.
There are many Hindus who never formally accepted Sikhism — Sin-
dhis, for instance — yet the only scriptures they read are Sikh, the only
19
house of worship they know is Sikh. Others attend both Hindu and
Sikh or Muslim and Sikh services. Christianized Muslims (Morisos) of
Africa come to mind as a parallel.
Almost from their inception Sikhs have had to fight and die for
their religion. It is no wonder that some followers practiced Sikhism at
home but remained most reluctant to be so identified publicly. Under
similar duress, the Marrano Jews remained Jews at home but outside,
adopted the rituals and the lifestyles of Christians. One intriguing his-
torical curiosity that I often saw as a child is worth noting. Since Sikhs
were always fighting for survival, many Punjabi Hindu families would
dedicate one son to Sikhism. By making one child a Sikh, they ac-
knowledged their debt to and respect for the Sikh way of life, while at
the same time they confessed the inability of the entire family to walk
that perilous path.
If Sikhism brought the idea of eventual justice — Karma — from

Hinduism, it freed the doctrine of its overtones of sexism and shackles
of the caste system. Curiously, Islam found no place for music in wor-
ship; Hinduism on the other hand, not only exalted the development of
music to a fine art but even mandated dancing girls and vestal virgins.
Sikhism like Christianity recognized the ability of music to move peo-
ple to a spiritual high minus, of course, the dancing girls. In Hinduism
congregational worship is unimportant; much more significant —
even to the exclusion of everything else — is private meditation. Juda-
ism with its two children — Christianity and Islam — emphasized
much more the social aspect of man’s obligation and congregational
worship became supreme. Sikhism recognizes the worth of both. Pri-
vate meditation is important for it allows man to discover the truth
within. Congregational worship is necessary for it defines man in
terms of the universe outside of him. In the Sikh view, the mystical
presence of God pervades a congregation in mindful prayer; such a
congregation remains in Sikh doctrine the supreme source of all tem-
poral authority.
The essence of a Sikh life could be summarized as having three

important aspects, like the legs of a stable stool: a life of honest work,
20
honestly spent; sharing the rewards of such a life with fellow men; and
both of those activities to be accomplished with a mind centered on the
Infinite within. Nobody would deny the worth of the first two com-
mandments, many such as the prominent writer Khushwant fail to ac-
knowledge that if man were more cognizant of the Infinite within, he
would be more aware of his place within the creation and more in tune
with the fundamental unity of all of God’s creation. All creation, hu-
man and otherwise, would then be less subject to man’s puffed up
sense of self. That third leg of the stool, an essential element of Sikh
teaching, allows Man to look beyond the self at human life as a rare
opportunity to enrich his environment including his fellow creatures.
There are other ways in which Sikhism departs from both the Ju-
daic and Hindu traditions and which stem from the enhanced place of
the lay follower in Sikhism. For instance the concept seen in Christian-
ity of the clergy as shepherds leading a flock, or the primary role of the
Brahmin as the essential middleman are anathema to Sikhs. Since a
middleman or broker is not recognized, the power and authority of the
clergy is necessarily curtailed. The scriptures are available to all — la-
ity or clergy, men or women, high of birth or otherwise. Parenthetical-
ly I should add that Hindu scriptures are not available to the lower
castes and may not be read by women. Also, the Council of Narbonne
in 1229 forbade the possession of any part of the Bible by laymen; this
was not corrected until centuries later. In Sikhism no one may deny an-
other the right to attend or perform any aspect of any Sikh service and
it need not be only in a gurudwara but can be anywhere, even a house;
no approval from any clergy for any religious service is necessary. It
is worth noting that, because Sikhism is so young, the compilation, au-
thenticity and authorship of the Sikh scriptures are clearly and simply
established. Such a claim is not easily made by many of the older reli-
gious systems.
It seems to me that when man finds himself in conflict with his en-
vironment as he inevitably must, the Judeo-Christian and the Hindu-
Vedantic traditions provide him diametrically opposite ways of deal-
ing with it. The primarily western Judeo-Christian outlook exempli-
pa
fied by the North-American lifestyle says: “The world is not as it

should be and I am going to change the outer reality to be consonant
with what I want it to be. I am going to master nature, recast it into my
own view and make a difference even if I die trying.” Frequently both
things happen. Technological revolutions are unleashed, and we
change the world around us to what we want it to be. But the price we
pay is spiritual, and horrendous. Just look at the disintegration of the
individual, dissolution of the family and collapse of society; otherwise
our psychiatrists and lawyers would not be so busy. On the other hand
in a similar conflict with the environment the Asian approach epito-
mized by the Hindu-Vedantic attitude is dramatically different. It says
in effect: “The external world is not as it should be. But there is a uni-
verse within the self which is infinite and far more beautiful. I am go-
ing to close my eyes, turn inward and be at peace.” The desired result
is achieved but at what cost? One can exist for 2000 years in filth,
amidst injustice, yet the mind is at peace and all is right with the world.
Progress can become unnecessary, if not impossible or undesirable.
Clearly, both attitudes are wanting. Sikhism directs that one be at
peace within and at the same time be externally directed so as to make
a difference. Vedantic Hinduism regards the body as a prison for the
soul, this results in a curious unwordliness or other wordliness in Hin-
duism. Sikhism regards the body as the temple of God who is to be dis-
covered by serving and living with fellow humans. Hindu mythology
would tell us this world is unreal, a dream, not a tangible reality —
Sikhism would agree only so that one may remain detached from this
world, and as long as one remembers that this world is also true and it
is by truthful living in this world that one will find the God within each
of us. Be like the lotus that may exist in a cesspool yet remains un-
blemished but serves others by its fragrance.
22
TRADITION OR HABITS
OF THE HEART
Sometimes I think that the dead rule the living through tradition. The
reverence shown by most people for tradition is misplaced and only
serves to spare the living the inconvenience of having to do their own
thinking. By hiding behind tradition, we shift responsibility on the
dead who cannot answer. By wrapping tradition in an aura of holiness,
we create guilt in the living for even daring to question it. Something
does not become good merely because it is new, nor because it has
been around for years. What is wheat and what is chaff in what we call
tradition?
Are we prisoners of culture and tradition? The traditional Hindu

adores the past and prays for a future but does he sleepwalk through
the present? Is he bound to what was? The Existentialist has no use for
the past and little hope for the future; he only knows the present. To
him the past is dead and buried, the future yet unborn. He is alive to
the present but doesn’t he have an incomplete view of existence and
reality? Is he whole? Are there any uses to the past? With time, the
pristine practices of the past acquire more weight, grow more cumber-
some, stifling and meaningless. How to separate what is real from
what is dross?
Hardly a day goes by when in some gurudwara someone doesn’t

declaim: “One does not become a Sikh just by growing one’s hair; a
23
revolution in one’s lifestyle is necessary.” There is hardly any Sikh tra-

dition or practice that has not been challenged by Sikh theologians.
Yet, none but Sikhs could be more scornful of another Sikh who re-
jects or is ignorant of Sikh tradition. The first attitude of not giving
blind obedience to tradition springs from Sikh teaching. It is reminis-
cent of Guru Nanak and Guru Gobind Singh who questioned Hindu
and Muslim practices forthrightly and boldly set on to shatter the ex-
isting order, whether it pertained to the place of women, idol worship
or the caste system. The daily prayer of the Sikhs also includes one
plea: the boon of mental acuity and the skill of critical thinking. How
then could a Sikh be anything but an iconoclast? How could he give
unquestioning loyalty to tradition? The second attitude of reverence
for tradition comes from a subconscious understanding of the uses of
the past and from the sure knowledge that given their checkered histo-
ry, without awareness of tradition Sikhs would revert and collapse into
the predominant society around them — in India Hinduism would
surely absorb them.
The past has its uses. It is not just a chain that we carry with us and
holds us back. It is not just a burden to be lugged around. If it is chain,
it is loose enough to permit us much free will, yet strong enough to
bind us to reality; without it, we might lose all sense of self, and like
an untethered hot air balloon disappear into the sunset. The past is a
prologue to the future.
About 15 years ago, Alex Haley’s book ‘Roots’ hit like a bomb-
shell. For Black Americans, encountering ‘Roots’ was the most liber-
ating event since the Civil War or the 1965 march in Selma, Alabama.
An overstatement? Yes. But the importance of ‘Roots’ to contempo-
rary Black consciousness cannot be ignored. And this was a book
hardly noticed for much literary merit. For many Blacks the book was
a logical sequel to the ‘Black is Beautiful’ movement of the 1960’s. A
sense of identity and self-worth are inseparable and indispensable to a
life of dignity. One must know where one is coming from and ‘Roots’
spurred that process for the Black Americans. That message of ‘Roots’
was crystallized in an episode where Kizzy talking of Sam says: “No-
body ever told him where he come from. So he didn’t have a dream of
24
TRADITION OR HABITS OF THE HEART
where he ought to be going.” The Holocaust cruelly but surely brought

that point home to most Jews.
A pervasive sense of rootlessness is as American as apple pie. We

who come here from elsewhere experience it as we encounter the cul-
tural shock of awholly different, somewhat alien environment. Our re-
actions are understandably visceral and not necessarily rational. Either
we retreat into a shell and a cultural ghetto of the mind ensues, or we
chose anonymity in the crowd. The preferred alternative is to raise our
consciousness to the level where identity and integration do not remain
mutually exclusive, but complement each other like the components of
a mosaic — where the whole becomes larger than the sum of the parts.
A people who are not at peace with their past cannot face their future
with any degree of faith and hope, and that is the most important mes-
sage of ‘Roots’.
Traditions change or die only after a historical catastrophe which

greatly alters a people’s perception of self and their destiny. Traditions
cannot be invented at will or intentionally produced by committees
like advertising jingles. These habits of the heart grow out of the col-
lective consciousness of a people and have to be accepted by the sub-
conscious dimension of their being. Man’s cultural history is
expressed through traditions whose power does not emanate from any
utilitarian value they might possess.
Tradition is often defined through symbols. I shall deal elsewhere

with many of the visible ones of Sikhism; here I want to talk generally
about the uses and abuses of traditions and to stir up a debate about
some common long-standing Sikh practices. Why do Sikhs bow so
deeply to the Guru Granth? What is this money that they place at the
altar in front of the holy book? Why do they usually accept parshad
only in cupped bare hands and not in a plate? Why do they cover their
heads and take off their shoes when they enter the gurudwara? Why is
there a canopy above the Guru Granth? And a flywhisk? Why is the
holy book wrapped up so exquisitely in fancy coverings? What are the
traditional functions of a gurudwara and how can they change? Why
ao
are Sikhs so deeply attached to the Punjabi language in gurmukhi

script? And on and on!
Religion, culture and language are inseparably intertwined; lan-

guage being the most important repository of a heritage. Without a liv-
ing language, a people can neither preserve nor transmit, or bring to
life a way of thinking and being. Coleridge was correct in saying:
“T_anguage is the armory of the human mind and bears within itself, the
trophies of the past and the weapons of its future conquests.” The death
of existing symbols and language constitutes cataclysmic events no
less important than the phenomena that generate them and give them
birth. Notice the number of radio, newspaper and televisions advertise-
ments that exhort Jews to learn Hebrew and Jewish history, and further
tell them where they can do so at nominal cost.
Guru Gobind Singh was indeed farsighted. He saw that in time

many worldly matters will affect the Sikhs for which a mature commu-
nity should be able to find answers after careful deliberation. For such
issues which are bound by time and culture, he provided the Sikhs a
framework for such reflection — meetings to be held by the commu-
nity with the presence and the authority of the Guru Granth providing
a spiritual focus. Hence every Sikh function, be it birth, death, mar-
riage or the construction of a political agenda requires the presence of
Guru Granth and a congregation in mindful prayer.
A Sikh approaches the Guru Granth with an attitude of complete

surrender. With such reverence to the Guru Granth, it is not surprising
that the Sikh comes to the Guru with his head covered, as a barefoot
penitent, and touches his head to the ground. One does not appear be-
fore a mighty monarch empty handed, and nor does a Sikh appear thus
before his Guru. At one time in history, Sikhs offered horses, grain,
sugar, fruits or whatever gift they could muster or however the spirit
moved them. From these gifts, the Guru would help the needy, run a
free kitchen, propagate religion or equip an army. Times and circum-
stances have changed. Cash offering is more convenient to both the
giver and the gurudwara, who can plan more effectively how they
want to spend it in the Guru’s work. The tradition of tithing is still alive
26
TRADITION OR HABITS OF THE HEART
in many Sikh families. The Sikh receives parshad as a benediction

from the house of the Guru with humility — exemplified by cupped
hands and a prayer of thanks. The canopy and the flywhisk are time
honored reminders of the symbols of royalty. I was astonished to learn
that sometimes the building of the Golden Temple is washed with
milk; such a practice is routine in most Hindu temples. I think the milk
belongs in babies where it would do more good, the buildings would
be cleaner using soap and water and more sanctified by a congregation
united in mindful prayer.
The Guru Granth is the Guru but is also a book. The Guru comes
alive only when the book is read and absorbed. In the pre-printing
press days, only handwritten copies were available. In a village where
one could count on the fingers of one hand the number of people who
could write, copies of the Guru Granth were at a premium. A volume
of over 1400 pages was not easy to transcribe. Is it any wonder that
whoever had a copy guarded it and treasured it most reverently? It was
also the Guru. So the book received the best care, and was wrapped in
silks. So much so that many Sikhs were outraged when the first copies
were printed; they were fearful that during printing or later, the holy
book would not receive the reverence that the Guru and a rare manu-
script deserved.
A gurudwara or a Sikh Center should certainly inform us on all as-

pects of our life in North America or wherever else we live, but it
should also provoke us to think in new ways along uncharted territory.
The Gurus did. What will Sikhs be like in the twenty-first century?
Will the Guru Granth on floppy disks invoke the same reverence? Will
there be pizza or peanut butter sandwiches in our community kitchen
and English ballads to the accompaniment of guitars or banjos? Issues
such as peace and disarmament; divorce and family crises; birth con-
trol, abortion, and the environment need to be discussed from the Sikh
perspective. Not that Sikhism takes hard or fixed positions on these
matters, but what kind of ethical framework does it give to the Sikh so
that he can make rational, intelligent and responsible choices. Will we
look to India for spiritual guidance or will we feel self sufficient here?
pat
Don’t forget that we have a new generation of Sikhs who were born
and raised outside India and may have only the weakest of links to the
old country. While traditions accommodate new needs and adapt to
them, a sense of continuity must remain.
Why do we venerate the past? Because the past is summed up in

the present, the future is implicit in it. What we are today is because of
what we have been, tomorrow we shall be no less — because of what
we are today. The past, present and the future are interconnected, like
three links of an unbreakable chain. If those who do not remember the
past are condemned to repeat it, we have little choice but to recall and
recollect the past through tradition. But in our unquestioned respect for
tradition, I think we risk transforming Nanak the iconoclast into an
icon. (I see that in the increasing availability of the many wall calen-
dars with pictures of Guru Nanak or the gold pendants with his like-
ness on them.) Tradition must remain a guide, a friend, like the stars
which show a seafaring man the way, like a comfortable cocoon where
we gather solace and which helps define ourselves, never a jailer.
In the words of President Jimmy Carter, “We must adjust to

changing times and still hold true to unchanging principles,” Many of
the circumstances that shaped our traditions may have changed but to
depart lightly from these habits of the heart would be truly irreverent.
28
THE SYMBOLS OF A HERITAGE
“History”, as T.S. Eliot said “has many cunning passages, contrived

corridors and issues . . .”. Insofar as religions deal with people, places
and events, they are amenable to historical analyses. But religions deal
with a reality that transcends history — a reality that the senses cannot
perceive and the intellect cannot fathom, yet with which the soul can
commune. At that point in awareness one is in the domain of faith.
Faith is better than belief. In belief someone else does the thinking for
you; in faith, you accept the truth not at someone else’s say so, but
because you have internalized it and endorsed it. Belief can mature
into faith. From belief comes dependency; from faith, strength. The
intangible realm of faith is a symbolic reality that is best expressed
through symbols.
It is well to remember that the dimension of faith is not that of

science. Of Man’s many concerns, the deepest — faith — is
symbolically expressed. By definition symbols and signs signify
something else beyond themselves, yet a symbol participates in
defining the reality to which it points. A flag is not a nation but a
symbol of it and attests to the shared history and dignity of a nation.
That is why good people will fight and die for a flag but not let it be
desecrated; it becomes significantly more in worth than the price of the
cloth from which it is cut. A symbol therefore, can’t be easily replaced
by another, or be subjected to scientific logic, nor can it be judged by
the criteria of the marketplace.
Mes)
Symbols are seen in every act of faith. They live and die but only
after a historical catastrophe which greatly alters a people’s perception
of self and their destiny. The death of existing symbols constitutes
devastating events no less important than the phenomena that give
them birth and shape. Symbols cannot be invented at will or intention-
ally produced by committees like business logos. They grow out of the
collective consciousness of a people and have to be accepted by the
subconscious dimension of their being. Their majesty and power lies
in their symbolic character, not in any utilitarian value they might pos-
sess. Symbols are found in most aspects of man’s creative activity —
art, music, mathematics, history, religion. In fact, man’s cultural his-
tory is often symbolically expressed. A cross is a symbol of Christ’s
suffering, not the reality of it. After 2000 years of diaspora, the Jews
seem to have recognized how symbols connect people to their roots;
witness the growing popularity of the Lubavitchers.
India has produced many new religions — Buddhism, Jainism,

Sikhism among others. Of these only Sikhism remains as a visible, ac-
tive and distinct entity; others have reverted into the uneasy but com-
forting fold of Hinduism. Buddhism remains a powerful presence in
Sri Lanka, Thailand, Myanmar, Vietnam, China and Japan, but not in
the land of its birth, India. Galbraith is correct in his somewhat face-
tious observation that anything that goes to India or develops there
eventually gets Hinduized. He was talking of industry but it is equally
true of religions. Islam in India is not quite the same as it is elsewhere,
nor is Christianity. Sikhism too has lost some of its luster and much of
its pristine purity by its constant brushing with Hinduism. If Sikhism
has not been absorbed into the Hindu fold entirely it is not for want of
trying by Hinduism, but due to two reasons: 1) Its distinct philosophy
which is at odds with and bluntly scornful of many Hindu practices,
but that is a minor factor in its survival since most Sikhs are not well
versed in it, and 2) The distinct external symbols of Sikhism which set
the Sikhs apart in appearance and behavior.
Sometimes, I think that the rot in Sikhism had set in, but has been
checked somewhat by the dramatic trauma to their psyche that oc-
30
curred when the Indian army attacked the Golden temple and many
other gurudwaras in 1984. In many ways, those events and the subse-
quent continuous state of war between India and the Sikhs has forced
most Sikhs to reexamine their values and their sense of self. Many
Sikhs who were no longer recognizable, became so by readopting the
symbols of their faith. It was a horrendous price to pay for the Sikhs,
but in the longer historical perspective, the benefits may be increased
self-awareness.
The most visible aspect of Sikh tradition, and the most controver-
sial are the external symbols. Not surprisingly, they generate the most
intense internal debate and external concern. The interesting point is
that only in Sikhism are such weighty and important matters debated
by the laity. It is like “war being too important to be left to the Gener-
als.” The theologians and the clergy may preach and teach but the dis-
cussion is led and fueled by the ordinary folks who have to live the
religion in the modern world; these people are on the front lines and
know the price, the problems, the frustrations as well as the rewards.
And many of the people have never even taken the final vows (Amrit)
of becoming Sikhs. It was just as true at the time of Guru Gobind Singh
as it is now that many Sikhs never adopted all of the symbols of
Sikhism but — like the Marrano Jews — kept their faith. Such “Se-
hajdhari” Sikhs have occupied an important and honorable place in
Sikh history. But more about them another time.
There are many ways to look at Sikh symbols, the most popular
way is to say: The Guru ordained them, ours is not to question why or
what he meant by them. There is merit in that position. But the Guru
did not bar us from thinking; so let us see what history can tell us. If
symbols emerge out of shared history, how did we come to these five?
And how has history affected them?
The Sikh with his external uniform and symbols is a Khalsa, a sol-
dier in the army of God. This army created by Guru Gobind Singh was
not made to rule over others or to shepherd a flock of sheep-like dev-
otees. Unlike the army of Christ where only the clergy were to be in
at
uniform, in this army of the Khalsa all followers were to join, all were
to wear the uniform, everyone was always on call.
Though symbols are not to be judged by their utilitarian value,

some of the Sikh symbols seem to be more functional than others. If
long hair is de rigueur, a comb is essential for grooming, particularly
for a people who knew no peace and lived on horseback. For a people
fighting for survival, a sword as a weapon ensured survival. Again, be-
fitting their life-style and India’s terrain and weather, knee length
drawers were appropriate. A steel bracelet spoke of the strength of
steel; its circle, of a life with no beginning and no end. This strong
wide band of steel could also protect or be used as a weapon. In sev-
enteenth century India, when there was a price on every Sikh’s head,
when a non-Muslim could not wear a turban, carry a weapon or ride a
horse, when it was easier and more tempting to join the faceless anon-
ymous hordes, the long haired Khalsa boldly asserted their presence
through their visible symbols. These symbols were a uniform of the
Khalsa and still remain so. The philosophy of the Khalsa is eternal and
the symbols represent it.
When I look at these symbols nearly three hundred years later, I

see that most Sikhs have made a distinction even though at a subcon-
scious level and look at symbols in two different tiers. Circumstances
and times have indeed changed. The sword, the comb and the knee
length drawers were primarily utilitarian and seem to have changed the
most with time. The sword that most Sikhs carry nowadays has been
reduced to a symbolic level. Sometimes it is a dull blade a few inches
long, more often it is a symbolic sword no more than an inch or two
long attached to a comb or a pendant; at times it is only an impression
of the sword inlaid into the wood of the comb. The sword has changed
from a practical instrument of defence to a symbolic presence of that
principle, of strength and resoluteness in action. Similarly, the knee
length drawers which were.the only garment worn below a loose, long
shirt have been modified by most Sikhs who wear the conventional un-
derwear to go with other street attire. The comb though utilitarian has
not changed all that much because it is still necessary for the long hair,
32
although many Sikh women now carry only a small non-functional

miniature.
The steel bracelet and the long hair remain what they have always
been — strictly symbolic. Professor Puran Singh likened the steel
bracelet to a wedding band signifying the marriage of the Sikh to the
Guru. However, a marriage is a sacrament only where there is real
love; for many philanderers the bracelet, like the wedding band, can
come on or off with equal ease. Others would rather lose a finger, a
hand or a head than a wedding band. A Sikh surgeon would need to
remove it and pocket it lest it tear the gloves. If the identity of a Sikh
depended only on a visible bracelet, it would be easy for one to hide
and that is not what Guru Gobind Singh intended. The long unshorn
hair, strictly symbolic, with no pragmatic use or value in the market-
place remain the centerpiece of Sikh identity. It was true 300 years ago
and remains equally true now.
One wonders what circumstances in history mandated that only

the men adopt the turban to cover the long hair and not the women. The
women do maintain all the Sikh symbols including the long unshorn
hair. But in the Indian cultural milieu, without a turban they are not
easily distinguishable from the millions of Indian women who are not
Sikh. Certainly there is no bar to women wearing a turban and some
Sikh women in India do; almost all of the Western converts to Sikhism
do. For women, wearing of the turban over their long hair appears to
have less to do with their understanding of Sikhism and more to do
with the cultural constraints or with the particular school of thought or
teacher who has influenced them. One need also remember that around
the time that the Sikh symbols evolved, the Muslim rulers had barred
non-Muslim men from wearing a turban. In the Indian culture the tur-
ban for a man signified respect irrespective of religion, women did not
wear it. It was worn by a man who mattered and at that time, the em-
phasis of the rulers was to debase the subjects and deny them basic hu-
man dignity, self worth and self respect. The Gurus reversed this
process and the turban though not one of the five basic symbols of
Sikhism became inseparable from them, at least for the men.
33
To serve well symbols must remain visible. Sometimes they are

hidden much as the Marrano Jews found it necessary to hide their Jew-
ishness when survival demanded it. Sikh symbols too can be easily
concealed — all except the long, unshorn hair. That is precisely why
in the annals of Sikh history the unshorn hair have commanded the
highest value. I don’t know if Guru Gobind Singh so intended but in
the subconscious dimension of their being, the Sikhs have somehow
created a hierarchy of their symbols; the long unshorn hair have come
to occupy the place of first among equals. A Sikh historically and now,
declares his presence by this gift of his Guru. This is wholly consistent
with the philosophic significance of a Sikh, and I venture to say that
no matter how Sikhs change and what demands are placed upon them,
as long as there are those who call themselves Sikhs, there will be
long-haired Sikhs in the form that Guru Gobind Singh gave them. The
dictum on the interdependence of form and function is significant and
worthy of our attention.
A person gets from a symbol what he puts in it. It can be one man’s
comfort and inspiration as easily as another’s jest and scorn. In the fi-
nal analysis, symbols are an embodiment of history, not sentiment.
34
+
WHAT Is A HEAD WorRTH?
History tells us that in the sixteenth century Ignatius Loyola decreed

that henceforth all priests of the Jesuit order must wear a collar. He
also promulgated a special code of conduct for the clergy. Why? Ap-
parently, Ignatius wanted to organize a special cadre of people devoted
solely to serve the church and its flock. He called it the “Army of
Christ”. This army of shepherds was to guide and lead the flock of be-
lievers. The uniform and the code defined the army. Those who joined
this army pursued a higher calling than the laity.
What was India like around that time? A predominantly Hindu

country, it was ruled by Muslims. Hindu society had always been
caste-ridden in which over half the people were denied their humanity.
For instance, women and people of lower castes could not read the
holy scriptures and were denied access to most professions and trades
etc. In that society, food was deemed defiled if the shadow of a lower
caste person fell on it, and molten lead could be poured into the ears of
such a person should he hear the sacred scriptures. Female infanticide
was common and widows were routinely burnt at the pyres of the dead
husbands in a rite called sati. The upper castes were corrupt, the priests
sold religious indulgences; the Brahmins were little better than charla-
tans, the ticket sellers for a dubious passage to heaven, but above all,
the guardians of their own privileged lifestyles. The people were pow-
erless, under the heel either of their own corrupt upper caste Brahmins
or the ruling Muslims. The Muslims were intolerant of other religions,
and by special taxation and other humiliations, waged a full scale ef-
2D
fort to islamize India. For instance, a non-Muslim could not bear arms
or ride a horse except by special permission and paid special taxes for
weddings and funerals.
History also tells us that on Baisakhi (around mid-April) 1699 the

tenth Guru, Gobind, appeared before a congregation of 80,000 at
Anandpur in Punjab. He flashed a naked sword and demanded a head.
Some followers slipped away, many looked away. What kind of a
Guru asks his followers for such a sacrifice? This Guru did, not once
but five times. Each time, one Sikh stepped forward.
History also records that from this modest beginning, Guru

Gobind Singh created the mighty Khalsa nation. He dubbed them “‘li-
ons”, each equivalent to 125,000 ordinary men; each a king among
men or a princess. His Sikhs were to have the valor of a lion and the
grace of a princess. After he created this new order, the Guru knelt and
his first five converts in turn converted him from Gobind Rai to
Gobind Singh. By this act, he set himself, not as a ruler of a nation or
the General of an army, but another soldier of the Khalsa. In this
unique gesture, the leader acknowledged his debt to his own people —
every leader is so indebted but few remember. This incident deserves
a special place in the annals of human history, management of large or-
ganizations, corporate hierarchy and leadership training. It was a rare
process and technique to teach a downtrodden and powerless people
the idiom of empowerment and it turned India’s feudal society on its
head. The lesson was not lost either on his Sikhs who cheerfully fol-
lowed Guru Gobind Singh through the hell of pain, suffering and war,
nor was it lost on the Hindu and Muslim elite of the society whose
comfortable thrones were rocked by the Sikhs and who declared per-
petual war on the Sikhs. I call this a perpetual war because even now
three hundred years later in the twentieth century, India’s feudal, Brah-
minical ruling classes resent the assertive sense of self and of power
that the Guru bestowed upon his Sikhs. And therein lie the roots of the
Sikh struggle for autonomy in India today.
History also tells us that where his followers had offered their
heads, Guru Gobind Singh did not lag behind. He led his soldiers like
36
WHAT IS A HEAD WORTH?
a good General, not from a comfortable bunker but by being alongside

them. He laid on the line not only all of his worldly possessions but
also his family including minor children and ultimately his own life as
well. He looked at the miracle of his creation of the Khalsa and attrib-
uted it to the Khalsa, without pride or conceit. God’s work was done,
he said. He gave his Khalsa a special code of conduct, a specific uni-
form, and distinctive symbols.
Khalsa was destined to be an army of winners, fearless and pure,

in service to God and Man, in pursuit of righteousness. Unlike Ignatius
Loyola’s army, this “pride of lions” of Sikhs was to have no profes-
sional clergy, nor were there to be any sheep or shepherds. In this na-
tion of soldiers of God, there were to be none who were more equal
than others. Henceforth, every Sikh who was a Singh or Kaur was to
be in uniform as a soldier. There was to be no higher calling for some
and not for others, as Loyola had envisioned. The code of conduct ap-
plied equally to all, including the Guru and he himself remained an-
swerable to the directives of his Khalsa.
Guru Gobind Singh created the Khalsa but the foundation stone
had been laid by the iconoclast Nanak who challenged authority most
boldly and by his followers who were martyred for the right to live
with dignity. Guru Nanak found a demoralized nation of jackasses but
by his teaching and by the examples of his followers, the spark of self-
respect was lit; the process of transformation of a jackass into a lion
had begun. Two hundred years later, by the time of Guru Gobind
Singh, it was time to awaken the sleeping lion; the jackass had been
metamorphosed. Only then did Guru Gobind Singh give the lion a new
uniform and a code of conduct.
Guru Gobind Singh created an egalitarian order but for the ordi-
nary follower he did not make the job any easier. If there is no clergy
with binding ecclesiastical authority, then each Sikh has to cultivate
and heed his own conscience. Each Sikh must hone his own intellect
and plumb the depths of his own faith. Guru Gobind Singh recognized
that each one of us has a constant battle to fight and the enemies are
not necessarily out there. In all the battles of life that must be fought,
37
no battlefield is more important than that of the mind. On that Baisakhi

day three hundred years ago, Guru Gobind Singh staged the lesson of
life: In everything you do and in each moment of your life, live hon-
estly and so that you can put your head on the line. In whatever you do,
do it so that you can live and die with dignity.
Now three hundred years after Guru Gobind Singh, is there any-
one asking for a head?
When a business associate suggests that a little greasing of the

palm could smooth the way for your project or when a prospective em-
ployer hints that a job or a promotion could be yours if you appear
without your Sikh uniform, why should you resist? If the road you take
is less than straight and narrow, why does it matter? If social life could
be easier without the long hair or the Sikh uniform, why not take the
easy road? Why look to the road less traveled by? Haven’t times
changed? Guru Gobind Singh is not asking for heads now, or is he?
Yes, three hundred years have passed. Guru Gobind Singh no

longer appears in person at the job interview, flashing a naked sword
and asking for your head. Mysterious are the ways of the Guru, and
many are the people that he uses as his instruments. Now the question
is framed differently, the flashing sword is replaced by the prospect of
social isolation, economic disaster or harassment at the job or in the
neighborhood. The instrument of the Guru is the affable man or wom-
an behind the desk asking all these awkward questions. The instrument
of the Guru may be the nice person having a cup of coffee or pleasant
conversation with you. The intent of the questions is the same, only the
form is different. The question is asked a hundred times a day and ina
myriad ways. Three hundred years later, once again the Guru wants
your head. Many will slip away, just as they did three hundred years
ago. Many more will look away, just as they did then.
The question is: How are you going to answer the call?
38
S
LIFE AND DEATH —
SOME RANDOM THOUGHTS
All living things must die. That is nature’s law and there is no escaping
it. Death like taxes, is inevitable and one must come to terms with it.
Even the Greeks and the ancient Hindus who prated about immortality
and dreamed of it, finally succumbed. What then is eternal life? What
is immortality? What is death to a Sikh? And how must a Sikh elect to
die?
How one dies depends on how one lives, for all life leads to death.
The whole teaching of Sikhism can be summed up in one question:
How to live and die with dignity? Sikhism says that the best life is one
that is devoted to the work ethic, sharing ones life with others, with an
awareness of the Infinite within so that the inner self is at peace with
the world without. The rules for death must follow the rules for a good
life. Unquestionably, the prayers, the mourning, the meetings, the
wailing and crying, the wakes or whatever that we do, are not for the
dead but for the living who need a rite of passage to transfer a life of
purpose and activity to the realm of memories, to convert a painful
present to a memorable past.
This is the way of all flesh. It transcends culture, religion, history,

and the bounds of geography. Are there any other ways of death? The
only immortality is to have left the world a better and kinder place than
the one we inherited. At birth we inherit a flawed but tempting world.
39
Usually, we are happy to inherit and enjoy its imperfect rewards, made
possible by the work of generations past. Isn’t our heritage then a debt
from generations past to be paid to the future? At the same time, we
recognize what we wish was different. So we gripe about the short-
comings of life and why shouldn’t we? The only way to pay the debt
of the good and the bad that is our inheritance is to leave the world a
little better. This is no different from the man who enjoys the ripe man-
goes from his father’s fruit tree and now in turn plants one so that its
fruit will nourish his children twenty years hence.
We are born, live an indeterminate span of life during which we

pay our taxes and a mortgage or two and finally die, to be quickly for-
gotten; our fate, oblivion. No man is really dead until he is forgotten.
A few achieve the immortality of being remembered beyond their span
on earth. These are the true heroes, the ones that history remembers.
They do not have to fight battles that boil the blood with weapons that
guarantee pain and suffering. The most fierce battlefield is the self and
the most potent weapon, one’s mind.
What lies beyond death? Is there another world out yonder? Will
one be resurrected whole from the worm-eaten remains or ashes? Will
one burn in everlasting hell or enjoy dancing “houris” in heaven? Will
our enemies return as cockroaches, earthworms or ugly bears to pester
us, who have pestered them in life.
Most religions provide dogmatic certitude where only tentative

hypotheses should suffice. The Socratic answer is not so bad that “If
there is a life after death, I will have the company of so many great men
who have gone before me. If there is no life after death, it will be like
a dreamless sleep; I am an old man and I need the rest.” A Buddhist
may chose to think in terms of “nothingness”. The traditional Hindu
propitiates the past and prays for a better future. Is he even aware of
the present? The existentialist has little use for the past and less hope
for the future, he only knows the present.
The Judeo-Christian concept of original sin is not found in Sikh

belief, nor is the idea of someone else atoning for our sins or dying for
40
LIFE AND DEATH — SOME RANDOM THOUGHTS
them, such as the claim for Christ’s suffering on the cross. The sin
would lie not in eating from the tree of knowledge but in not using that
knowledge for leaving the world a little better. Eventually when my
bills come due, payment is going to be extracted from me, not some-
one else. In the Sikh view, the human life is looked at as a boon, a
unique opportunity, a gift from God, to be lived productively in honest
labor with sincere service to humanity, and with a mind centered on
the Infinite within us. At the end of life one needs to answer the peren-
nial questions, “O mortal what did you do to transcend the self in this
unique life?” Was the finite, mortal shell of flesh put to good use? This
crumbling, decaying flesh houses the immortal spirit, the divine spark
and is the vehicle for it. Did it fulfill its responsibility?
But “time” is like three links of a chain connecting the past,

present and the future, except that the only link we can see and steer is
that of the present, and that also imperfectly. The past is dead and bur-
ied, the future yet unborn. We are what we are because of what was,
we will be because of what we are now. Therefore, if one lives fully in
the present, the future will automatically be well. Death be not proud,
one could say. One could also take a hint from Norman Vincent Peale,
the prophet of positivism. Since no man, he argues, knows his life be-
fore birth, the developmental intra-uterine period, is the infant happy
to be born, to leave a comfortable universe of the womb for the un-
known world outside? Is the fetus even aware of the world outside?
The developing human has no opinion on it for he knows nothing of it.
Similarly, no man may speak of what lies beyond this life as we know
it, yet like a newborn, one must accept it. For the newborn, life outside
the mother’s womb is an unknown reality, for us the reality after death
is equally obscure. It will be different but it will be good. Life and
death — two stages of existence with a veil separating them through
which we may not see.
Let us now switch gears to focus on a different dimension of life

and death. All kinds of fish live in the sea, some are so small that the
naked eye can barely see them. Others ply the ocean in total darkness
at a depth where no light penetrates and no eye can make out their
41
shapes; they must supply their own light to attract food. It is not pos-
sible to shoot them or spear them. But there is an easier way to deci-
mate them. All one has to do is to remove them from the environment
that gives them life. A fine and capacious net can do that indiscrimi-
nately to a large number, quickly and economically. All one has to do
is to remove the organism from its source of sustenance.
There are all kinds of people in this world, some good, some bad.
But there are very few Sikhs. A Sikh is like that fish in the ocean except
his sea is that of gurbani and his heritage. Gurbani — Guru Granth —
is what gives him life, sustains him, nurtures him and makes him a Sikh.
Without it he is spiritually dead — like the fish out of water.
The essence of the Sikh way of life lies in honest and honorable
conduct in all matters with a mind in equipoise. One can see God in the
self only when one can see him in another. The crux of the matter is to
realize that the hungry person is you, the destitute is you, not some him
or her apart from you with a separate reality. In separateness we die.
So that the good you do is not because you should, but because of what
you are. Then you become an instrument of God, a part of Guru-con-
sciousness — an irresistible force.
In living a life as an instrument of God, the fear of death is lost.

This is what Sikhism teaches. Look at the number of martyrs that such
a tiny minority as the Sikhs have produced. During the many years that
India struggled for independence from the British, over two-thirds of
all Indians sentenced to life imprisonment or death by the British were
Sikhs. And Sikhs form barely two percent of India’s teeming millions.
Isn’t it amazing that for almost all of the 500 years of their exist-
ence, Sikhs have been locked in one battle or another for survival?
There were times when their number was so small that the govern-
ments of the day, like smug cats licking their paws, proudly declared
that all Sikhs had been exterminated. But the Sikh spirit was immortal;
some Sikhs always surfaced to boldly belie the claim. All armies fight-
ing the Sikhs — from the Mughals and the British to the armed hordes
of present day Indian governments — realized that guns and bombs
42
LIFE AND DEATH — SOME RANDOM THOUGHTS
can kill many Sikhs but Sikhism does not die. There are always more
to continue the struggle. How best to destroy them?
There are easier ways. All one has to do is to remove the Sikh from
gurbani, his source of sustenance and he or she is quickly and automat-
ically reduced to an empty shell — a person without a focus, running
amok like a frightened and a cornered rat who will soon self-destruct.
Luckily for our enemies, Sikhism is relatively young. Our history

is turbulent, our ties to the dominant culture of Hinduism old and
strong. Many Sikhs are unsure of their identity and ignorant of Sikh
heritage and teachings. Many Sikhs are poorly educated. To manipu-
late them is easy. All one needs to do is to cast doubts on their early
history. That part of the record is so unclear anyway. Where is the
proof that Guru Nanak ever founded a new order or travelled any-
where? Where is clear incontrovertible evidence that Guru Gobind
Singh ever established the Khalsa the way we believe he did or wanted
to? Transform this history into legend and myth, draw parallels with
Hindu mythology and soon the origins of Sikhism would be as hazy as
are the beginnings of Hinduism. Better yet, reduce it to an unrecogniz-
able limb of Hinduism so that its identity is lost and its vitality sapped.
It has happened before; Buddhism is no longer a major religion in In-
dia, the land of its birth.
The Sikhs in Punjab are justifiably angry with India because its
successive governments have treated them shabbily and cruelly. Why
not turn these angry Sikhs to unSikh activities? Arm them, encourage
them to loot and kill. Let them think that by killing innocents they are
avenging the wrongs done to them. Use all the sophisticated Madison
avenue techniques to brand them as terrorists to the world. They will
soon self-destruct.
Does that sound familiar? You bet it does! Is it happening now?

Indeed! There is only one possible way out of this impasse. Like the
fish, we have to avoid the net that is cast for us and swim within the
life-giving sea of gurbani.
43
Before we give a press statement, before we write a letter or raise

a slogan, before we kidnap someone, plant a bomb or squeeze a trig-
ger, even before we build another gurudwara, let each Sikh ask one
question and only one question. Would the Guru approve of what I am
about to do? That is the categorical imperative. Or else we become like
the fish out of water.
44
PARSHAD — THE MYSTICAL
COMMUNION?
Some years ago I escorted a young non-Sikh woman to a Sikh reli-

gious service. Although born a Christian, she was fond of Eastern re-
ligions, and had some knowledge of India and Hinduism. The basic
Sikh service is pretty much the same the world over and for any occa-
sion — some singing of liturgy, an optional lecture or exposition of
history or scripture, congregational prayer, and to conclude, parshad
and a simple community meal which are offered to everybody. The
parshad is obligatory to every service, the community meal is some-
times lacking if the facilities do not permit it.
The parshad as well as the community meal are usually prepared

and distributed by volunteers from the congregation. That day two vol-
unteers were distributing parshad. My friend refused to accept it from
one and preferred that it be given by the other. She insisted that one of
the volunteers had a more spiritual aura and parshad from his hands
would be more meaningful. Some Sikhs nearby tried to assuage her
feelings by suggesting that it was only a “halvah-like dessert” and she
could enjoy it as such, no matter who distributed it. We escaped the
confusion but the incident stayed with me. What after all is parshad?
Is it only a dessert? Is it like communion in a Church? If a non-Sikh
accepts it, is his belief compromised? Would it matter who handled it?
45
I remember being invited to a church some years earlier where the

minister made a point of requesting that only the believers in Chris-
tianity should partake of the communion. I recall many of the stringent
requirements that apply to a Roman Catholic as he steps forward to re-
ceive communion. I realize that some of these have been relaxed
somewhat in the past fifteen years. At communion a wafer of bread
and a thimbleful of wine or juice is offered to the believer in memory
of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross. There are clearly defined criteria to de-
termine if the individual is in good standing and qualifies to receive
communion. At one time, the Roman Catholic Church used to require
a believer to refrain from food or sex for at least 12 hours and confess
his or her transgressions before stepping up to the altar to receive com-
munion. Also, keep in mind that only a priest may consecrate the bread
and wine, not even a nun has that privilege. much less a lay person. A
nun may distribute it but a lay person may not. It is a matter of dogma
to a Christian that the bread and wine are ‘transubstantiated’ into the
flesh and blood of Christ in memory of Christ and not merely symbolic
of them. This stems from the “doctrine of the real presence of Christ
in the Eucharist,” dating between 1546 to 1563 from the Council of
Trent which debated and codified many issues of Christian belief. Fol-
lowing this dogma, the “appearance” of bread and wine remains but
the “reality” of the substance changes and becomes flesh and blood of
Christ.
How do Sikhs view the parshad? What is parshad and what is it

not? More often than not, it is made of wheat flour, butter, sugar and
water cooked to a pudding-like consistency. This is the traditional
composition but parshad can be anything suitable for the congregation
to share and eat. At times, it has been jaggery, sugar, grain, fruit, nuts
or cookies, salt, among other things — whatever a person could afford
and whatever was available in the house. It does not have to be much
for it is not meant to assuage physical hunger; less than a spoonful
would do. The traditional preparation has 500 years of history behind
it, and at all gurudwaras and most places where it is possible, this ver-
sion prevails. The parshad need not be cooked at the gurudwara. In
smaller congregations where cooking facilities are lacking, it is often
46
PARSHAD — THE MYSTICAL COMMUNION?
cooked at somebody’s home and brought in for distribution. Predict-

ably, the traditional composition draws upon ingredients which would
normally be found in any Punjabi home, even the poorest one. That it
tastes like a good dessert is all the better for who can resist it?
History and tradition have given the Sikhs a novel timer to deter-
mine when the flour is sufficiently cooked: the time it takes to chant
the Japuji (the morning prayer) at a methodical but leisurely pace. The
aroma of parshad being prepared pervades the area and is sufficient to
bind the Sikhs to their heritage and culture. One must never underesti-
mate the pull and power of nostalgia.
In the Sikh view, anybody may cook, serve or receive parshad. For
either of the three: preparer, server or receiver, no questions are asked
and no criteria or qualifications are imposed. One need not even be a
nominal Sikh, much less one in good standing. One may not be asked
when the last sin was committed, prayers uttered, nor his or her status,
caste, or belief. What is required is that parshad be served in a digni-
fied manner and respectfully accepted.
It is important to point out that anybody can make or serve parshad

— a woman, a non-Sikh, a sinner or a saint — none may be barred.
This is significant when you realize that in many religions a woman
may not read the scriptures or lead the prayers, particularly if she is
menstruating. Since Sikhism does not advocate a life of renunciation,
sexual activity in a matriage is never any bar to full religious partici-
pation. Salvation must be sought in this worldly life — a domestic life,
honestly led, shared with the community and spent with an awareness
of the Infinite within.
The parshad from one place or gurudwara is not more sacred than
from another. Often Sikhs give special reverence to parshad from a
historical gurudwara such as the Golden Temple in Amritsar and are
more cavalier about it from a small, new, unknown place or from
somebody’s home. Such distinctions are utter nonsense. What sancti-
fies parshad and lifts it from the level of a halvah-like dessert to a sac-
ramental communion is not where it was made nor the person who
47
makes or serves it but the congregation in mindful prayer and ultimate-

ly, the attitude of the receiver. The parshad is not lessened in value if
a sinner makes, takes or serves it; he or she is ennobled by the aura of
a congregation in mindful prayer.
There are only two ways to devalue parshad: with hygienically

unwashed hands of the preparer, server or receiver or by the wandering
mind of the receiver. The personality and character of the individuals
neither diminish nor exalt the significance of parshad; however, the
experience of the blessing may inspire and elevate the individual. For
a Sikh, the significance of parshad is deeply ingrained in his marrow
through 500 years of history. A Sikh deems it a blessing to make it, a
blessing to serve it, a blessing to receive it with all humility. Nobody
turns it down for who wants to turn down a grace? Life is tough enough
already.
Many are the ways to reach and know God, the Infinite within us
all. But all roads meander through the reality of the inner self. The con-
gregation attuned to that common reality creates a parshad which is a
product of the Sikh psyche but not limited exclusively to the Sikh spir-
itual needs. Others who accept it need not fear for their identity. A
Christian may accept it in the name of Jesus and many Hindus and
Muslims particularly in the Punjab have been addicted to it for gener-
ations but have remained Hindus or Muslims. He who feels part of the
blessing will benefit; he who doesn’t, won’t.
In the right spiritual atmosphere what is transformed or transub-

stantiated is not parshad but the minds of those who receive it. For
them it becomes a holy communion. If communion is sacramental
sharing then parshad becomes that, but it is never the communion de-
fined in the Christian doctrine and experience. For many, parshad re-
mains a halvah-like dessert and never becomes anything more. For
them, it may be fattening but usually there is not enough of it and so
are many of the other good things in life. To think that parshad is mere-
ly another dessert is like that thinking that glass and diamond are the
same for they both shine.
48
10
WHAT IS IN A NAME?
What for heaven’s sake is so complicated about naming a baby? You

made it; you can give it any moniker you wish. The little brat can even
change it later! Easier yet, the local bookstore undoubtedly stocks
books which list thousands of names for boys and girls and even rank
them according to their popularity. One can select the trendiest, most
fashionable name just as one chooses designer jeans by the label and
by social acceptability.
Let us look at this somewhat differently. Amongst all of God’s

creations, human birth is indeed special. The opportunity granted to
the human is unique. A way is presented to discover God by serving
man — by leaving the world a better place. We enjoy all that the world
has to offer. We inherit an imperfect world bequeathed to us as God’s
creation. The generations past have made this world what it is today.
What mark we leave behind us will be the legacy of the generations to
come. The debt we inherit from our forefathers we pay to our children
who, in turn, will repay theirs.
With that point in view, a child becomes the most exquisite and
mystical of God’s gifts. Nowhere else is there such a perfect blending
of the mystery of God and the free will of man. The past is inherent in
the child and this new child carries us into eternity, thus representing
all of the future that is yet to be. The past, present and the future, all
merge flawlessly and effortlessly in the child. With that attitude gov-
erning us, the act of naming a child in the Sikh tradition becomes sim-
49
ple yet meaningful and purposeful, but most importantly, an easily

understood rite.
Recognizing that a child is no less than the greatest of God’s gifts

to man, the first step in arriving at a name is a prayer of thanksgiving.
Next, the Sikh opens the Guru Granth at random and identifies the first
letter of the first hymn on the left hand page. Why the left hand page?
Because we write from left to right. We are merely letting God guide
us in finding the letter for the name by not selectively culling a favorite
hymn. The idea is to let go of our ego and will, and recognize the ne-
cessity and beauty in surrender to the will of God. In essence this act
says: “Thy will be done and let my child’s name (and life) be guided
by the holy spirit as this child begins a new life.”
In the Sikh way of life, this sense of surrender to the will of God
is inseparably intertwined with the prayerful and vigorous efforts of
man. In the next step, therefore, we the human parents, relatives and
friends make up a suitable name based on the letter gifted to us from
the Guru Granth. Whereas, the selection of the letter unites the child to
the will of God from whom all things flow, our construction of a name
from that letter merges the child with our hopes, dreams and aspira-
tions. Usually, therefore, the name is selected to be phonetically pleas-
ing, or to represent qualities that we aspire for the child — attributes
of heroic dimensions, saintly virtues, memorable beauty, qualities of
the heart and mind or familial continuity and lineage, etc. In my
daughter’s case for instance, the first names of her two grandmothers
are combined in her first name which is thus a combination of two dis-
tinct traditions, Indian and American.
There is another very important part to every Sikh’s name —

“Kaur” or princess for every girl and “Singh” or lion for a boy. This
part of the name links the child to its heritage. This part — “Singh or
Kaur” — needs some elaboration for its use is not without some con-
troversy nor is it consistent among present day Sikhs. Not so long ago,
I was talking to a bright, idealistic, articulate young Sikh woman who
was visibly upset by this apparent gender difference in naming a child.
Why did the Guru make men into “lions” but only “princesses” out of
50
WHAT IS IN A NAME?
women? Were the women not good enough or strong enough? I had
thought about it before, but not very much and not too deeply. I had to
admit that she had a point. But during the discussion, we both saw that
as aman I too could take umbrage. Did the Guru think that a man was
only a beast even though a king of the jungle while a woman was like
royalty, graceful and born to rule?
Perhaps both views are immature. History tells us that there have
been many heroic women and cowardly men among Sikhs, as among
others. And the Gurus were creating an egalitarian society, liberating
women from their bondage of centuries. If men and women are like
two sides of a coin which complement each other to make a true coin,
then to identify some of their generic attributes per se does not demean
either sex or any individual, but merely points out that the two sexes
are distinct though equal. Certainly there is nothing derogatory in be-
ing either a princess or a lion for each is the top of the heap in its own
category. “Many speak of courage, speaking cannot give it” — so goes
a song popular with many young Sikhs. Further along the song contin-
ues: “One does not become royal by birth but only if one’s home is
Anandpur Sahib.” Here one is speaking of Anandpur as the spiritual
home of a Sikh for that is where Guru Gobind Singh created the Khalsa
over 300 years ago. In other words, if a Sikh was to have the courage
of a lion and the grace of royal stock, it would be by following the Sikh
spiritual way and not by bounds or distinctions of family, gender or
birth. Becoming a Sikh free in spirit, resolute in action — and that is
the essence of “Singh or Kaur.”
Historically only Singh or Kaur are used to distinguish a male

name from that of a female. No gender difference exists and no sexual
distinction or identification is traditionally made in the first or given
name. The traditional first name among Sikhs is absolutely gender-
neutral. One cannot ignore however, the increasing use of gender-spe-
cific first names among Sikhs which is a relatively recent phenome-
non: this trend undoubtedly is indicative of the predominantly non-
Sikh cultural milieu in which we live. The roles that men and women
play as responsible, ethical individuals in life are not defined by Sikh
names but are determined by their own individual circumstances.
51
By rejecting the further appellation and identification of caste to

the name, the Sikh emphasizes the equality of all people. One becomes
high or low not by birth, caste, family, status or wealth but by righteous
living in which the spiritual self and the life of action are inseparably
merged much as water and milk become one on mixing.
Ultimately, to name a child in the Sikh tradition is to say: Here is

a child of God, given unto a family’s love and care, a maker of desti-
nies of peoples and nations.
OZ
11
THE SIKH MARRIAGE
(ANAND KARAJ)
The Sikh attitude to all ceremonies and rituals is simple: only that act
is sacred which is performed with an awareness of the Infinite and of
the mystical presence of God within the individual and the congrega-
tion. The two essential items of a social or public act, therefore, be-
come |) The Guru Granth, the holy book of the Sikhs which is indeed
a book but is more than that. It is the Guru and thus the essence of all
spiritual authority, and 2) the presence of a community of followers —
the congregation — in which resides all temporal authority. These es-
sentials apply to all Sikh ceremonies ranging from birth to death.
The marriage ceremony in all cultures historically has two ele-

ments: first, a spiritual component to indicate that these two individu-
als have embarked on a life-long path which defines the family — the
fundamental unit of all civilized societies, and in which the two indi-
viduals will create a whole which is greater than the sum of the parts.
The primary family unit is like a bird that does not fly on one wing
alone. Secondly, the marriage ceremony is a binding contractual dec-
laration to society which has legal, economic and societal implica-
tions.
The Sikh marriage ceremony is consistent with these principles. In
the Punjabi language it is called “Anand Karaj”, meaning the ceremo-
ny of bliss. It is truly a sacrament of joy. Symbolically, the witnesses
to the ceremony are God and the community.
53
There are a few simple elements to the Anand Karaj. All Sikh cer-
emonies require a congregation, mindful prayer and the Guru Granth.
The marriage ceremony like all other Sikh ceremonies can be per-
formed by any adult, male or female. The ceremonial functions are not
restricted to the ordained ministry. Recognizing that this couple is set-
ting forth on a new venture of fundamental importance, the Sikhs have
traditionally performed this ceremony in the early hours of the morn-
ing. Much as dawn speaks of a day to come, the marriage ceremony
points to a lifetime to be. However, this is tradition, not canon. Any
day, and any hour of the day, is auspicious. The attitude of supplication
and an awareness of the sacred make any time a good omen. No astro-
logical forecasting for the right day and time of marriage is necessary.
Sensitivity to the importance of the event, which indicates for a

couple the threshold of a new phase in life requires that the ceremony
be held in circumstances which enhance its aura: early in the morning,
in clean surroundings whether it be a Sikh temple (gurudwara), home
or a rented hall, in a place free of drugs, alcohol, tobacco or other in-
toxicants. Again, we look to tradition, common sense and human feel-
ings to support such practice and not to religious doctrine.
Barriers of race, caste or class are not recognized. Again in this I

recognize that Sikhs have not remained untouched by the majority in-
fluence around them. Unfortunately therefore, though most Sikhs ac-
knowledge that it is wrong, many look at the caste affiliation, at least
superficially; most Jats appear to observe such distinctions even more
stringently. I have never been able to understand or reconcile myself
to the vestiges of this pernicious practice amongst the Sikhs. Marriage
occurs only when the individuals have reached the age of consent,
freely consent to marry and are willing and able to shoulder its respon-
sibilities. In this matter, as in all others, men and women enjoy equal
rights and equal obligations. Exchange of gifts between the groom and
bride and their respective families is permitted; however, dowry is not
since it undermines human dignity.
In the Indian cultural milieu as well as in the Sikh view, a marriage

is just not two people who decide they like each other, will have 2.3
54
THE SIKH MARRIAGE (ANAND KARAJ)
children, pay the requisite mortgage or two and their share of taxes
while they disappear into the sunset to live happily ever after, as in a
B movie from Hollywood. Since the family is the fundamental unit of
civilized society, a marriage represents a merger of two families. In
matriage, one family does not lose a child (son or daughter) but ac-
quires another. A merger can be successful only if there is some com-
mon basis for it. The first step in marriage therefore, is for the two
families to meet and arrive at a mutual appreciation of each other —
educational background, social status, economic realities and religious
persuasion etc. In life, these factors often shape individual habits and
attitudes which determine compatibility. The most sophisticated com-
puter would have grave difficulty catching and matching the subtle nu-
ances of differences which can make the difference between success
and failure, heaven and hell.
During the marriage ceremony, the blessings of God and the best
wishes of the community (congregation) are invoked. Compared to
most Christian weddings, the bride’s father symbolically hands or
gives away his daughter by placing each end of a sash in the hands of
the bride and groom. Actually, the Sikh concept is different — the sash
signifies the joining together of the two individuals; it is a knot con-
necting the two. The ceremony itself involves four circumambulations
of the holy book. At each perambulation, one of the four prescribed
hymns in turn is read and then sung. The essence of the hymns and of
the ceremony is to emphasize that the life of wedded bliss (that of a
householder) is complete when, in all its activities, it is resplendent
with an awareness of God. For a Sikh, salvation lies not in a life of re-
nunciation but in a life of honest labor and service as a householder. In
the first circling, the marriage rite has begun. In the second circling, di-
vine music is heard. In the third circling, the love of God has been
awakened and in the fourth, the marriage ceremony has been complet-
ed in an awareness of the eternal God.
The Sikh marriage ceremony was initiated by Guru Ram Das, the
fourth Guru. The ceremony symbolizes that there are four steps to the
development of a harmonious marriage: mutual respect, love, restraint
55
and harmony. The four hymns and the four perambulations of the Guru
Granth by the couple reflect their acknowledgement of these four
steps. The hymns do not speak of marital duties, household chores or
other mundane matters which intelligent, educated couples would
work out between themselves according to their particular circum-
stances. Instead, the hymns look at the development of the spiritual re-
lationship between man and God as the metaphor for the ideal
relationship. This becomes clear from the writings of Guru Angad
when he said: “A union of bodies is no union, however close it may be;
it is only when souls meet, can we speak of a union true. His follower,
Guru Amar Das had also expressed similar views in his writings.
Historians disagree on when the Sikh ceremony came to be widely

used and when it became legally recognized. Although the hymns that
are traditionally used at the Anand Karaj were composed by Guru Ram
Das, some say that the Sikh ceremony had evolved earlier in the time
of Guru Amar Das, his predecessor. It acquired legal status in India in
1909 by virtue of the Anand Marriage Act. One must remember
though that until very recently many ceremonies, formalities and rites
within the Indian cultural context were recognized by the community
and had legally binding status without the formal paperwork which is
the hallmark of a legal document as we know it now. For instance,
most of us who were born in India 30 or more years ago have no birth
certificates, and it is doubtful that our parents who were married 40 or
50 years ago can produce a marriage certificate. Yet, the individual
commitment and the community’s recognition provided the frame-
work for the family structure within the Indian cultural setting. But
these matters are best left to historians and sociologists.
The Sikh view of marriage is emphatically not in step with the bib-
lical injunction: “As the Church is subject to Christ let the wives we
subject to their husbands in all things.” In many places in their writings
and by many examples, the Gurus emphasized a relationship based on
equality, love, respect and sharing. The unequal and inferior status of
women prevalent in Indian society was clearly rejected by the teach-
ings of Sikhism. The Sikh code of conduct decrees the same ceremony
56
THE SIKH MARRIAGE (ANAND KARAJ)
for the remarriage of widows and widowers. This is important when

one realizes that in the traditional Hindu practice, widows were either
cremated alive with their dead husbands or not allowed to remarry.
The Sikh marriage echoes the Christian view of matrimony and

family, popularly cited as: “What God hath united, let no man put
asunder.” Though marriage may be made in heaven, it must be lived
here on earth, and sometimes divorce becomes necessary. That is a se-
rious societal matter and there is no religious ceremony to sanction it.
It is handled according to social custom and secular law.
ny
Rime — c= 7
_ «
; rm 4 Us i eee
u = z i one Oh cae : :
4 arts - er ike - -_ ra 9
if bi. 2 aiid ogi gue “we -s ee - owe =
7 . 2°. =a . Oap €
a" =| 4.2K é oa a
pans.
12
FoOoD TABOOS IN SIKHISM
The first response to the title of this essay is predictable: certainly there
are no food taboos in Sikhism. This is after all a young, modern, vi-
brant faith, very practical in its doctrines and sensible in its beliefs. But
there is always a hooker. What set me thinking about food restrictions
was something that happened about twenty-five years ago; I have
heard periodic echoes of the issue over the years. For about three
months, I was the Secretary of our major and at that time the only gu-
rudwara in New York. We used to meet once a month, then it became
once a week. More regular in attendance than any others were some
young, single Sikhs, mostly students, living in the city. I think what at-
tracted them was the socializing and the free community lunch that al-
ways followed the service. I could relate to that and to them. Often we
would spend half a Sunday at the gurudwara and then gather at some-
one’s apartment to shoot the breeze and solve the problems of the
world.
One day a group of young friends volunteered to provide the com-

munity lunch following the weekly service. Of course, they would not
prepare a traditional meal but offered to serve ham and cheese sand-
wiches instead. I thought it was a great idea. When I broached the man-
agement committee however, all hell broke loose. How could I think
of sandwiches, I was asked? I offered pizza but the reaction was not
much better. I was told in no uncertain terms that the meal must be a
simple Punjabi meal — vegetables, beans, unleavened flat bread
(chappaties). Rice could be added or substituted for the bread, if nec-
59
essary. Accompaniment of pickle and a good dessert would round up

the menu. The preparations did not have to be simple and, depending
upon the host, could be elaborate, but the menu was to be strictly veg-
etarian and under no circumstances was it to depart substantially from
the traditional Punjabi meal.
I too adore Punjabi food and more so with each passing year that
I live outside a Punjabi milieu. But I wonder at the unwritten code on
food proscription that seems to operate at Sikh gatherings. Where in
Sikh history or theology does it say that all meals are to be vegetarian
or prepared in a particular way? And following religious services at
homes I have partaken of community meals which were so extensive
and elaborate that they would rival the spread at the fanciest restaurant.
Such a feast raises the obvious question: Is that what the Guru intended
when he initiated the concept of a community meal (/angar) following
a religious service?
History provides us some sensible ways of looking at what we be-

lieve and what we do. Indeed Sikhs observe no food taboos as are found
among the Jews, Muslims or Hindus, among others. Of the two domi-
nant religions in India, the Hindus eat no beef while the Muslims will
not come near pork. The Sikhs find common ground by finding both
kinds of flesh acceptable. It is true nevertheless, that a great majority of
Sikhs do not eat beef since many of them come from a Hindu back-
ground. In fact in Punjab, before India was partitioned in 1947, neither
beef nor pork was easily available in deference to the strong beliefs of
the two majority religions. Also many, if not most Hindus are obligato-
ry vegetarians. (Observing Jains eat no eggs or onions either.) Conse-
quently, most Sikhs never acquired a taste for either beef or pork but are
content with chicken, mutton or lamb. Landlocked Punjab does not
have much of a variety in fish, but it is enjoyed in the limited quantity
that it is available.
Throughout Sikh history there have been movements or subsects of

Sikhism which have espoused vegetarianism. I think there is no basis
for such dogma or practice in Sikhism. Certainly Sikhs do not think that
a vegetarian’s achievements in spirituality are easier or higher. It is sur-
60
FOOD TABOOS IN SIKHISM
prising to see that vegetarianism is such an important facet of Hindu

practice in light of the fact that animal sacrifice was a significant and
much valued Hindu Vedic ritual for ages.
Guru Nanak in his writings clearly rejected both sides of the argu-
ments — on the virtues of vegetarianism or meat eating — as banal
and so much nonsense, nor did he accept the idea that a cow was some-
how more sacred than a horse or a chicken. He also refused to be
drawn into a contention on the differences between flesh and greens,
for instance. History tells us that to impart his message, Nanak cooked
meat at an important Hindu festival in Kurukshetra. Having cooked it
he certainly did not waste it, but probably served it to his followers and
ate himself. History is quite clear that Guru Hargobind and Guru
Gobind Singh were accomplished and avid hunters. The game was
cooked and put to good use, to throw it away would have been an aw-
ful waste.
Sikhs also do not respond to the Semitic commandment on avoid-

ing animals with cloven hoofs. And one Semitic practice clearly reject-
ed in the Sikh code of conduct is eating flesh of an animal cooked in
ritualistic manner; this would mean kosher and halal meat. The reason
again does not lie in religious tenet but in the view that killing an ani-
mal with a prayer is not going to ennoble the flesh. No ritual, regard-
less of who conducts it, is going to do any good either to the animal or
to the diner. Let man do what he must to assuage his hunger. If what
he gets, he puts to good use and shares with the needy, then it is well
used and well spent, otherwise not.
The community meal (/angar) that the Sikhs serve in their gurud-
waras has several purposes. Much of India even now is bound in tra-
ditions of caste. In the Hindu caste system, the high and the low castes
do not mix socially, do not eat from the same kitchen. The food of a
Brahmin is considered defiled if the shadow of an untouchable falls
upon it. Sikhism set out to break these barriers. In the gurudwara, the
meal is served to people who sit in a row. You may not chose who to
sit next to; it may even be an untouchable. You may not ask to be
served by someone special. The food is prepared by volunteers from
61
the community in a community kitchen. Men, women and children,

rich and poor alike, work together to cook and to serve. This is where
young and old, children and adults learn the concept of service. The
food is available to all; kings and the homeless have partaken of it. Ak-
bar who ruled India in the sixteenth century enjoyed such a meal. In
this country, most gurudwaras do not have langar service operating all
day but one that serves only one meal at the conclusion of a service.
Therefore, whatever food is left over is either carted home by those
who wish, or is delivered to a center for the needy. In the sixties many
hippies trekking through India found gurudwaras an easy place for a
quick and free meal; countless homeless people enjoy this Sikh hospi-
tality every day. It is a way for the ordinary Sikh to thank God from
whom all blessings flow. Service to the needy and sharing one’s bless-
ings with others is a cornerstone of the Sikh way of life and it starts in
the community kitchen. It is a recognition of the principle that even
God has little meaning or relevance to an empty belly. The prayers of
the congregation and their spirit of service make the meal special, not
the variety in the menu.
The usual menu in a gurudwara is simple — one vegetable, some

beans, a handful of rice and one or two pieces of flat bread
(chappaties). This is what the poorest people in Punjab eat. The
ingredients are what the simplest home in Punjab would have. Fancier
dishes are avoided even if one can afford them for the purpose is not
to instill envy in others or to show off one’s own riches. If meat is
avoided it is not because of any canon but because the menu should be
such that everybody can afford and anybody can eat; something
nobody will have any compunctions or reservations about. Remember
that gurudwaras are open to all and often frequented by Hindus and
Muslims alike. The menu for the langar at the gurudwara has to
provide the least common denominator in the Indian cultural tradition.
I have heard there are afew, rare gurudwaras in India where meat
is served at times. I emphasize that such gurudwaras are few and in
them, service of meat is rare. I suppose the practice started sometime
ago and has continued. No harm in it as long the people coming there
FOOD TABOOS IN SIKHISM
are aware of it. It is not a matter of Sikh doctrine but of consideration

for others and common sense. Some historians contend that meat was
often served in /angar at the time of Guru Angad. History has it that
Guru Amar Das, well before he became a Guru, visited Guru Angad.
On that day, some Sikh had donated a large quantity of fish which was
being served in the community meal. Amar Das had been a devout
Hindu and a vegetarian until that time. Some historians say that he was
somewhat squeamish about it but, now that he had become a Sikh, ac-
cepted the fish as a gift from the Guru’s kitchen. Others suggest that
Guru Angad, knowing full well that Amar Das was a vegetarian, di-
rected the sevadars not to offer him the fish. Considering the love of
nature and of God’s creation in the writings of the Gurus, wanton kill-
ing of animals would not be condoned, not would be their ritual sacri-
fice for gustatory satisfaction or otherwise.
There are other benefits to a simple but sufficient lunch after a ser-
vice. The attendees know that they do not have to rush home and feed
the kids or themselves. The mind is not distracted by the chores wait-
ing at home; time off from them is a welcome respite, however brief.
One can relax and enjoy the service single-mindedly. Hindus have of-
ten debated if what you eat determines your spiritual status. Sikhs do
not believe that. With such practical and liberal reasoning some
strange and unorthodox practices can also arise. Khushwant speaks of
a gurudwara in Australia which serves beer with the food. Given Sikh
history and teaching that just wouldn’t do. In his many writings, Guru
Nanak offered only two criteria for food taboos, both are based on
common sense. Anything that will harm the body or mind is to be
shunned. And all things edible are available and permissible in mod-
eration.
Over the years I have seen many variations on the theme but to dis-
cuss and debate unnecessarily what to eat or not to eat in Sikhism is to
transform what a modicum of intelligence and common sense can eas-
ily resolve into a mesh with the complexity of the Gordion knot.
63
' i
’ sas * x ; i
aad =
: = tr), Ie Agemucteties Make ca ak
Davi chee Uh windtivegyesigitom spd ag ee ee ine
he” Anna aie wee Ne pe Re cay A
wy me ees Mis ho cen Sate hy De
se 5
“ne ie J
on 5 ul
ae sas “
re
or Decent’
13
WHO IS 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 writ-
er Khushwant Singh is an example. It seems to me from my rudimen-
tary understanding of Sikhism that the religion allows and even
encourages a virtual rainbow of shades of opinions. This is true in the-
ory, 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 gurudwaras in Pun-
jab on Guru Arjan’s martyrdom day in June 1984. His poor judgement
and moral cowardice opened a new chapter on state terrorism against
the Sikhs and brought India close to fragmentation. A sense of self-re-
spect 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, Dyer. 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
65
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 Indi-
an 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 cri-
teria 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 Con-
stitution. It is only now that Mann seems to have despaired of the no-
tion of a unified Indian nation. Yet, no one can deny that his sacrifice
in the cause of the Sikhs is clear and significant. Bhindranwale unde-
niably 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 be-
cause circumstances have changed. Whereas, only a few years ago it
was possible for Sikhs to conceive of a productive life of dignity in In-
dia, now many have reluctantly concluded that it is not even a remote
possibility. Some still cling to that hope for a variety of reasons. Hu-
man 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
66
WHO IS A SIKH?
dedication of Khushwant or Aurora, let us open our doors to an ongo-

ing 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 jose all independent identity and
existence. They will then surely be engulfed by Hinduism and disap-
pear 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 Mus-
lims 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
67
but, thanks to the Brahmins, he did not die a natural death. How toler-
ant could Hinduism be of others if it treats almost half of its own be-
lievers 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 gurudwara 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 hear-
ings 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 gurudwara 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 gurudwaras 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 differ-

ences 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 in-
tentions, the personal or family life of many falls short of the Sikh ide-
al. 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 cer-
tainly no angels. And our gurudwara elections show how easy it is to
68
WHOIS A SIKH?
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 gurudwara 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 re-
pository of spiritual authority and the Sikh people speaking collective-
ly as the voice of the Guru in temporal matters. Many Sikhs follow
particular spiritual teachers and thus differ from others in minor prac-
tices but these idiosyncracies are relatively insignificant. Our religion
is young. Will there come a time when we will recognize three differ-
ent 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 fi-
nally 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
69
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. Ihave known
apostate (patit) Sikhs resent the fact that though gurudwaras 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 gurudwara 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 want-
ed 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?” [hope we will not fall into such a trap of dividing our-
selves into modern and not-so-modern Sikhs like that young woman. I
70
WHOIS A SIKH?
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 gurudwaras 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 rep-
resentatives 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 vir-
tuous. 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 gurudwaras
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 de-
cide 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 gurudwaras have to accept that. There is no hier-
71
archy 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 di-
vides us more than the practice of it. The dictates of man are not nec-
essarily the will of God. There is real danger in mistaking one for the
other.
Tz
14
ON GURUDWARAS AS NURSERIES
I am a Sikh. The religion was born in Punjab 500 years ago. It took root
and flourished in the wheat fields of Punjab in India 10,000 miles
away. When I came to the United States, there were hardly any Sikhs
in New York, and not more than a handful across the country. There
were few gurudwaras. Now over thirty years later, almost every state
in this country has a gurudwara, many cities have more than one. On
the high holy days, they are so crowded that one has to elbow one’s
way through the throngs to reach the altar. Thirty years ago, there were
so few Sikhs that everybody knew everybody, now there are so many
that it is impossible to find a familiar face in the sea of strangers. Thirty
years ago if two Sikhs ran into one another on the street, they went out
of the way to greet each other. Now there are so many of us, that we
cross the street to avoid another; so many that in our politics we can
afford to disagree volubly — without being disagreeable! Yet, the gu-
rudwara remains a source of comfort and solace. It is the repository of
our spiritual heritage and a nursery where the saplings of today will
find their roots in order to flourish and define our future.
I am also an amateur gardener. Some years ago, I saw a beautiful

plant at a friend’s house. Its colors were vibrant, the flowers seemed to
speak to me, they engulfed me in their aroma. I dearly wanted one like
that for my living room. Then it would give me the same pleasure that
it gave my friend. The friend was kind and we cut out a part of the plant
along with a little of the root being careful to keep it in soil. We trans-
ported it ever so gently to my house where I transplanted it into a pot
ip:
with new soil. For many days, it needed a baby’s care. I watched it
grow, I talked to it, I gave it special attention so that it would not dry
out. Soon the root took hold. Now it barely needs me except to water
it occasionally. Even ifIneglect it one week, it does not wilt. It looks
lush and happy. When I come home from work, the aroma envelopes
me and my tiredness melts away. I am rejuvenated every day.
Some weeks ago, as I sat in the gurudwara listening with half an

ear to the program secretary make some humdrum announcement
amidst the wailing ofinfants, several thoughts flooded my mind. A gu-
rudwara should be like a nursery but the existing ones did not feel like
it. Have we successfully transplanted the Sikhism of Guru Nanak and
Guru Gobind Singh in North American soil? A generation of Sikhs
brought the plant from India and lovingly tended it at such great cost.
Will the new generation of gardeners be prepared to take over? Is this
soil receptive? Does the transplant here need treatment and attention
of a different nature? Should our nurseries here be modified to suit the
new soil and the different climate? Have the roots taken hold? Are
there flowers? Will there be fruit? Is the aroma as hypnotic as ever?
Could the plant be more lush, the flowers more colorful and the aroma
richer in this new environment?
Raised in India, we became Sikhs more by accident than by

design. We were raised in Sikh households, so we became Sikhs.
Neither in the family at home, nor in the gurudwara or the school was
there much systematic attempt at teaching Sikhism to the young. We
learnt primarily by osmosis and some by example. We were raised on
a mixture of stories and history, some fact and much fiction, about
Sikhism which became an inseparable part of us. The experience of
Sikhism became an integral part of our bones, but it was never an
intellectual encounter. It is true that the reality which forms the
essence of religion transcends the intellect — our senses cannot
perceive, our intellects cannot fathom but our souls can commune with
this reality. Yet Sikhism keenly appreciates the worth of the
intellectual effort and critical reasoning also. Certainly, to many of our
young people who are growing up outside the comfortable cocoon of
74
ON GURUDWARAS AS NURSERIES
a Sikh community, the intellectual understanding of Sikhism paves the

way to a deeper perception.
On the other hand, to many of our first generation immigrants

here, a gurudwara is less important for any spiritual solace it may pro-
vide and more valuable for the cultural comfort. In the gurudwara
these Sikhs can forget the alien environment with all its frustrations —
the problems of work, the social isolation, the emotional exhaustion.
The Punjabi Sikh therefore, tries to recapture and recreate the sights,
the sounds and the smells of home. There is nothing wrong with that.
In fact, it helps the new arrivals preserve their sanity. Ergo, the reli-
gious service becomes most crowded not at its beginning but nearer its
end when the socializing begins. The granthi therefore, speaks only in
Punjabi; he understands no English for he never speaks to any people
who do not speak Punjabi. His congregation is usually more comfort-
able in Punjabi than any other language and using Punjabi gives them
both a sense of home. He never learns about other religions of this so-
ciety for he never represents Sikhs to the outside world. The commu-
nity becomes increasingly xenophobic. Such a gurudwara or granthi
cannot answer the needs of a novitiate but that is what the young Sikhs
born and raised outside India are like.
There are other needs of a new community here that a gurudwara

could address and accommodate — and needs to. Years ago, when my
library on comparative religion and Sikhism was more modest, I ea-
gerly went to the gurudwara to buy or borrow books and found that my
measly collection was already far superior, and the gurudwara had no
outlet for sale. A Sikh friend who was hospitalized for a few weeks
complained that what made him feel worse and most alone was that all
other patients but him were visited by their pastors. Why? Because our
granthis don’t know that this would be expected of them. They were
never trained to counsel the lonely and the sick, the sexually troubled
teenager and the drug addict, or those in the midst of domestic or in-
tercultural conflict. They were never prepared to consider new social
issues that impact on their congregation everyday — matters like Al-
cohol and drug addiction, AIDS, Racism, Sexism, Peace and Disarma-
1
ment, Environmental Crisis and so on. Instead we argue if it is alright

to serve pizza or peanut butter sandwiches for our fellowship meal or
langar. We get seriously irate over the guitar strumming young Sikh
who sings a ballad in English to the glory of the religion. We are more
content to debate Khalistan as if its fate is to be decided by the rising
crescendo of our anger, than the myriad of issues that impact on our
daily lives.
The new arrival needs to know how this society functions, how to
look for a job, a mate or a place to stay. What institutions of this soci-
ety can help him and how best can he utilize them? What are the rules
of social interaction here? Where are the icy patches of behavior in this
community where one must tread carefully? He needs a gurudwara
which is a spiritual retreat from the battles of life, where he can come
to be rejuvenated to fight another day — and how. The young need to
know that much as it is possible to be a good Jew and a good American
or a good Christian and a good American and so on, similarly it is pos-
sible to be a good Sikh and a good American; these are not mutually
exclusive ideas. Only then will we carve our rightful and equal niche
in the complex and rich mosaic of this society. Where else should he
learn all that but in a gurudwara?
The Sikhs need to develop a nursery which can provide a receptive

soil to a precious sapling.
76
15
THE GRANTHI — PRIEST, RABBI
OR MINISTER?
There are several drawbacks to emigrating and a major gain. One has
to recast one’s assumptions and cultural framework in terms of the
new, host culture and in a new language. Such transformation is not
easy. Since culture and language are inseparably intertwined, many of
the religious and cultural concepts cannot be adequately or accurately
expressed in a different language. Yet, effective communication re-
quires that we try. The constant immersion in a new system and a new
society forces us to think afresh our fondest assumptions and beliefs
— and that is the gain though it is not without pain.
I smile to myself when I hear a Sikh refer to a gurudwara as our

“church” in a non-Sikh gathering. He is trying a short-cut to commu-
nication but loses precision in the process. A gurudwara is definitely
not a church just as a synagogue is not one, and nor is it a mosque. And
now with so many gurudwaras outside India, it is time for the word gu-
rudwara to take its rightful place in the lexicon describing places of
worship. What also bothers me is our confusion in how to refer to the
person who conducts the religious service in a gurudwara. Is he akin
to a priest, a minister, or a rabbi or is he uniquely different? What
should we expect of him? What moral or ecclesiastical authority does
he have? What title shall we give him when we speak in English so that
his position and functions are not misunderstood?
ad
When Guru Nanak settled in Kartarpur after his many travels he

became an active farmer. He tilled the lands, earned an honest living,
fed his family and preached his message. In many ways, his life re-
mains the ideal. Given the bent and history of the Hindu Brahmin who
made a business of religion and sold religious indulgences while mak-
ing himself the sole proprietor of this less than honest trade, the prag-
matic Sikh mind remains skeptical of a professional clergy. At one
level we feel that no man should sell religious knowledge; such truth
should be freely given and to profit from it would be sinful. Yet we
recognize that the person who dedicates his life to learning and teach-
ing about Sikhism needs to be paid. Religious learning is his trade just
as you and I making our living from other vocations. And like us, he
too has a family to support and bills to meet; the world does not put
food on his table. This dichotomy in our thinking does not sit well. The
result is that the man who performs the religious service is usually in-
adequately and grudgingly compensated, and little respected. At an-
other level however, we also see that this man brings us the teachings
of our Gurus and sometimes both the heart and purse strings open most
generously. Some itinerant preachers rake in millions.
Our preacher has historically been called a Bhai which translates

into “Brother” or Granthi which means “curator of the Guru Granth”.
“Granthi” appears to be a more accurate term and it seems to me that
it need not be translated into English. A rabbi is not called someone
else in English, nor should he be. An /mam remains that in English as
well. Pundit, the Sanskrit word for a scholar is now part of the English
language. If non-Sikhs are not now familiar with the word “Granthi’,
they will, in time and with usage. Some concepts lose their majesty,
power and accuracy upon translation.
The granthi is very different from a priest. Sikhism has never rec-
ommended, required or taught that a granthi be celibate. In fact, most
Sikhs would be suspicious and leery of one who was. In the Sikh view,
the family life is the right way, renunciation just would not do for ei-
ther the clergy or the laity. In the Roman Catholic Church, the office
of the priest carries certain ecclesiastical authority which is not granted
78
THE GRANTHI — PRIEST, RABBI OR MINISTER?
to the clergy by the Sikhs. The office of the granthi is accepted by the
Sikhs as a necessity. The respect for the man who occupies it does not
come with the title; it has to be earned and depends upon the individ-
ual. The expositions of the granthi are at best recommendations. In
many ways the style of the traditional granthi is that of a Talmudic
scholar, his sermons and writings are commentaries on Sikh scriptures
and he often attempts to apply the lessons of history to contemporary
life-situations. He never speaks ex cathedra, no matter how important
the subject, how strongly he feels about it, or how venerated he is.
Anyone may openly disagree with him or engage him in debate,
though not while a service is in progress. Also in most gurudwaras his
tenure of office depends upon the pleasure of the congregation and the
management committee that is responsible for the physical property
and the financial health of the gurudwara.
There are several caveats to these general statements. Many of the

historical gurudwaras in India are managed by a legislated India-wide
organization called the Shiromini Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee
(SGPC). In these gurudwaras, granthis are appointed, transferred, cer-
tified etc by a central system of civil service. For these granthis, job
tenure is not much different from that of a priest or any other bureau-
crat, though moral authority still does not come with the territory. Fol-
lowing the times of the Gurus, four major historical gurudwaras
acquired a preeminent place in Sikh psyche and have come to be re-
ferred to as “Takhts” or Thrones (Seats or Centers) of authority. In this
century, during the fifties, another was added to make a total of five,
the center at Akal Takht in Amritsar which was founded by Guru Har-
gobind remains the first among equals among these five. The granthis
of the five centers of authority are appointed by the SGPC and referred
to as “Jathedars” — literally leaders of “jathas” or bands or the com-
munity. These five leaders of the community, after collective deliber-
ation, can issue joint directives or commandments to the community,
including notification of a rare honor or castigation of an individual for
a particularly heinous act. Even they lack any machinery or system for
enforcement of their edicts except the social acceptability and respect
for their pronouncements within the Sikh community.
79
If today not many gurudwaras have women granthis it is custom

and not canon. A minuscule minority like the Sikhs could not remain
free from the influence of the predominant cultures of India — Hindu-
ism and to some extent Islam. In those two, women are not allowed as
functionaries in the temple or mosque. Consequently, few Sikh women
became granthis although many more perform the duties on an infor-
mal basis at Sikh services. I was amazed to learn that at one time the
management of the Golden Temple would not allow any woman to
sing within the inner sanctum, since none had by tradition. In reality,
there is no function within the Sikh place of worship or in a Sikh serv-
ice that is not allowed to a woman. It is well to remember that when
Guru Amar Das first organized the widespread Sikhs into 22 diocese,
several of those named to head them were women.
Some of the cultural dead baggage that we bring with us was

brought home to me about three years ago. A newly established
gurudwara in New York was looking for a new granthi. Many were
interviewed. I recommended a young man in his thirties who was
fluent in Punjabi and English. As part of the job interview he gave a
sermon. He was good but was not seriously considered because many
of the older congregation were uneasy — he was too young to be a
spiritual leader. It reminded me that John Kennedy, when told he was
too young to be President, made an election promise that he vowed
never to break — if elected, he promised never to be that young again.
The gurudwara found an excellent but older granthi instead.
Guru Gobind Singh is said to have sent several promising Sikh

scholars to various centers of indigenous Indian vedic philosophy.
These scholars on their return formed the nucleus for the first granthis
because they were well versed not only in the teachings of the Gurus
but also in the scholarly tradition of the other major religions of India.
From such noble beginnings, we seem to have slipped although there
are still some very erudite granthis. By and large, most granthis today
are limited in their education to a knowledge of Sikh, Hindu and Mos-
lem scriptures. Often their familiarity with history is rudimentary and
their sermons are overlaid with a strong dose of mythology and folk-
tales. Entertaining but confusing, and certainly not satisfying.
80
The granthis are at a particular disadvantage when they follow the

migration of Sikhs away from India. They are usually not schooled in
any language but Punjabi nor are they equipped to hold any other job.
They have never been exposed to the teachings of Judaism or Chris-
tianity — the religions of the West. It becomes impossible for them to
represent Sikhism outside to non-Sikhs or participate in inter-religious
dialogues. Their role becomes increasingly limited. Their congrega-
tion acquire sophisticated life-styles and are exposed to the tempta-
tions, successes and the excesses of the new culture. The granthi does
not venture outside the circle of the gurudwara very much and cannot
experience the needs and the frustrations of his congregation. Increas-
ingly, he becomes only marginally relevant to the lives of the Sikhs,
particularly the young. Only the older generation weaned on similar
teaching in India listens raptly to the granthi. Even they do not find
him or his message particularly important to their lives but his pres-
ence is comforting because it captures the emotional aura of back
home. The listeners but particularly the young tend increasingly to
lead schizoid lives.
Lest someone think that I am too strongly condemnatory — and
that is certainly not the intent — I merely ask how many Sikhs, young
or old, confide in the granthi about personal or familial problems that
confront them? And isn’t that a major function of the priest, rabbi,
minister or granthi — to be a sensitive, learned, ear and counsel. The
fault lies not in the granthi but in how he is perceived and trained, and
in the system which has not responded to the changing needs and
times. Parenthetically, I should add that some new Sikh academies in
India are training a new, refreshing breed of granthis, but they are few
and far between. Not long ago, when I had to confront my mortality
via a two-week hospital stay, I noticed that our granthi does not visit
the sick or comfort the old and the poor. He was never taught that this
is part of the job. The priest and the rabbi do. A minister must minister
and so should a granthi. The granthi needs to get out from the four
walls of the gurudwara. He needs to become a friend and a guide. As
the person in the gurudwara the granthi has to be the pivot which
holds the community together.
81
I would like to see a granthi who can communicate not only in the
language of our scriptures but also in the local argot; who can represent
us and our religion to others. A man who is at home in the library but
also on the golf course and the tennis court. We do not need a recluse
for a granthi but one who understands life and is paid accordingly; who
is not so busy valuing book-learning that he has no time nor skill to live
a full life. Like a Talmudic scholar, he can make the teachings of
Sikhism come alive to the needs of today and tomorrow. The granthi
can create an environment and a feeling where one can laugh at the ab-
surdities of the young, hold a seminar where rebellious questioning is
not deemed blasphemy, where frank discussions about sex and drugs
would not be shocking, yet where the Guru’s grace pervades.
The Gurus were very forthright in their comments about the evils
of the day whether sati, caste system, female infanticide or the use of
intoxicants etc. Our granthi needs to be equally forthcoming on what
the twenty-first century promises to us — from domestic conflict to the
environmental crisis; from dowry system to AIDS; from human rights
to disarmament and reproductive rights. This does not mean that the
granthi needs to be an expert and speak authoritatively on all these
matters. No one man can. It does mean that the granthi has to provide
the atmosphere and the direction where these matters can be freely dis-
cussed — experts can always be found. Conclusions will rarely
emerge, and any that we derive today may be modified tomorrow with
changes in our understanding and our circumstances. The discussion
in a spiritual ambience will not lead us astray but will enrich us. And
who but the granthi should provide the lead?
Who else but the granthi should steer the religious service in the
gurudwara? No one else is as well trained. He should coordinate the
program, arrange the appropriate mix of keertan and katha. He should
invite the appropriate singers of the liturgy, performers or lecturers.
His opinion should be respectfully sought and heard if a question aris-
es on interpretation of a religious teaching, doctrine, tradition or dog-
ma. The management committee or other elected representatives have
a different job; to set policy, to design guidelines within which the
82
functions are held, to manage the property, raise funds, to hire or fire
a granthi or other employees and so on. The granthi remains answer-
able to the management as I remain responsible to my Dean for my
performance at my University, but how I teach my specialty lies out-
side the Dean’s immediate expertise. If a serious disagreement surfac-
es, a parting of the ways may be necessary, but the Dean is not trained
to, nor does he micromanage my teaching. Why should we think that
the management committee of a gurudwara by virtue of having been
elected, all of a sudden have acquired the specialized religious knowl-
edge of a granthi? It seems hardly reasonable or operationally efficient
for the secretary of the management committee to micromanage the
daily religious service.
The duties of a modern granthi should occupy him longer than the
two to four hours a week that he seems to work in most gurudwaras.
And he needs to be well rewarded, consistent with his qualifications as
a scholar, and the society in which he operates. He needs and deserves
our support and respect for he can help us find the way to an inner
beauty and truth. He puts us in touch with our spiritual heritage. He is
not a gofer, a janitor or a caretaker serving at the whim of a manage-
ment committee of people who have little knowledge of religion and
less serious interest in it. On the other hand, we should not recast our
granthi into the role of a Brahmin who is called to officiate at a reli-
gious ceremony because without him the ceremony may not be valid.
Such a view has no place in Sikh teaching. The granthi unlike the
Brahmin does not hold the keys of heaven in his hot little hands but he
can help us discover our own way to unlock the door.
83
2 Pes i
~~ ay :
ea ae
=o “—[? 2:
re
"Ss = i ge
Pcl Og Ce (eat use ee , ate
ad :
ere erent ms Bre en
, ut ne DiNe= “i le =a a
& Pelt ma _ ook
agian ragtc = paryiaee ane Da sis

senate oneness
16
ON THE POLITICS OF
(GURUDWARAS
It seems to me self evident that when the belly is full and a sense of
dignity prevails, man wants to assert himself. He may want to work
with people but not for them. He wants to be heard. He has the ability
to sacrifice and to serve others but wants to be led to it, not driven by
blows, like cows to pasture. The need to rise above the self is there, the
desire has to be awakened from within. In theory, what better institu-
tion can possibly exist for such purpose than that of religion, since re-
ligion was designed to awaken the higher self.
Guru Gobind Singh asserted that his Khalsa engages in battle ev-
ery day. The battlefield of the human mind is what he was recommend-
ing. I doubt that he would approve of the battles one sees in
gurudwaras every day — legal and physical fights, fisticuffs and
sometimes the heavy presence of the police. I suppose that these per-
petual disagreements are a healthy testament to the fact that the Sikhs
are not unconcerned about the management of their religious institu-
tions, but not necessarily an indication of their good sense. Unlike the
Roman Catholics, the Sikhs have no administrative hierarchy which
can govern without interference from the laity. There is a caveat to this
but more about that later. There is no professional clergy. And that is
all to the good. I do wish though that we could disagree without being
so disagreeable so often.
85
For the historical gurudwaras across India, there is an India-wide

body, mandated by law and formed in 1920. This body, the Shiromini
Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC) is an elective council
which administers these gurudwaras and their property. It also em-
ploys granthis who serve this body much like priests serve the Vati-
can. Such a bureaucratic system of civil service however, does not
exist for the majority of gurudwaras, smaller and not historical but
community based, which are managed and operated by the community
or parish in which they are situated. Often these institutions follow the
lead of the British designed SGPC or of other secular democratic insti-
tutions and clubs to elect officers and management committees.
Guru Gobind Singh decreed that after him, the line of Gurus in hu-
man form would end; Guru Granth now remains the repository of all
spiritual knowledge, and the Sikh community acting in mindful prayer
has the authority to decide on temporal matters because many issues
change with demands of culture or times. It seems clear that no gov-
ernment or civil authority should determine the activities and the fu-
ture of Sikh religious institutions; only Sikhs joined in an awareness of
the Guru have that prerogative. It has always rankled me that in India,
the government dictates when and how elections to the SGPC are held.
It is not a compliment to the Sikhs that the premier body which over-
sees their religious institutions owes its life and existence to a fiat of
the government.
For most of us though, SGPC is of only remote and academic in-

terest. Of much more immediate concern are gurudwaras which we
have built with our own hard earned efforts in the past few years in this
country. These are the institutions which reflect our sweat, toil and
tears, and which we hope to bequeath to our children, though most of
these institutions are so far removed from the lives of our young peo-
ple that I wonder why would they want them, and what would they do
with them?
It is inevitable that where there are people, working relationships

should form or dissolve as necessary. In working with fellow men, a
sense of competition is inevitable. In secular, business or civic matters
86
ON THE POLITICS OF GURUDWARAS
such contention can only benefit society. In religious matters such ri-
valry robs the institution of its aura of oneness. How best then to en-
sure that people have the opportunity to serve and have the incentive
to give, while at the same time maintaining the ambience and the at-
mosphere where one finds brotherhood of man, and not the mentality
of a pack of dogs fighting over a bone. Nowhere does the very human
tendency to strut as the leader while at the same time remaining, at
least outwardly, as one of the pack show more clearly than in the many
lodges, clubs, fraternities and religious institutions that we devise for
voluntary service to mankind. How should religious institutions, par-
ticularly gurudwaras govern themselves?
Of course, we want the management of our gurudwaras to be dem-

ocratic. We must not deny any Sikh the opportunity to serve, in fact we
wish to encourage him. The virtues of democracy are like those of
God, motherhood and apple pie — self evident and beyond reproach.
Ergo, there is hardly a gurudwara in this country which does not have
annual elections, and hardly any which hasn’t had serious disagree-
ments and trouble over their outcome or procedure. It is time to cast a
fresh (jaundiced?), different eye at what we do and more importantly,
at what we want in the management of a gurudwara.
An important leg of the tripod that forms the philosophic basis of

Sikhism is community service. Where else should it start but in the
home and the gurudwara? So it is right that unpaid volunteers provide
the bulk of the service. Also in a service oriented, volunteer organiza-
tion such as a gurudwara, Sikh tradition says that it never behooves
anyone to appear too anxious for an office. Sikhs have never liked any-
one who did not make a serious attempt to deny or at least hide his po-
litical ambition. The Sikhs prefer their leaders to be reluctant brides,
somewhat like Nawab Kapur Singh who accepted a title only when it
was thrust upon him. Most often our gurudwara leaders are often shy
in wanting power; but having tasted it once, are unfortunately even
more obdurate in clinging to their offices. More often than not they
have to be cajoled into an office but dragged kicking and screaming
out of it. It is the latter quality that we don’t want. Are elections then
87
the only, or the best, way to ensure and promote a democratic institu-
tion in which the workers are largely unpaid volunteers, and where the
leaders must at least appear to be most diffident to assume the mantle?
I think that only one kind of election can work in a religious orga-
nization and that is the way that a pope is elected by the Roman Cath-
olic College of Cardinals — the election is by closed ballot, the
electors stay secreted until they have achieved unanimous agreement,
the election is announced but not the attending controversy. Since the
Sikhs do not have a similar hierarchy, such a process is unthinkable for
us. (Let me be clear. I am glad we do not have such a hierarchy; it
would not be consistent with Sikh teaching.) As it is, if Ihave a driving
desire to serve the community and become a candidate, I must at some
point indicate to people why I am preferable to my rival. No matter
how good my opponent, I must promise more or, at least, clearly draw
a distinction between my position and his, even where little or no dif-
ference exists. Some lies necessary to the political process must be in-
vented as in any other political campaign. To win I have to polarize the
community. Whoever wins, rivalry will remain, lines drawn, and the
community divided — until the next election when new lines are
drawn. In the words of H.L. Mencken, “in a democracy a good politi-
cian is quite as unthinkable as an honest burglar.” The electoral pro-
cess would necessarily taint even a saint. Years of watching gurudwara
politics convinces me that the operating mechanisms most often are
accusations and calumny on both sides driven by pride, prejudice and
passion, not reason, and certainly not principle. When the dead hand
of power politics begins to squeeze the life and spirit out of an institu-
tion and the community, alternatives must be considered. I suggest that
we can maintain the democratic structure of the gurudwara as also the
spirit of service, minus the ambitious infighting.
In a rephrase of the old Kennedy refrain: Don’t just see what you
can take from the gurudwara; Look at what you can give to it. How
else can gurudwaras grow and flourish? To find an answer let us go to
the roots of our religion. The Sikh religion like some others, expects
its followers to tithe. Some Sikhs don’t but many follow this injunction
88
faithfully or at least fitfully. Those who do, interpret it most narrowly

and usually donate ten percent of their income. But is that what is
meant by ten percent? I think that the Guru’s definition is different
from that of a Hollywood agent claiming his cut. This ten percent
means a tenth of your life — of time as well as earnings — or ee
about two and a half hours per day of your being.
I suggest that each parishioner owes some service to the parish that
sustains him or her spiritually. It is not a novel idea, many churches
reason similarly. By such logic all adults who are recognizably Sikh
and who worship at a particular gurudwara would be enrolled as active
members of it. The assumption here is that a person can and will reg-
ister only in one gurudwara, although the services in the gurudwara re-
main open to all. Certainly, in these days of computers this should not
be too difficult to affirm. I have touched on this matter elsewhere, but
I do feel very strongly that those who represent us publicly must be
recognizable Sikhs though I realize that outward symbols are no guar-
antee of a consistent life-style. Thus I am willing to forgive private
failing from which no one is exempt. But I see that particularly in a
non-Sikh ambience, the public persona is important for it has implica-
tions for the life of the community. In this matter therefore, I am ac-
cepting of a measure of hypocrisy but not of public cynicism.
The way I see it, from the membership rolls of registered parish-
ioners, gurudwara management committee could be chosen by random
preference. It is quite possible that one year we may be saddled with a
preponderance of imbeciles but that does not bother me all that much;
we have survived stupidity, incompetence as well as criminality be-
fore. Also, there is a way to minimize at least the effects of possible
inadequacy or inexperience; have the previous year’s officers serve as
a committee of advisers to the present committee and also select a slate
of officers-elect who will assume office next year when the present
committee in turn become advisers. This will insure that continuity in
policy is maintained. It will also mean that new people who will not
normally enter gurudwara management will get a chance to serve. It
89
will produce a system of training and will impart managerial skills to

our members — skills that are also useful elsewhere.
There are ancillary benefits to such a model which drafts people

by lottery. No man who is selected an officer can go around puffing his
chest and claiming to be a community leader (he is at best a commu-
nity representative), because his office is a gift from the community
(sangat) attained by grace of the Guru and in no way a reflection of his
popularity or competence. It is truly an appointment to serve, not an
office to harangue or lord over the people. It is not earned but granted
by the congregation (sangat). The sangat remains paramount. Guru
Gobind Singh proved it by requesting his followers to baptize him, and
by clearly assigning all the glory for his success to his followers.
I also think it would be better if the titles used for various offices
are not the usual ones of Director, President and so on, for they speak
of power and of a man on an ego trip. Simpler titles indicative of the
Sikh concept of service, preferably in Punjabi would be better. (Quite
obviously, titles in Punjabi would be novel to most, but even the non-
Sikhs, non-Punjabis will learn given the opportunity.) I realize that
sometimes a particular person may not be able to serve for personal or
professional reasons; an exemption may then be granted upon presen-
tation of sufficient cause.
The concept is not much different from the one that requires each
citizen to be available for jury duty unless excused for good reason.
There are duties and rights to being a Sikh as there are to being a citi-
zen of a country.
It is not commonly seen in the gurudwara committees that I have

observed, but there are two principles they need to keep in mind in
their meetings. They need to remind themselves that they are a reli-
gious body, meeting for a cause that transcends the self, so their meet-
ings should begin and end in mindful prayer — perhaps then the
middle would not be so dreary. And they need to get acquainted with
Robert’s Rules of Order. I would strongly suggest that the manage-
ment committee of a gurudwara should manage the physical facilities,
90
finances, hiring and firing of personnel including the granthi, and in

the general design of policy, but stay out of the religious instruction
and programs. It is disturbing if not insulting to have members of the
committee micromanaging a religious function for most of them have
neither the skill nor the interest. Religious programming is rightly the
bailiwick and expertise of the granthi and he should design that portion
according to the guidelines provided by the committee. Even when the
committee meets, unless the issue pertains to the granthi himself, he
should be present as an ex officio member to ensure that whatever is
discussed or decided is consistent with Sikh teaching and tradition.
The granthi is a scholar of the Sikh religion and needs to be recognized
as such. Much like the army in a democracy which remains answerable
to the elected government of civilians, the granthi however, must re-
main answerable to the management board which is composed of the
laity.
I also suggest that the far flung corners of our community need to
be knit, not into a monolithic organization, but into a cooperating net-
work of autonomous units. Each gurudwara with a parish exceeding,
say 50 adults, could nominate one member to a Central Sikh Council
for the United States; the term for each nominee could run, say, three
or four years. This Council could speak for Sikhs at the national or in-
ternational levels, perhaps issue a quarterly journal, publish relevant
books, sponsor events or symposia, and in general be an umbrella or-
ganization which can respond in a more powerful and meaningful way
as and when needed. To give an example, during the Reagan years we
lost the right to serve as recognizable Sikhs in the armed services of
the United States. What other body but a Central Sikh Council should
lead the struggle on a national scale to restore these rights? Our gurud-
waras across the country have taken on several meritorious projects for
community service such as feeding the homeless, providing medical
screenings and organizing blood drives. Such a Council can put us on
the national and international maps for such activities. Let the mini-
mum expenses of such a Council be met by nominal assessments from
the member gurudwaras (units), say $500 per year.
91
No matter how well intentioned the people, sometimes differences

will occur. Several procedures could help. A primary constitutional re-
quirement of any gurudwara would have to be that officers (sevadars)
would hold office for only one term and would not be eligible for re-
selection for at least one term. Any disputes that cannot be resolved lo-
cally would be referred to the Central Council for binding arbitration
or adjudication. The Council would have a standing Rota, Tribunal or
Judicial Bench of perhaps five members who would weigh the evi-
dence and arbitrate or otherwise resolve issues that come before it.
Since we are dealing with a religious institution, I believe it necessary
that two or three members of the Bench be granthis. In doctrinal mat-
ters a tribunal of granthis is more meaningful. Obviously a member of
the Bench would disqualify himself if the case comes from his juris-
diction. It doesn’t have to be what I suggest, but I believe it important
that we design some such model of ecclesiastical authority so that our
gurudwaras stop running to the civil courts of the land every other day
, as they now seem to. By such behavior we abrogate our responsibility
and, in a sense, hand our affairs to others, making them the custodians
of our destiny.
I realize that what I propose is a radical departure from what ex-

ists. But I assure you, one has to be a veteran of the gurudwara election
wars or at least have witnessed some, to appreciate why an alternative
to elections is imperative. Words cannot convey their brutality. Lest it
seem too much like sour grapes, I confess that in the past I have held
elective offices in the gurudwara and appointive offices in gurudwara
committees and other Sikh organizations. I speak today from a sense
of self developed over years of service in academia that I am one of
life’s lone furrowers and do not plow well when yoked to elephantine,
multimember committees except briefly and in small doses. So now I
usually shy away from gurudwara management except in special
projects.
One needs to remember that ultimately our effectiveness and im-
pact will be determined not by the shrillness of our rhetoric but by the
quite measured force of our reason. As Eugene McCarthy said, “Being
in politics is like being a football coach. You have to be smart enough
to understand the game and stupid enough to think it’s important.”
oe
dE
RELIGION AND POLITICS —
WHAT A Mix!
Over the past ten years or so, particularly since the Indian army attack
on the Golden Temple in 1984, the Indian government spokesmen
have repeatedly tried to promote the argument that gurudwaras should
be restricted to worship and prayer; no political issues should be dis-
cussed there, for such matters demean the sanctity of holy places. Ne-
hru, the first Prime Minister of free India, lucidly articulated the
concept that the mix of religions and politics was an explosive one.
Since the rise of Ayatollah Khomeni in Iran and the tide of Islamic fun-
damentalism, the world has rightly become wary of such a blend.
Though not as widely noted, the rise of Hindu chauvinism in India is
equally pernicious; notice the Hindu determination to destroy the 500
years old Babri mosque and replace it with a Hindu temple.
Nehru’s daughter Indira Gandhi, the former Indian Prime Minis-

ter, pushed the idea more forcefully and globally in order to weaken
the Sikhs at home and malign them world wide for mixing politics and
religion. The litany has been artfully continued and elaborated by her
followers, including Zail Singh, the former President of India. Many
Sikhs have come to join such a chorus; either they do not understand
its implications or find themselves to be too much on the defensive.
On the other hand, some Sikhs have vociferously maintained their

traditional right of being able to discuss political matters within gurud-
93
waras but have looked at such a practice as being unique to the Sikh
religion. Asking for any such special privilege for the Sikhs is wrong
and begs the question.
On the surface, the Indian government’s position sounds entirely

logical and absolutely unassailable but believe me, it is absurd. When
Bishop Desmond Tutu led a moral movement for political change in
South Africa from his church, nobody found it wrong. When Martin
Luther King led a powerful nationwide crusade against racism from
his church, nobody accused him of sinfully mixing politics and reli-
gion. His chant of “We shall overcome” was not perceived to be polit-
ically threatening to the established government. When we daily
beseech the Roman Catholic Church to be more active in movements
for empowerment of people and for social and political change in Latin
America, it is because we know that to be a primary function of a reli-
gion. Are birth control, abortion rights and freedom of choice strictly
religious and personal matters or are they to be decided in the political
arena alone? Is it possible to separate the two entirely and completely?
Look at how these issues have dominated and claimed the political
agenda in the United States, look at their importance in impoverished
Roman Catholic nations in Latin America. Their socioeconomic im-
pact is clear. How can such moral, ethical and religious elements be di-
vorced from political programs?
If the White House is the bully pulpit for the President to articulate
his societal vision, religion provides a different pulpit to integrate the
internal and the external parts of the self. Even the most cursory look
at history will tell us that social conscience is forged by religion, social
policy is hammered out in the heat of political debate. Bishop Tutu and
Reverend King received Nobel prizes and honors all over the world for
their efforts, not abuse and calumny for mixing politics and religion as
has been the fate of Sikh leaders. When Mahatma Gandhi (though his
achievements were all in the political arena, “Mahatma” is an honorif-
ic based in religion, not politics) led India’s movement for freedom
from the British, he issued most of his policy directives or political
statements following a prayer meeting; the press would meet him
94
RELIGION AND POLITICS — WHAT A MIX!
there. If that was not wrong, why is it wrong for the Sikhs to start a po-
litical agitation after a prayer meeting?
When we ask that religion and state remain separate we mean

something else. A policy of separation of religion and government
makes sense but one must understand what that concept means. Gov-
ernment should be blind to religion. We are citizens — not atheist cit-
izens, Jewish citizens, Christian citizens of a particular denomination,
or Sikh citizens. It is not right to ask that a citizen should have to affirm
“So help me God” though most will not mind. An affirmation of honor
and an awareness of the laws against perjury should be necessary in
court or at being sworn into office, not an oath. Some states in this
country, like California, allow such an affirmation, but most states still
do not. Iam sure Jefferson would be disappointed by the statement “In
God we trust” on our currency. It does little but to trivialize both God
and man. It is well to remember that this inscription on our currency
dates only from the 1950s as do the words “one nation under God” in
the pledge of allegiance. The essence of the First Amendment is two-
fold: One says there will be no establishment of religion by the state
and the second refers to free exercise of religion as a fundamental right
of citizens. These two clauses are interdependent; the latter cannot ex-
ist without the State honoring the former.
The concept of separation of Church and State means only one

thing: The State shall not establish a religion. A corollary is that the
State will not endorse or aid any particular religion nor would it hinder
any. It means that the resource or might of a government is not to be
used in matters of religion. It emphatically does not mean that reli-
gious people will not enter politics, nor that politicians would have no
religion. It does not mean that politicians will not discuss religious
matters or that religious people will not debate political issues. It does
not mean that laws or political statutes will not be talked about in
churches and temples.
If man has any inalienable rights, where else shall he talk about
them except in a house of God from whom all such rights flow? If po-
litical systems serve to organize and systematize human rights and hu-
95
man obligations to the State, where else should such political

institutions be analyzed except in churches, temples, mosques and gu-
rudwaras? Religions need not dictate to man every aspect of his per-
sonal and social behavior but they should provide a forum for
discussion of all moral and ethical issues — each and every aspect of
human activity.
Religions should do more than prate empty nonsense about an In-

finite God or of a fanciful or feared hereafter. Religions must define
man’s place in society, his relationship to fellow man. They must make
the moral man into a more ethical being. If the men who govern other
men must remain unaware of religion then those who rule us will have
no ethics. If a religion makes a man better, we need not less but more
religious men in government — men who love their own religion and,
at the same time, can also rejoice in another who loves his own equally
though differently.
The present dilemma of the Sikhs on mixing religion and politics

particularly in India is indeed ironic. In the 1920’s when the Sikhs
launched a massive non-violent struggle against the British, finally
forcing the British to surrender the keys of the Golden Temple to them,
the first man to congratulate the Sikhs was Mahatma Gandhi. He said
“the Sikhs have won the first battle in the struggle for India’s indepen-
dence.” His protege, Nehru also personally visited the Sikhs to felici-
tate them. Until 1947, Sikhs repeatedly initiated massive movements
for India’s freedom from the ramparts of the gurudwaras. Neither the
British nor the Indian political leaders found such activity a misuse of
the holy premises. It was only an independent India (since 1947)
which found the Sikh agitations for dignity, human rights and for a re-
spectable framework in free India inappropriate to religious places.
The reason is simpler. Now the Sikhs were agitating against these goy-
ernments of independent India of which they were a part.
When Indira Gandhi suspended India’s Constitution in the 1970’s

and ruled by administrative fiat, the Sikhs launched a historic agitation
from their gurudwaras for restoration of democratic rights. Indira Gan-
dhi never forgave them for challenging her. When in 1982 they
96
RELIGION AND POLITICS — WHAT A MIx!
launched another agitation from the Golden Temple to redefine state

rights within India’s Constitutional framework, Indira Gandhi re-
solved to crush them. She realized that their strength flows from their
religion and the gurudwaras. Her attempts to divorce religion from po-
litical issues was a ploy to sap the energy of the Sikhs which had be-
come so inconvenient, even threatening. That is why the structure and
the functioning of the Shiromini Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee
(SGPC) flabbergasts me — the government (at one time British, now
Indian) is the parent and the midwife of this strange animal in Sikh pol-
itics; it functions at governmental pleasure and by governmental fiat,
thus reflecting a pernicious state interference in religious matters.
For years, both Mahatma Gandhi and Nehru appeared at many

Sikh gatherings in gurudwaras to seek their support on political issues,
as did Indira Gandhi when she ruled India. Many gurudwaras world-
wide honored them for their “political vision” and they accepted such
honors gratefully. For Nehru and his descendants “separation of poli-
tics from religion” was never a matter of principle but is now one of
political expediency.
The essence of Sikh teaching has been to mold a man into a “com-
plete” man; one who loves his own religion but is also equally respect-
ful and tolerant of another who follows his own faith and a different
road. Sikhism emphasizes integration of the internal life with the ex-
ternal reality of society. The primary activity of the Sikh religion has
been directed at empowerment of those who had been powerless for
centuries under the Muslims and in the Hindu caste system. Guru Nan-
ak spoke of the evils of his day just as much and just as boldly as he
spoke of his love of God and the virtues of meditation. There can be
no love of God where there is no love of truth and no hunger for jus-
tice. The lives of Guru Arjan, Hargobind, Tegh Bahadur and Gobind
Singh particularly emphasize that a dichotomy between religious and
secular concerns is false. Of the ten commandments in Christianity ful-
ly seven refer to man’s relationship to man and are best termed ele-
ments of social behavior.
97
If religious institutions do not respond to political issues that affect

the lives of their people, those religions would become irrelevant to the
lives of the people, and they should. They would no longer remain liv-
ing religions but become empty shells of meaningless ritual and dog-
ma. Religions must answer man’s needs here and now and help relieve
his hell in this life rather than promise him a heaven in the hereafter.
Heavenly reward for earthly misery is a poor bargain.
98
18
KHALISTAN: ONE SIKH’S VIEW
In writing this, the usual reason — to convey a point of view — is re-

inforced by a better one, to initiate a debate. Debating Khalistan is an
impossible assignment and an unpleasant chore in some ways. Yet it
is only in debate that we hone our skills, sharpen our focus and define
our goals. And we should not be afraid to take on sacred cows. This
discussion is particularly timely because in recent years a litmus test
of political correctness has emerged by which to judge a Sikh. If your
opinions fall even a hair short of total support for the idea of Khalistan
you are quickly branded anti-Sikh. And this is unfortunate. This debate
needs a devil’s advocate for an impossible cause and I am that — a
devil’s advocate.
The word “Khalistan” conjures some very disturbing images

among Indians; people still remember the painful birth of Pakistan.
The Indian government has used the recent demand for Khalistan by
Sikhs for some petty and inane policies which are more likely to make
that dream of many come true. Many nasty suggestions have been
made regarding the Sikhs (send them to Pakistan!) by many Hindus in-
cluding Rajiv Gandhi. The reality is somewhat more complex.
Certainly the Sikhs need no lessons in patriotism. It has been re-

peatedly and clearly established that during the struggle for India’s in-
dependence, the sacrifice of the Sikhs was far in excess of their
proportion in the country; fully 70 to 80 percent of all freedom fighters
who were arrested, sentenced, exiled or hanged by the British were
be
Sikhs. Within a few years of independence Sikhs had transformed the

Punjab into the richest province of India with the highest standard of
living. Where India used to have famines every year, now thanks to the
Punjabi Sikh farmers, the country can even export food. In many ways
India owes its unity and integrity to the Sikh soldiers who served it so
well in its three wars against Pakistan and one against China. How is
it that things have changed so much so soon?
Before the attack on the Golden Temple in June 1984 on Guru Ar-
jan’s martyrdom day, one could perhaps count on the fingers of one
hand the number of Sikhs who would opt for an independent sovereign
republic of Khalistan. After the killings of Sikhs in November, 1984
and the subsequent repressive policies of the Indian government direct-
ed solely against the Sikhs, one can count on the fingers of one hand
the number of Sikhs who would not chose Khalistan. This striking shift
occurred within months of the attack on the Golden Temple. Rather
than being angry at it, frustrated by it or afraid of it, one should under-
stand that such dramatic swings are not to be taken lightly but are not
necessarily etched in stone either. The longer such feelings last, the
more entrenched they become and harder to dislodge. The rubicon may
well have been crossed in this matter. The massive increase in the de-
mand for Khalistan indicates that the Sikhs are not sure of their place
in India. When the present is slippery the future appears menacing.
Blaming a foreign hand as Indira and Rajiv Gandhi often did is es-
caping responsibility; an objective view would be more useful. Paki-
stan has been consistently accused of fomenting and fanning rebellion
in Punjab and Kashmir. Not that there is much proof of it but even if it
were true, an outsider can only exploit a house divided where discord
already exits. If people who have sacrificed so much for the unity, in-
tegrity and viability of India for so long now no longer want to be a
part of it, there are only two possible explanations. Either most of the
15 million Sikhs were struck by lightning and have lost all reason or
there is merit in what they say; one must look at what the Indian goy-
ernment has promised or delivered to them in the past 45 years.
100
The Sikhs have long said that the promises made to them by Ma-
hatma Gandhi and Jawahar Lal Nehru before 1947 have not been hon-
ored. It was for this reason that the Sikh members of the Constituent
Assembly of independent India did not initial their acceptance of the
Constitution of India. The record of documents and speeches exists and
is simple enough to verify. To have to wait and agitate for 45 years for
promises to be fulfilled is indeed to have to wait too long. By now all
promises should have been dealt with — fulfilled or negotiated, but re-
solved. At this time, most Sikhs feel that in India, justice is selective
and politics reign supreme. Again, important here is not only the reality
but also its perception. To dismiss this feeling as mere hallucination (of
15 million people?) would be compounding an injustice with stupidity.
When Sikhs look at the 500 years of their history, it surprises them
that anyone should question their loyalty or their right to live with dig-
nity on their own terms in India. Inspite of long-standing disaffection
with the Indian government, the Sikhs’ loyalty was not questioned
when they defended India against China or Pakistan, nor was it in
doubt when Punjab contributed to India’s independence or economic
recovery. In essence, today’s Sikh is saying: “My loyalty to the coun-
try is a matter of history; to ask me to take a loyalty oath is an insult. I
do not have to prove my fitness for a place of dignity here. You, who
have done me wrong and are in such a larger majority than I, have to
show me that you wish me to remain a part of India.” To whom is this
addressed? To the Indian government and the majority community.
It is necessary to remember that despite the attack on the Golden

Temple and the widespread state terrorism directed specifically
against them, Sikhs did not rebel en masse from India. Examine this
behavior of the Sikhs in the context of what Lincoln said at his first in-
augural in 1861: “If by the mere force of numbers a majority should
deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might,
in any moral point of view, justify revolution . . .”. Indira Gandhi who
probably wanted a strong united India, will be remembered as the one
who fragmented the people and dismembered the country.
101
If the Indian government cannot act swiftly, decisively and effec-

tively to assure the.Sikhs ofjustice and security, it will never regain its
right to govern nor should it. The Sikhs then would have little choice
but to carve out a homeland of their own. Khalistan, no matter how
small or imperfect, would then become a reality. Demands of human
dignity will prevail and, be it ever so humble, be it ever so meager,
Khalistan will also exist among the nations of the world. No army and
no governmental rhetoric will be able to prevent it. And at this time the
Indian government has clearly lost any claims to the hearts and minds
of the Sikhs. I submit to you that the conventional arguments why
Khalistan is not viable — they are nonsense. That the country would
be small or landlocked and its economic base limited — these things
do not matter. The country would be larger than many member states
of the United Nations, its economy better than that of many emerging
nations in Eastern Europe.
In recent years, many Sikhs have presented most lucidly all the
good arguments for Khalistan — the broken promises, systematic in-
justice to the Sikhs, all the history etc. But as T.S. Eliot reminds us,
“History has many cunning passages, contrived corridors and issues,
deceives with whispering ambitions. Guides us by vanities.” The issue
of Khalistan is not all black or white. It is not Khalistan now or
Khalistan never; it is perplexing.
I can present several good reasons why Khalistan is not desirable.
Never in their history have Sikhs set about to conquer territory, subju-
gate people in the name of religion or establish Sikhism as state reli-
gion. Ranjit Singh for instance was a ruler who happened to be a Sikh
and not a particularly good one at that in his later years, he was much
better at being a ruler. He did not establish Sikhism as the state reli-
gion. His administration was secular. His Punjab remained a multire-
ligious country. It did not became a Sikh Punjab.
Let us look at it somewhat differently. I am a minority no matter

where I live — in India or wherever. When I came here in 1960 there
were two Sikhs in New York; in Oregon where I went to school, I was
the only one. Many of you can share that experience. Except in Punjab,
102
even in India I remain a minuscule minority. A part of me Say,s

wouldn’t it be nice, wouldn’t it be right if there was little bit of dirt, a
little part of this earth which was mine, where I was the king! And that
says — Khalistan now. Another part of me says where I hold sway,
there will be someone else — a non-Sikh — who will not, whose sen-
sitivities will be ignored, whose rights will be a little abridged, who
will not be the chosen one, who will be second class for no fault except
that he is not a Sikh. And that is not the Sikh way. That says to me that
countries based on religious identity alone are not desirable. Two ex-
amples that come to mind are Pakistan and Israel.
But what is undesirable can become historically necessary and

even inevitable. Again Pakistan and Israel come to mind. Two thou-
sand years of diaspora, bigotry, suffering and pogroms convinced the
Jews and the world of the necessity and the inevitability of a Jewish
homeland. Before the formation of Pakistan in 1947, the demand was
not a longstanding one. Just before India’s independence, Mahatma
Gandhi and three others dominated the political scene — Nehru, Patel
and Azad. Nehru — the father of Indira Gandhi became the Prime
Minister, Patel was the home minister, and Azad — the sole Muslim,
others were Hindus — was the education minister. Azad wrote his di-
aries which were sealed for a number of years after his death and final-
ly opened a couple of years ago. In them he put the blame for Pakistan
squarely on Nehru. He claimed that Nehru and his Hindu dominated
political party was most reluctant to share power with the Moslems
and the Moslems were suspicious of the Hindus. Result: a partition of
the country and Pakistan became not only necessary but inevitable.
Seems like history may be repeating itself in Punjab.
The partition of the country [m 1947 carried a horrendous price

tag. Nations are formed when there is a shared culture, language, his-
tory and so on, not necessarily religion only. The shephardic and ash-
kenazy Jews in Israel do not get along all that well even though both
are Jews. Religion alone could not hold together Pakistan and Eastern
Bengal, now Bangladesh. Someday I am sure, Bangladesh and Indian
103
Bengal would want to come together as greater Bengal, based not on

religion but on culture, as can be seen in the reunification of Germany.
The demand for Khalistan has to be looked at in perspective. Be-

fore 1984, no responsible Sikh leader demanded Khalistan with one
exception: Jagjit Singh Chauhan who is London based and has been
asking for Khalistan for over 20 years. I met him in the seventies and
he was a voice in the wilderness, not many gurudwaras would give him
the time of day. In 1984, Bhindranwale did not plant a flag and declare,
“No more India, we are Khalistan — a separate, sovereign country” al-
though there was sufficient provocation, nor did any other Sikh leader.
When Pakistan was formed, the Sikhs suffered — we lost a lot.

The refugee problem was worse than in Europe after the second world
war. The lives lost! We also lost a part of our heritage. The birthplace
of Guru Nanak, the historical places in Lahore and Punja Sahib, to
name a few. If Khalistan were to be carved today, we would lose a lot
more of our inheritance. The Gurus did not live and preach only in
Punjab. They traveled all over India from Assam and Bengal to the
South. More importantly, look at our people. The Sikhs are an outgo-
ing, assertive, outward looking people. They would not be satisfied for
long, hemmed in a minicountry with limited opportunities. Soon the
borders would be strained. Pakistan is friendly now but for how long?
Remember only people and individuals have friendships, nations do
not; they have only self-interest to guide them. The words Pakistan and
Khalistan literally mean the same — “land of the pure” in their respec-
tive languages. How neighborly will be two lands of the pure and for
how long?
If Khalistan is undesirable, has it become necessary and inevita-

ble? Now that the demand for Khalistan has surfaced, how hard a de-
mand is it? Is it written in stone? I am not sure, even though I realize
that once the genie is out of the bottle, it is difficult if not impossible
to push it back.
Despite all the injustice to the Sikhs, in 1985 Longowal.and the

Sikhs signed an accord with the Indian government — to give peace
104
another chance. Too bad that the Indian government of Rajiv Gandhi
did what Indira Gandhi had done earlier; they did not fulfill their prom-
ises but delivered more repression. Again, in 1989 the Sikhs participat-
ed in the electoral process, won by landslides, welcomed the new
Prime Minister V.P. Singh into a peaceful, open Punjab — no security
was necessary. By this act they clearly showed the world that they were
not rejecting ties to India, only that the nature of the ties had to change.
Until only one year ago Simranjit Singh Mann was still looking for a
solution within the Indian constitutional framework. Too bad that the
government delivered what it always did — more repression.
Nations cannot be bonded by force as the Soviets have discovered

but only by enlightened self-interest. The west Europeans are learning
that closer political and economic ties can be beneficial to all — of
course there is resistance because of the history of centuries of suspi-
cion, war and bloodshed. It can’t be easy for any of the Europeans to
comfortably trust the Germans. If the Soviets had disbanded earlier, a
looser, cooperating confederation of nations might have resulted —
now the Ukrainians, the Lithuanians and the Estonians are at each oth-
ers throat. Just look at Yugoslavia. India awaits a similar fate and
needs enlightened leadership.
I can visualize the whole Indian subcontinent — including Paki-

stan and Bangladesh — remarcated into several secular nation-states
based on culture, language and economic interest; the level of cooper-
ation to be determined by their self-interest and their shared history.
As it is I find that most of us Sikhs have more in common with the cul-
ture of Punjab and that means Pakistan than with the rest of India
where I can only communicate in English. In post-independence India,
the only cultural phenomenon that may be the uniting glue of modern
India appears to be the Hindi movie industry; any nation deserves bet-
ter. I would like to see the nation-states free to pursue their own eco-
nomic and cultural development and not be under the heels of remote
bureaucrats in Delhi. Only then will they be able to preserve their rich
heritage and contribute to the diversity and richness of the Indian sub-
continent.
105
To my mind the Sikhs have clearly rejected the model of the

present Indian governing system. Khalistan though undesirable has
become increasingly necessary, primarily because of the shortsighted
policies of the Indian government. Has it become inevitable?
By now events have probably already overtaken what I have writ-

ten here, but when I look at my views I have to echo Walt Whitman
who said, “Do I contradict myself?. Very well then I contradict myself.
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)” The issue of Khalistan can and
should be debated but it will eventually be decided not in New York,
London or New Delhi but in the streets and villages of Punjab. In the
meantime, Sikhs everywhere support the legitimate aspirations of our
people in the Punjab in whatever form they are expressed. One thinks
of Jefferson who said, “I weep for my country when I reflect that God
is just.”
106
19
IDENTITY AND INTEGRATION
This happened five or six years ago. A group of new immigrants, pri-
marily Asians decided to hold a parade in the streets of New York to
celebrate, showcase and highlight the diversity of New York. The or-
ganizing committee was understandably dominated by new immi-
grants from China, Korea, Philippines, India and Pakistan since these
are the new Americans. The Mayor, perhaps even the Governor might
attend. What better way for our neighbors to learn about us. So far so
good.
Problems soon surfaced, particularly with the Indians in the group.

They wanted to parade as they would in India. They wanted a review-
ing stand, with a politician from India on it or, failing that, an Indian
film star or at least the Indian Ambassador or the Consul General. It
would make good copy back home and a great opportunity for being
seen and photographed with the people considered important, particu-
larly in India. They also insisted that all immigrants of Indian descent
march behind the flag of India.
At this all hell broke loose. Since this was after the invasion of the
Golden Temple in 1984 by the Indian army, most Sikhs were reluctant
to give any recognition to a symbol of India or to any representatives
of its government. Most Muslims and Kashmiris were similarly dis-
posed, being equally bitter with the Indian government. The Sikhs
wanted to march, but leading them would be the saffron flag of the
Sikhs. Most Hindus however, were adamant; If you refused to honor
107
the Indian politicians or march under the Indian flag, that was prima
facie evidence that you were a traitor to India.
Unwisely, the Indian Consul General stuck his nose where it did
not belong. The consular officials started coming to the organizational
meetings of the Indian contingent. Quickly, at their instigation pas-
sions were aroused, the Sikhs and Muslims were branded unpatriotic
and anti-Indian. The Indian government officials fueled the fire but no-
body asked if it was right for them to interfere in the internal affairs of
these people, many of whom were no longer citizens of India. The
largely Hindu Indian immigrant throng, true to the Indian cultural pro-
clivity for obsequiousness, catered to the controlling influence of the
consular officials.
I had been in America over a quarter of a century by then and my
ties to the old country were not all that strong. I had been watching the
imbroglio with cool amusement and calm detachment, quite sure that
it wasn’t going to become my problem. Oddly, the same night I got
telephone calls from both Hindus and Sikhs soliciting my opinion and
support for their respective positions. That set me thinking.
India like the United States is a political entity. It seems to me

therefore, that the only political flag that should be displayed on the
streets of an American city would be that of this country. I recognize
that when a head of state of another country is visiting, the flag of that
country would be displayed. But those are special circumstances. My
political loyalty and identification is now American, not Indian,
though culturally my roots remain Indian. I could love India’s cuisine,
its music and philosophy, even its people, yet I vote here, not in India.
To visit India, I need special permission in the form of a visa from the
Indian government, just like any other non-Indian. And that permis-
sion may be denied by some functionary of the Indian government
without reason, as happens often enough to enough people.
The United States is a diverse country, a mosaic of the many cul-

tures that have come here. In fact this country’s vitality and strength
flow from its diversity. I can see a celebration of that diversity. I can
108
see groups marching behind the banners of their cultural, religious or

even geographic affiliations, but not those of political entities.
My views are further strengthened when I think about many of the

other immigrants who have stronger differences with the governments
of their native countries. Under what banner would the Cuban immi-
grants march? Certainly not that of the present day Cuba exemplified
by Castro. The aegis of the deposed Batista’s people would be equally
repugnant and out of the question. Would Palestinians from the occu-
pied territories agree to march as Israelis with an Israeli politician on
the reviewing stand? When this incident happened, East Germany was
a separate country and the Soviet Union was the big bad wolf. What
would happen to immigrants from those countries? The list is endless.
One has to remember that many immigrants who chose America

did so out of political necessity. They were survivors, victims of their
own governments; whereas, many Indians had come here in search of
the economic pot of gold. (In the past five years or so, many Sikhs have
left India to escape that government’s repressive policies and torture
and have been granted political asylum here.) In addition, there are
Sikhs who were born and raised in Burma, Kenya, Great Britain or this
country. Many of them have never been to India. They feel no kinship
with India the political entity, but can and do relate to that culture, mu-
sic, language and cuisine to a varying extent. Certainly, they cannot
identify with the flag of India, but only with its religious and cultural
organizations.
It seems to me self evident that under no circumstances should the

representatives of the erstwhile country of an immigrant group be wel-
come either at the organizational stage or later during the parade on a
reviewing stand. They could, if they wish take their place along with
the crowds we all hoped would be there.
That was my logic and I proclaimed it clearly and publicly. The

hate mail from my Hindu friends surprised me. One Hindu colleague
stopped speaking to me and did not resume amicable conversation un-
til three years later. One Hindu patient and his family walked out of my
109
office, to return a month later. Unknown Indian accented voices left

obscene messages on my answering machine. This was not new to me
__Thad seen it after I said some frank things at Indira Gandhi's assas-
sination. But it hurt, nevertheless.
Finally came the icing on the cake. A kind friend arranged a dinner
meeting with the Indian Consul General. I had no problem with that.
There were four of us Sikhs — professors of Mathematics and of En-
glish, a physician and myself— to engage the Consul General in a dis-
cussion. I remember that the food was excellent, the discussion a
disaster. I cannot imagine a more confined and limited mind than that
of the Consul. I could not help but pity India — a country so richly en-
dowed in nature and talent and so poorly served by its bureaucrats and
politicians.
The Consul was of one fixed mind — all Sikhs, no matter where
they were born and raised, or whatever their political loyalty, affilia-
tion or feeling, must march behind the flag of India. According to him,
for Sikhs to display the flag of their religion in New York in preference
to that of India would be a gross insult to India. It would be high trea-
son. At the most he could allow both the Indian and the Sikh flags as
long as we observed that, in his words, “a country’s political flag must
outrank that of a religion and must fly higher, or be ahead in a proces-
sion.” We reminded him that the Sikh flag had been at the head of
many processions in India, and many Indian politicians had marched
behind it and there was no national flag alongside or ahead of it. In the
forty years that India had been independent, no government had pro-
pounded the view that the Sikh flag was unacceptable. The more we
talked, the angrier he became. He was an observing Christian. Finally
in desperation, I suggested that the next time he was in St. Patrick’s
Cathedral he should look up and notice if he saw one flag or two, and
if that of the Church was any lower than that of the State. The result
was not quite what we expected. He sputtered, turned all shades of the
spectrum, pronounced the meeting useless and ended it.
It is many years now and many a Consul General have come and
gone, but I still wonder about the incident.
110
We who come from India remain primarily Indian in outlook and

in many parts of our being, even though we change in many ways and
live here for the better part of a lifetime. This is not so unusual in first
generation immigrants no matter where they come from. The cultural
affinities are in the marrow of our bones, not easily shattered, nor is
there any reason that they should. As I said, the richness of this country
depends upon the ideas and the heritage that we and other immigrants
like us have brought. Our children will have more of the American cul-
tural traditions grafted on to their Indian roots than us, and this process
will continue unabated from generation to generation. Every new gen-
eration of immigrants has brought a rich heritage which has found a
unique niche, however small, in the complex mosaic of this society
such that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
When I look at our new immigrant Sikhs here, I reckon that in

some things we need to define more common ground with others from
India and Pakistan, particularly when it comes to matters like lan-
guage, cuisine and music. In matters concerning religion, most of my
cohorts are from India, though not all. In issues involving housing and
employment, we need to construct working relationships not only with
those from the Indian subcontinent but also other Asians and generally
with people from all third world nations. In other matters like recruit-
ment into the U.S. armed services and in some job situations as well,
we share a commonality of interest more with the orthodox Jews who
wear a yarmulke than with any group from India. In fact, in these mat-
ters the representatives of the Indian government and Indian groups
are often the least understanding or supportive of the Sikhs.
To me being a good Sikh and a good American are not mutually

exclusive concepts. Moreover, one can love the heritage of India of
which we are proud products, and yet not identify all that much with
the bureaucracy and the government of India. Identity and integration
are not mutually exclusive ideas. Integration is possible only when
there is a sense of identity. To become an attractive mosaic requires
that each element of the mosaic have a clearly defined niche; only then
can the whole be greater than the sum of the parts. To live here and
fit
strive to remain unchanged is foolish for it only creates a self-imposed

ghetto of the mind. To refuse to change means a refusal to grow. On
the other hand, we have brought a rich heritage here; to abandon it is
to diminish ourselves and to rob this society as well. By contributing
our culture to this mosaic, we pay back for the opportunities it has giv-
en us. But that rich heritage of ours does not lie in homage to two-bit
politicians or to celluloid gods and goddesses of the Indian film indus-
try. The only desirable integration for a small minority such as ours
lies in a mosaic where our identity is sacrosanct.
112
20
DISSENT AND PRIOR RESTRAINT
I had originally titled this piece “An Unanswered Question”. Later I

realized that it dealt mostly with censorship and freedom of expression
which are best treated as the right (or obligation!) to dissent. Ever since
the invasion of the Golden Temple in 1984 and the subsequent news
blackout by the Indian government, I had been thinking about this
question. Like many other Sikhs, I too had protested the Indian gov-
ernment’s control and manipulation of news from the Punjab under the
guise of national security. But I must have been concerned about this
issue far longer than I thought. I know that the Indian government is
not alone in this, all governments routinely try to control and manage
news. We are all aware that in this country in the 1950’s many artists,
authors and others were seriously harassed for their alleged links to
communists; that period is now universally regarded as one of infamy.
I had written against censorship when the Iranian government con-
demned Salman Rushdie for blasphemy against Islam. And on my
desk for the past twenty-five years or more has sat a bust of Galileo.
(Galileo was finally forgiven by the Roman Catholic Church a month
or so ago after 500 years in limbo and Rushdie may yet be spared by
the mullahs of Iran if ever they are in a forgiving mood.)
My concerns here are more parochial. I had always prided myself

on the fact that the Sikhs were very tolerant of dissent, even stupidity.
Witness the nonsense about Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism, that
was written by Dayanand, a Hindu swami, all because Nanak had been
scornful of many Hindu practices and departed from the Hindu way.
113
(Dayanand had freely and indiscriminately insulted not only Guru

Nanak but the prophets of many other religions as well in his magnum
opus Satyarath Prakash.) But Sikhs have not always been that toler-
ant, particularly since 1984 they have been increasingly narrow and
bigoted in their interpretation of what is defamatory to their religion
and how to respond to it. Fortunately the Sikhs have been charitable to
whatever I have written, the challenging voices have been few; others
have not been so lucky.
Khushwant Singh for instance has been writing about Sikhs and
Sikhism far longer than most of us have been around. He has some
very credible writing in that area — translations of selections from the
Sikh scriptures, an excellent two-volume history, and numerous arti-
cles. In defining Sikhism, he has attempted to place it squarely within
the ancient Indian Vedantic, Hindu system, at other times he has
deemed it an independent revealed, unique system. He is neither the
first nor the last to be ambivalent. All these years the Sikhs respected
him. Now that he is squarely against the idea of the Sikhs carving out
a separate country independent of India, many Sikhs absolutely de-
spise him. True that some of his ideas are blather and the trauma of
1984 to the Sikhs is deep. Yet, they forget that in 1984 Khushwant re-
turned the honors bestowed upon him by the Indian government and
publicly declared that being a Sikh in India was like being a Jew in
Nazi Germany. In any event, his writings on Sikhs and Sikhism need
to be judged for themselves. I had occasion to review one of his books
recently. I recognized the wit, pungency and style of his writing and
called him an influential Sikh writer. Two U.S. based prominent Sikhs
berated me for calling him a “Sikh.” To them he was anathema and not
fit to be labeled a Sikh. In reading him, the reader was to be pitied.
Patwant Singh, in my view, has emerged as a forceful voice for the
Sikhs in India. Yet he does not fully support the idea of Khalistan. So,
many Sikhs call him a stooge of the Indian government and have no
use for his writings. One professor in India (Surjit Singh Chawla) re-
cently wrote a book on Guru Tegh Bahadur’s life and sacrifice. For
some strange reason the foreword is written by Giani Zail Singh, the
former President of India, and most Sikhs equate Zail with Quisling
114
for his role in the bloody events of 1984. It is a decent book but the
foreword made it unacceptable to most Sikhs. It could not be selected
for an international competition on book reports by Sikh youth. |
would like to see the book debated, including the foreword. The young
people would learn not only about Guru Tegh Bahadur but also a little
about Giani Zail Singh and his failure to act as a mensch.
There is hardly a Sikh who is unaware of the arguments regarding

McLeod and his writings. What bothers me is not the controversy;
grown minds should be able to differ, and academicians routinely do.
What irks me is the serious attempt to suppress his work, reject all that
he has written, and a lot of it is good though some is not. For many rea-
sons, McLeod has generated controversy and debate but little appreci-
ation from the Sikhs. At times, he seems to have shed more heat than
light on Sikh history. At issue are interpretations of many historical
events. The early history of the Sikhs is a web so tangled that it is not
easy to trace any strand unambiguously to its origin. Also, perusal of
its early sources requires a mastery of many complex languages. This
imposes a barrier to most scholars. I think McLeod’s work marks a
major systematic effort at an analysis of the evolution of the Sikhs
from Guru Nanak to the twentieth century based on authentic histori-
cal documents and sources other than folklore. His work always car-
ries a useful bibliography and raises significant issues. His writing is
refreshing and lucid in its brevity and clarity, and free of the concep-
tual cobwebs and convoluted verbosity that often define ‘religious’
writing even though he has embraced some questionable if not errone-
ous concepts. I have little doubt that in peering past Sikh traditions into
history, McLeod has been touched by the depth and richness of Sikh
belief. Mind you, I am not here to defend McLeod. Some of what he
has written is nonsense but we need not crucify him. He is neither the
first nor the last with whom we should and will differ in scholarly de-
bate. Sikhism is too strong and real to be defeated or lethally damaged
by errors of fact or interpretation by any writers; remember that it has
lived through the writings of Trumpp, Dayanand and Phillauri.
115
This brings me to the issue that provided the impetus for this piece.
Some weeks ago I received a copy of a doctoral thesis by Pashaura
Singh on the antecedents of the Guru Granth. Several scholars had al-
ready expressed highly critical opinions on it. Yet, I agreed to review
it because a wider debate could only benefit us. It is only in the Sikh
religion that a doctoral thesis is debated and analyzed by the lay public
and not only by academicians in a scholarly, university based journal.
Consequently, the discussion is open to all and not limited to those af-
filiated with academic institutions. This is our strength though it is not
without liability. It is our strength because such important matters are
not left to the professional clergy or academicians alone, it is our
weakness for debate by unprepared minds often leads to raised pas-
sions but not clarity of thought.
That we may differ is a sacred right, almost a duty. But it is a dif-

ferent matter when grave decisions are made without due process, an
attempt made to suppress the thesis and label it blasphemous. For in-
stance, the SGPC appears to have found prima facie evidence of blas-
phemy by Pashaura Singh — all without a hearing. Also, this is hardly
a matter for the SGPC. I too feel that Pashaura is unable to sustain his
hypothesis; his evidence and logic are dubious and his loyalty to
McLeod misplaced, but those are matters to be debated by university
scholars, historians and theologians, as also by lay Sikhs. His work can
be termed sloppy scholarship but I fail to see the notion of blasphemy
in Sikh idealogy. To attack his honesty, integrity or his Sikh roots is
not just irresponsible criticism, it borders on a grave obliviousness to
the basic Sikh teachings on human dignity and freedom of expression.
It is not easy to separate the two but criticism of an idea must not
become condemnation of the person who espouses it. In denouncing
an idea one must retain the moral high ground. A directive by the
SGPC enjoining Sikhs not to read Pashaura Singh or Piar Singh takes
me back to the days when the Roman Catholic Church compiled lists
of books that a good Catholic may not read and movies that he must
not see, otherwise a trip to the confessional box would be mandated. I
think the Church stopped doing this a little over twenty years ago
116
though not many Catholics were paying much mind to it for years ear-
lier. For us to start on that road seems regressive. All that such policies
do is to focus attention and give a new lease of life to something which
normally would earn a quick burial in an unmarked grave. Certainly a
lot more people read Salman Rushdie and Pashaura Singh after the
publicity than would ever have; the only thing they have in commonis
that neither makes for notably good or interesting reading. I under-
stand that such an attempt by the SGPC is not new; decades ago it con-
demned some writing and ostracized the authors when it could. How
is the suppression of a book by the SGPC any different from the cen-
sorship imposed by a government? The Indian government has rou-
tinely done it and the Sikhs have universally condemned it every time.
Is it possible that always being a part of the feudal Indian society, has
so corrupted the SGPC that it can longer see its own primary Sikh her-
itage very clearly?
Part of the problem lies in the fact that insofar as religions deal
with historical events, people and places, they are amenable to histor-
ical analyses. But, religions also deal with a reality not clearly discern-
able to the outsider and which remains unfortunately hidden to the
uninitiated. This essential essence of religion is such that our senses
cannot perceive it, nor can our intellect fathom it, yet our souls can
commune with it, for it transcends the intellect. Yet the intellectual,
historical analysis enhances our understanding of a religion. Religions
need to be viewed through the double lenses of faith and history. The
single lens of history is inadequate, while that of faith alone often
clouds the judgement. It follows then that the most effective commen-
tators on a religion are scholars who are deeply touched by its inner re-
ality, not others who are content to look at it as outsiders for they
would be like those who, being anosmic, judge the fragrance of a flow-
er only by a chemical analysis. For instance, reading Paul Tillich is a
pleasure because his writings are not only intellectually rigorous but
are also brimful of his commitment to Christianity; such wonder and
joy would not exist in the writings of a mind with an antiChristian
stance. But how others view us is important and we need not be
alarmed at their attempts.
Lily
In the past few years, a group of scholars seems to be emerging

amongst Sikhs with the self-imposed task of being the watch dogs of
what is published on or about Sikhism. I think that is good — more
Sikh should be so involved. A community has the right and the obliga-
tion to oversee the research that it is paying for. I am reassured that
someone is minding the store except when an attempt is made to sup-
press what is deemed derogatory, defamatory or incorrect writing. To
us Sikhs, gurbani is the revealed word of God but the Guru Granth is
also a book, to be read and analyzed. To others gurbani appears as lit-
erature, much as we view the Bible. And there is no harm in that.
Sikhism evolved in a milieu with a predominantly oral tradition

but not much of a written one. Guru Nanak saw the necessity for a per-
manent written record which would evolve into the Guru Granth Sa-
hib. He and the Gurus who succeeded him acted to preserve and codify
gurbani in a process that culminated with Guru Arjan’s monumental
effort. Naturally, the process took years during which many versions
and documents had to be edited or reconciled. One must keep in mind
that in the days preceding printing and mass education, documents
were handwritten. There were few scribes, some had their own agenda
reflecting many factions and divided loyalties. They made mistakes,
some unintentional, others stemming from their background, bias and
nature. Until the time of Ranjit Singh, Sikhs had little peace or leisure,
it is no wonder then that it took many years to lay all the doubts to rest,
discard all of the competing or erroneous versions and establish the
primacy of the standard version of the Guru Granth Sahib which had
been collated by Guru Arjan. In the oral tradition of India, history and
myth have frequently mixed. Naturally, historians will argue and pon-
der, reflect and debate when they look at the colorful panorama of Sikh
history.
The Sikhs have come a long way in 500 years. I can visualize the
rich tapestry and unbroken tradition in Sikh literature and history in its
continuing evolution. It has progressed from giants such as Bhai Gur-
das, Nandlal and Mani Singh, who were less historians and more
scribes and interpreters of gurbani, indeed the repositories of our her-
118
itage. There have been Puran Singh, and Vir Singh who combined the
mystic’s vision with a sure grasp of historical detail. Finally we have
the serious historical scholars — giants like Kahan Singh, Macauliffe,
Kapur Singh, Jodh Singh, Teja Singh, Ganda Singh, Sahib Singh and
Harbans Singh, followed by contemporary, significant analysts like
Kohli, McLeod, Khushwant, Cole, Barrier, Daljeet Singh, Kharak
Singh, Mansukhani and Shan, among others. Such an evolution with
an emphasis that oscillates between the devotional and the analytic is
quite natural to any religion. In the process, many missteps will occur
— witness G.B. Singh’s analysis of the Kartarpur Bir, and some of the
arrant nonsense from Trumpp, McLeod and Khushwant.
Not so long ago the radio commentator, Jodh Singh said to me that
we Sikhs tend to discover either “blossom or blasphemy” in a strictly
analytical study of religion. I think both attitudes are wrong; one leads
to suspended judgement and uncritical acceptance, the other to a
Khomeni-like response to a Salman Rushdie. Neither becomes us for
such attitudes are not consistent with Sikh teaching. I believe the li-
brary in Alexandria was burnt twice, once by the Christians, another
time by the Muslims because neither had any use for writings by those
who were not “true believers.”
The whole idea of the First Amendment is that even a wrong opin-
ion must not be censored; let it be buried by better ideas in the free
marketplace of ideas. Erroneous ideas, even pernicious ones, are best
countered by the fresh air of seminars, discussions and debates, not by
suppression. History teaches us that ideas are hardly ever successfully
buried by censorship. The lives of our Gurus are a testimony to that, as
are those of Socrates, Galileo and Thomas More, among others. Spino-
za, the Jewish philosopher who was excommunicated by the Jews for
his ideas reminds us that those who do not remember their history are
condemned to repeat it.
Nobody would deny that some restraint on freedom of expression

may sometimes be necessary, but that is a grave and extreme step, not
to be undertaken lightly. To refuse to read a book is one thing — that
is a reader’s right — to actively seek to suppress a book is no better
than burning it. As I said, I keep a bust of Galileo on my desk.
119
~
2s
ee
> es
a ‘ ee ee
yt) | aa Jae | EA: Ma. a = Te ,
ss 7 » h oa 4s
Aye Pty howeie en é a
re Mivis Ae
21
TURN ON, TUNE IN, DRopP OUT
“Turn on, Tune in, Drop out” was an important incantation and mes-
sage from the young in the sixties and I was a part of that generation.
Man has had an age old fascination with altered states of awareness
and it doesn’t date from the Beatles or Timothy Leary. The desire to
transcend the constraints of human existence may be as old as man
himself, and probably came with the gift of imagination. Not only has
man learnt to soar beyond his physical limitations into outer space, he
has also glimpsed an infinite universe within him. Having once tasted
or seen that inner beauty, is it surprising that man looked for shortcuts?
And found many.
Medical research tells us that meditation helps release certain in-

trinsic endorphins and phenylethylamine, a natural amphetamine —
they serve as pain killers and produce a euphoric high. Marathon run-
ners and other intensively trained athletes have experienced it, as have
those who experience intense feelings of love. When the physical,
mental and spiritual parts of the self are in harmony and working in
unison, that is when the production of these magic chemicals is at its
greatest. There is a plethora of other biochemical changes too. That is
the altered state of being that yogis have sought for ages, and so have
those who experimented with mood altering drugs as they sought
shortcuts. When you attain it a Ja Leary, the highest high of euphoria
is inevitably followed by a lowest low. With drugs, you cannot hit the
mountain tops without trudging through the valleys.
121
With mood altering drugs There is also a significant risk of addic-

tion or dependency, whether it be real physical dependence or only
psychological. Certainly the let down — the low — is dramatic,
wrenching, painful and often debilitating. And I won’t even list the
risks and hazards to self and to society that can result. Those are the
dangers of the extrinsic high. And that doesn’t take into account the
fact that most mood altering drugs are also teratogenic — they result
in an increased risk of fetal defects. Witness the data on fetal alcohol
syndrome or cocaine or crack addicted babies born to addicted moth-
ers. Who knows what are the effects of long-term usage of most habit
forming substances on the body or mind? Modern medical science can
often be so tentative and ignorant, frustratingly unresponsive and fail-
ing to provide definitive answers when we need them.
Guru Nanak, like other mystics also recognized the pleasures of the
high — the altered state of awareness — but he also saw that the extrin-
sic drug induced high was at best transitory and had its attendant risks
and perils. He sought therefore, a high which was available at your
command, anytime anyplace; which would last, be inexpensive and in-
exhaustible, and leave your body and mind exalted, not exhausted.
Guru Nanak suggested a different mind altering agent — one for

which you need no supplier for it costs nothing and the supply never
ends; it cannot be legislated or controlled. You can have it when you
want, carry it with you, and one that you do not have to beg, borrow or
steal. It produces a high which is greater than any and has no low at all.
But it is habit forming. This is an intrinsic high, a glow from within.
The intrinsic high is qualitatively and quantitatively different from that
produced by extrinsic agents. This is the high produced by a life im-
mersed in an awareness of the infinite within us, an awareness that
connects man to God and his creation through gurbani.
Guru Nanak suggested.two criteria for selecting how and what to

ingest or put into the human body. Several times in his writings he
clearly recommended a life of moderation with no taboos and also ar-
gued that any substance which is not good for the body or for the mind
is verboten. The human body, in the Sikh view is a temple within
122
TURN ON, TUNE IN, DRoP OUT
which is placed the divine spark of intelligence and the mind. We must
ensure that whatever we do allows the body and mind to function at
their highest levels.
With this kind of teaching is it any wonder that Sikhism is ada-

mantly against the use of any addictive, habit forming, mood altering
drug of any kind? This does not mean that such drugs may not be avail-
able therapeutically in appropriate doses, for the right reasons, under
suitable circumstances. It means that the use of the so called “‘recre-
ational” drugs cannot possibly be right; the word “recreational” is in-
appropriate. Quite clearly, Sikhism could not condone the use of
alcohol as commonly used, as a lubricant of social interaction. Without
a doubt it remains the commonest and most widely used addictive
mind altering drug used in our society. The surprising thing is that de-
spite this clear teaching, most Sikhs drink, if only just a little and so-
cially. I too confess that I used to drink though not any more. We all
want to appear socially sophisticated. In reality, refinement in lifestyle
has less to do with what you drink or eat and more with how you do it.
How did it happen that the use of alcohol among Sikhs did not get
eradicated although another very pernicious habit — smoking — is
practically never seen among them. Many factors may account for this.
The most important reason may lie in the fact that the several codes of
conduct that were written around the time of Guru Gobind Singh and
soon thereafter clearly rejected the practice of smoking tobacco but are
conspicuously silent on drinking alcohol. Then the question arises:
why and how did that happen?
One must examine the Sikh writings on the code of conduct in the
context of their times. The Indian society of that time was dominated
by Muslims, though the majority of people were Hindus. Tobacco
smoking was commonly abused by both communities but drinking of
alcohol was rare. The Muslims have strong injunctions against drink-
ing, also they were the rulers. Although the Hindu scriptures speak of
a fermented wine-like concoction, their society is generally a conser-
vative one. In that society, drinking is not approved, appearing inebri-
ated would not be easily forgiven, and never forgotten. In Sikhism
125
therefore, written injunctions are found against the common practice

of the day — smoking — but not against the rarely seen abuse of alco-
hol. Now several hundred years later when times have changed, we
need to interpret and apply the written word with some sense and sen-
sitivity; I think the code of conduct would now apply emphatically to
all drugs and not specifically only to the one mentioned. Anyone can
see that newer drugs continue to be found or synthesized and it would
not be good logic to claim that since those new drugs are not men-
tioned in the code of conduct, there is no injunction against their abuse.
The intent of the Gurus was quite clear — to create a community of
dedicated, centered people, healthy of mind and body. To interpret the
teachings literally for one’s own convenience is at best sophistry.
All that I have said can help understand Sikh teaching but not Sikh
practice to any great extent. The fact remains that the countryside of
Punjab is dotted with illicit distilleries. A running joke is that having
lost some of the rivers to Pakistan at partition, Punjab, the land of the
five rivers has added another river, that of alcohol. The Punjabi Sikh
farmer is rarely hesitant or loth to brag about his prowess with the bot-
tle. Part of this behavior is, of course, due to the narrow and literal in-
terpretation of Sikh teaching. But a major part derives from history.
Whether they were Aryans from the Caucuses of Asia Minor, Alex-
ander of Macedonia or the Mughal hordes, most invaders to the fertile
and rich plains of India came hurtling down the Khyber pass into the
Punjab — to stay, perish or return. This continuous influx produced a
region and a people constantly in turmoil. The result was a vigorous,
hybrid people constantly at war or, when time permitted, gifted farm-
ers. Often alcohol provided a welcome respite from a hard life. Only
when the spiritual wave of Sikhism held strong sway over the hearts
and minds of Punjabis, these illicit breweries were missing. This was
also true when Islam reigned. But in time a gradual, lackadaisical Hin-
duization of Sikhs occurred. Such reversal into Hindu practices is not
uncommon in India, where eventually everything and every idea from
religion (Buddhism, Christianity, Islam or Sikhism) to industry gets
Hinduized to some degree. Ties to Sikh teaching loosened. Over the
past forty years with the advent of the green revolution, the economy
TURN ON, TUNE IN, DROP OUT
of the Punjab also dramatically boomed with few outlets for it. Conse-
quently the hard-working farmer and soldier of Punjab was easily se-
duced by the attractions of alcohol.
As further proof of my argument, I offer the fact that since 1984

(which marked a dramatic revolution in self awareness for them),
Sikhs have been on a voyage of self exploration; the trek is non-linear
and sometimes seems to lead into blind alleys. However, many have
rediscovered the richness of their faith and have again found the vir-
tues of the Sikh code of conduct. The Sikh way of life is again being
interpreted more honestly and less expediently. There will be many
wrong turns but I am optimistic. Keep in mind that the rich rarely feel
compelled to follow any doctrinal mores, the poor cannot afford to. It
is the middle class which is the repository of any culture and its values.
And the middle class Sikh is usually a fairly hard-working, reasonably
religious, non abuser of alcohol or other drugs.
The loophole in Sikhism occurs because the onus for understand-

ing the faith and following it falls on the individual. There is no hier-
archy to correct any misinterpretations or parse any doctrinal
differences. Some think that is a weakness of Sikhism but I think that
is its strength. Who else but the individual should have the right and
the obligation to think and decide which road to take. I would not want
to abrogate that responsibility; to live ethically is my moral choice that
I as moral being must make. I would not want a professional clergy to
force me on the straight and narrow; I would like the clergy to be there
for me, to help and to-guide me, as and when necessary.
Many mystics including the Sikh gurus have pointed out that our
senses are limited in what they can perceive. As Buckminster Fuller
suggests our senses are designed to limit our perceptions. For instance
we cannot directly perceive radioactive fields, electro-magnetic waves
etc. We cannot easily flow into and with the forces, circumstances and
events that shape our universe, much of which remains infra or ultra to
man’s senses. Opening the doors of perception to what we do not nor-
mally perceive is a goal of meditation, as also of the drug-induced
shortcut.
125
“Tune in, Turn on, Drop out” was an important slogan and exhor-
tation. It was the mantra of the young in the sixties. But that related to
the drug induced experience. The message of the sixties is still rele-
vant, the method is not and is rejected in its entirety. Guru Nanak ac-
cepted and taught the first two parts thus: Turn on to the infinite within
you and tune in to its infinite reality. Tune your mind to that infinite
sense of peace, let it fill you and overwhelm you like fog creeping on
silent feet, let it give you a rush, Start the day with a moment spent in
quieting the mind before the madness of the day starts to overtake you.
Say good morning to the world in peace. The third part has a different
meaning in the writings of Sikhism. Do not drop out of the complex
and infuriating demands of this world. Instead be like a lotus that can
emit beauty and fragrance and remain untouched by the stagnant water
in which it may be found. Do not drop out to seek God on a mountain-
top. Do not drop out to seek peace as a hermit or an ascetic. Live an
active, productive, family life to serve God and society. But transcend
the self, do drop out of the self-centered existence, the ego trip which
will only burn you. If you turn on, tune in and drop out this way, you
will meet sorrow and joy, victory and defeat with equanimity; you will
know no fear nor will you bully or tyrannize another. Then you will be
aman. This was the message of Nanak.
Nanak spoke of being constantly inebriated; the intoxicant was the

love of God. The message of the sixties is not irrelevant; it needs to be
reinterpreted and tried as Nanak taught.
126
22
SOME THOUGHTS ON RACISM
AND SEXISM
There is hardly a Sikh who cannot recite from memory the lines from
the Guru Granth which say: “In the beginning God created light, all
creation and all creatures emanated from that one divine spark . . . All
people are molded from the same clay . . .”. But there is hardly a Sikh
who takes the lines as seriously as he should in his life. To stratify so-
ciety is natural, to divide people is inevitable. So easily and so univer-
sally does man divide men into “us and them.” One hardly ever gives
it a second thought except when it hits and hurts, when one is on the
receiving end and is branded one of “them.”
Over the years, many times I felt I like one of “them” and not “us.”
But let me recount an event that made a more lasting impression. This
happened some years ago when my daughter was only a couple of
months old. Her mother’s maternity leave was coming to an end and
she needed to return to work. We started looking for an au pair and in-
terviewed several young women. One very well spoken person was a
Jamaican black. The two grandmothers, one Indian the other Ameri-
can, were aghast; their first reaction was: “Why this woman? She is so
dark, she will scare the baby”. Such color consciousness is probably
universal in much of Europe and Asia. Just look at the advertisements
for marriage partners in any Indian newspaper — they all look for
brides or grooms who are fair in complexion. It appears from the these
notices that lightness of color can make up for lack of education, skills
127
or refinements. I wonder how a China doll would do in the Indian mat-

rimonial market.
Our attempts to divide people doesn’t just stop at color. The first
question that our Hindu dominated society wants to know is your caste
and heaven help you if you are like me and refuse to give a straight an-
swer to such irrelevant nonsense and invasion of privacy. My usual an-
swer to what is your last name is, “Singh.” I find this satisfies very few
Indians. To most of them the need to know the caste name is para-
mount. People persist-and since I do not oblige them, I suppose I do
not win many friends in the process. Look at how many Sikhs specify
their caste, or at least whether they are Jats or not, when they advertise
in the matrimonial columns.
My question is, if you are a Sikh, why and how is all this informa-
tion relevant? The fact that such attitudes still exist three hundred years
after Guru Gobind Singh created the egalitarian order of the Khalsa is
not surprising. It would be more remarkable if they did not in the caste
ridden, hide bound Indian society. The dominant Indian cultural tradi-
tion of Hinduism is extremely resilient. Almost like a sponge it can ab-
sorb an amazing lot without changing its own nature. The predominant
cultural influence in India remains Hinduism and every idea that
comes in contact with it becomes Hinduized. If Sikhism is no longer
practiced the way it was taught, nor is any other religion particularly
after it found roots in India; Christianity and Islam are prime exam-
ples. This obdurate resiliency in the Indian character remains its
strength and also its most frustrating feature; it often proves a barrier
to what is undesirable but also to what is progressive, and it corrupts
all good ideas too. The latter has been the fate of Sikh thought.
Over two hundred years of very strong, clear headed, single mind-
ed teaching of the Sikhs from Nanak to Gobind Singh became diluted
almost beyond recognition in the next three hundred years by the
sponge of Indian Hindu cultural tradition. Believe me, I am not against
the Indian culture. As a product of it, Iknow it to be a rich heritage and
I value it, but not blindly. Perfect, it is not. Iwould not want to build a
life according to the Laws of Manu or establish a home by the teach-
128
SOME THOUGHTS ON RACISM AND SEXISM
ings and practices of the Brahmins who are less than honorable shop-
keepers of a less than an honest business.
Sikhism never had many adherents particularly because the reli-

gion was always being tested in battle. Almost from its birth, it has
fought for survival, the wars were not always doctrinal. These battles
for survival continue even today. The Sikhs have been opposed by the
Brahminical teaching of Hinduism and also by the established govern-
ments. There have been very few, relatively brief interludes of peace.
The most important and longest such hiatus occurred when Ranjit
Singh ruled northern India.
Millions of new converts flocked to Sikhism, most came from

Hinduism (and some from Islam) during the time of Ranjit Singh.
Their Sikhs roots were shallow; their conversion skin deep, often one
of convenience. Many brought with them practices and long held be-
liefs of the predominant Hindu society such as the caste system and the
place of women, and did not abandon them even though they were now
Sikhs. Many of them who had been educated, upper caste Hindus be-
came influential in Sikh society. Perhaps without meaning to, they cor-
rupted Sikh teaching and compromised Sikh practices. In fact, even
Ranjit Singh’s Sikh roots became watered down with the years as he
ruled. Perhaps because the only role models for him were Muslim and
Hindu rulers who had dominated India for so long, his personal life-
style did not remain true to Sikh teachings for very long, although he
supported Sikh gurudwaras. In the sea that is India, Sikhs constitute
less than two percent of the population — a very small fish indeed. It
is not surprising therefore, that with time casteism, racism, sexism and
color consciousness crept into Sikh practices, though every gurudwara
preaches against them every day.
The young religion of Sikhism had laid great emphasis on the re-
sponsible life of the householder, dedicated to honest work ethic and
service to fellow man. Yet, when the opportunity came Ranjit Singh,
otherwise noble of character and a dedicated ruler, took several hun-
dred queens and concubines; several of his queens committed sati
when he died. Multiple marriages in Islam were permissible. In Hin-
129
duism, women never had a very important place; they were not al-
lowed to read scriptures, if widowed they were expected to burn
themselves at the pyre of their dead husband, or if not that, to remain
single thereafter. Clerical, religious functions were not open to women
in either of two more populous religions, Islam or Hinduism. Sikhs had
been egalitarian from the very beginning, rejecting racism, casteism
and sexism forthrightly. Sikhs define God as free of gender, do not use
the attributes “He” or “She” for God or use both terms interchange-
ably. If we often seem to use “He” in preference to “She”, it is reflec-
tive of custom and the limitations of imagination, thought and
language, not of Sikh teaching.
However, for reasons alluded to, Sikh practices have departed

from their teaching in significant ways. Some years ago when I briefly
served as the Program secretary of our local gurudwara, I requested the
oldest lady in the congregation to sit at the altar and lead the congre-
gation in the prayer. These functions are not restricted to the clergy in
Sikhism and are often performed by lay people. That day some people
from the local press were visiting. I thought rather than subject them
to a boring, unwelcome lecture on the equal place of women in
Sikhism, I would show it by having a woman lead the congregation.
The function went smoothly but afterwards some Sikhs wanted to
know — why a woman?
When Guru Gobind Singh gave the Sikhs their present form 300
years ago, he challenged his followers to offer their heads. After much
confusion and consternation, five men stepped up. They were the first
five baptized or confirmed Sikhs, the sixth one was Guru Gobind
Singh himself. From then on, tradition has it that the Amrit ceremony
of confirmation requires five Amritdhari Sikhs in attendance. By con-
vention they have been male, I have never seen a woman among those
five, though many women receive Amrit. When not so long ago one
woman in New York wanted to be one of those five, the granthi of a
local gurudwara objected. On what grounds, I still fail to understand
except that the first five were men. Such reasoning (or lack thereof) re-
minds me of the Roman Catholic logic on why a nun could not perform
130
SOME THOUGHTS ON RACISM AND SEXISM
all of the priestly functions — because Jesus and the apostles were
males. Given the clarity of Sikh teaching, I would have to label such
thinking regressive and asinine. If the first five converts were male, the
reason is not much different from why none of the Gurus was a female.
It has more to do with circumstances, the times and the society in
which we functioned then and now, and little to do with Sikh teaching.
Sikhism promised an equal place to women. The predominant so-

ciety then and now does not; therefore, the practice fell far short of the
preaching. In many matters however, Sikhism delivered. For instance,
the Sikh gurus were the first to raise their voices against sati, a truly
abominable custom. Widow remarriage was instituted by the Sikhs.
There is no activity in the Sikh religion reserved exclusively for men,
nor is there any which is closed to them. This is important to note be-
cause in many religions a woman may not read the scriptures, lead the
prayers or perform many of the other priestly functions, particularly if
she is menstruating. There is no ritual purification ceremony required
of her once a month. If in a Sikh service men and women sit on sepa-
rate sides, it is based on custom, culture and tradition, not canon. When
the widespread Sikhs were organized into twenty-two diocesan centers
by Guru Amar Das, many of the directors were women. In Sikh histo-
ry, women have led armies into battle.
There is no question that sexism is unSikh and that the two genders
share equally, enjoying the same rights, privileges and miseries. Once
again this is clearly brought home by the fact that in the first names of
Sikhs, no sexual distinction or identification is traditionally made.
Only “Singh” or “Kaur” are used to distinguish a male name from that
of a female. The traditional first name is absolutely gender-neutral.
The use of gender-specific first names among Sikhs 1s a relatively re-
cent phenomenon; the trend seems to be a reflection of the predomi-
nant non-Sikh culture around us. Except as responsible ethical
individuals, the roles that men and women play in life are not defined
by Sikh names, teachings or ceremonies but are determined by their
own individual circumstances. The Gurus saw that often time, culture
and individual circumstances shape what we do; if the people are re-
131
sponsible and ethical, they will evolve behaviors that are neither mas-
ochistic nor exploitive or sexist.
On matters of racism, sexism etc, Sikh teaching could not be more

explicit and less ambiguous. Yet, it is in these matters that I find Sikh
teaching and Sikh practice to show the widest divergence. I can look
back in history when the two lines were inseparable; when I look fur-
ther into the future, I do not know when the two will meet again — that
they will, I know.
23
MEN AND WOMEN: SEX,
SEXUALITY AND SOME GENDER ISSUES
In another essay I have touched briefly on the minefield of sexism

while talking about various issues that impact on Sikh teaching and
practice. But this century has finally discovered the evils of sexism,
and gender politics is such that the subject will not go away, nor should
it. Hence, this longer effort, although some repetition is inevitable.
Yes, I will talk about the place of women in Sikh society — what
it is and what it should be. But I will also talk about the relationships
between the sexes that exist in the species. Clearly sexual and gender
interactions occupy much of our attention for the greater part of our
lives.
Ask any Sikh, no matter how uninformed he or she is of Sikhism,

of the place of women in Sikh teaching. The answer will be quick that
they are equal. Ask any Sikh, no matter how liberated or erudite in the
intricacies of the faith, of the position of women in Sikh society today
and he or she will hem and haw, and side step the issue with an agility
that will do credit to the wiliest politician at a hostile press conference.
A diligent search of non-canonical Sikh literature will reveal some

material on the place of women but almost nothing on human sexual-
ity. (A brief article by Kapur Singh published long after his death in
1979 appears to be the sole exception.) It is as if the religion has noth-
ing to say about these matters. If that is really so that would be a grave
133
shortcoming. It can’t possibly be right to neglect an area that occupies

so much of time, attention and thought. As a man I know that little else
in life claims more of our energy; I reckon women are no different.
In the power structure of human relations how did the downward

slide of women’s share occur? How did this march begin in its precip-
itous decline to the point where women were no better than property.
I am no anthropologist or historian but it seems that several factors
may have come together.
There are the hormonal and biological differences which gave
men more brute strength while they saddled women with pregnancies
and the nursing of infants. Men made better hunters and farmers. Both
pursuits required strength. Also, such an arrangement provided a divi-
sion of labor between men and women which made sense in that soci-
ety. Prior to the twentieth century, success outside the home favored
the physically stronger or those who could marshall power. (Histori-
cally, some women like Cleopatra, Golda Meir and Indira Gandhi
were able to amass power but, when they did, they used it just as men
always had.)
In contemporary U.S. society, I think the most revolutionary

changes in gender relationships — which are progressively defining a
more equitable balance of power — were caused not by any new rev-
elations in Judeo-Christian theology but by two unrelated events. One
was the Second World War in which most able bodied men went to
war, leaving women to run the factories and homes. “Rosie the Rivet-
er” was the symbol of this new emancipated woman outside the home.
The second event with a dramatic impact was the development of the
birth control pill and the associated birth control technology. These
two changes freed women of their slavery to home and children, and
dependency upon men, transforming them from serfs to possible
friends and help-mates of men. The revolution, still in progress, picked
up momentum with advances in technology and advent of the comput-
er. Now sheer strength is no longer a necessity on the job. The next
step was inevitable — a reinterpretation of Judeo-Christian theology
to reflect the new equality of the sexes.
134
MEN AND WOMEN: SEX, SEXUALITY AND SOME GENDER ISSUES
Although it is now reacting positively to the new realities, the

Judeo-Christian view has not always given an equal recognition to
women. Look at the Biblical injunction: “As the Church is subject to
Christ let the wives be subject to their husbands in all things.” Much
has changed but the age-old difference in the status of women is still
reflected in the conventional western marriage ceremony where the fa-
ther of the bride symbolically “hands over’ the bride to the groom. In
the United States, as in much of Europe, women did not automatically
receive the right to vote; it came with grave difficulty and much strug-
gle. Many of the old religions like Islam and Judaism traditionally
gave little right to a woman seeking divorce except under very special
circumstances; for a man seeking riddance of an unwanted spouse it
was not so formidable a hurdle. If Roman Catholic hierarchy still does
not ordain priests, traditional Hinduism does not even allow women to
read scriptures. (I am aware that some Christian denominations now
allow women to serve priestly functions and women head some Hindu
sects but those are rare or recent phenomena.)
I know that my friends in other religions will be displeased with

me. A very terse summary such as mine cannot possibly do justice to
their long, complex traditions and practices. But my purpose here is
not an exhaustive discussion of what others believe but what Sikhism
has to say on these important issues; the comparative framework is
necessary to understand our strengths as well as our failings.
When we look at the place of women in Sikhism, two questions

come to mind. Has there been a consistent theological teaching on this
matter in Sikhism? Secondly, what does history teach us about our
practices? An important starting point is the position of women in In-
dian society prior to Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism.
When Sikhism originated in India in the fifteenth century, two ma-

jor religions dominated the country. The majority of the population
was Hindu but the minority ruling class was Moslem. Buddhism had
already been wiped out of much of India.
135
One only has to read the Laws of Manu — which provide a code
of ethics for every aspect of the life of a Hindu — that in that caste rid-
den society, women’s rights were severely curtailed. There were vestal
virgins in temples and women were prohibited from reading the Hindu
scriptures. The priests in Hinduism traditionally have always been
male Brahmins only. Women were property of their fathers before
marriage and of their husbands afterwards. They were married young
while in their teens. If widowed they were not to remarry but prefera-
bly would commit sati by being burnt alive on the pyre of their dead
husbands. Yet traditional Hindu society was a highly sexually-aware
one. Just look at the Kama Sutra or the world famous frescoes at Kha-
juraho.
The traditional Islamic society which ruled India at that time prac-
ticed polygamy, and gave few, if any, rights to women. The religion’s
power structure, as that of most societies of the time, was exclusively
male. In spite of the harems of the rulers, Islamic society was largely
conservative and, in public, women wore clothes to cover their bodies
fully with a veil over their faces.
Because of the prevailing attitudes of Islamic and Hindu societies,

Sikhism could not have ignored the issue of women’s rights, nor did it.
Every Sikh can recite the hymn from the morning prayers which
clearly reminds the follower that all are born of a woman, that without
her no one can exist, and then asks the rhetorical question: “Why
should one demean a woman?” A hymn almost universally read at
Sikh marriage ceremonies says “A union of two bodies is no union,
however close it may be; it is only when souls meet that we can speak
of a union true.” This speaks of a truly non-exploitive, equal, sharing
partnership.
When speaking in English we often refer to God as Him or He. We

do not think twice of referring to God as the Father. But there are many
hymns in the Guru Granth which clearly refer to God as both Father
and Mother. The preamble to the Guru Granth could not be more direct
when it states in unambiguous language that God has no gender. Noth-
136
ing could be clearer than the teaching in the Guru Granth. These
hymns are read so often at Sikh services that I would be simply flab-
bergasted at finding a Sikh who claims that he has not heard of them.
The words are so simple that the meaning absolutely leaves no room
for any misinterpretation.
In speaking of God the Father we reflect the limitations of the En-

glish language and perhaps of the user. In seeking a God that is a He
or a She we look to a lesser god not worthy of our worship. That is
what Sikhism tells me. In English, gender-free language is not always
easy to find. God as “It” sounds strange — though it shouldn’t; using
He/She every times seems awkward.
History also tells us that the third Guru of the Sikhs, Guru Amar-
das, organized the Sikh world of his time into 22 diocesan areas of au-
thority, and that each See was headed by an eminent Sikh appointed by
him. Of the 22 persons appointed to such high authority, 8 were wom-
en. He also preached against sati and dowry — another pernicious evil
of Indian society. He encouraged widows to remarry. These were rad-
ical steps indeed in the tradition-bound society of India over 400 years
ago.
At a Sikh religious service there is nothing that a man can do that

is prohibited to a woman. The Sikh congregation does not require a
minyan of ten men as the Jews and many Christian denominations de-
mand. There is absolutely no bar — none whatsoever — to a woman
performing any of the Sikh religious functions at any time of her life.
I emphasize this because in some religions a woman may not attend
services or perform certain rites during her menstrual period, for in-
stance.
Yet people ask, if women were so equal in Sikh teaching, how is

it that none of the ten Gurus was a woman? Why is it that when Guru
Gobind Singh ordained the Khalsa, none of the first five Sikhs who
voluntarily offered their heads was a woman? Did Guru Hargobind
and Guru Gobind Singh have more than one wife? Female infanticide
has always occurred in India, even in Sikh communities. Look at any
137
gurudwara in India or abroad. They are all managed by men. There are
hardly any women granthis who perform ministerial duties at a gurud-
wara.
Some of the answers lie in the Indian society of the fifteenth cen-
tury that I alluded to earlier, but more importantly are to be found in
its inertia and resistance to change that are a specialty of the traditional
society. Also keep in mind that in most developing societies where ed-
ucational resources are limited, girls are treated differently and more
poorly than boys. The-traditional farming and hunting societies valued
sons. Most such societies, at one time or another, practiced female in-
fanticide. Indian society was no exception. Sikhism rejects such prac-
tices unequivocally in its teaching; practice has often fallen short.
Some thirty years ago, I found myself stage-managing a program

in a gurudwara at the birth anniversary of Guru Nanak. The Sikhs
were still a novelty in New York and we hadn’t quite garnered the bad
press that we later did by our political shenanigans in the gurudwaras.
The gurudwara was the basement of a Church school rented for the
day. The local press was interested in covering the occasion. I thought
we would capture attention if I asked a woman from the congregation
to lead the prayers. She did. The Press gave us good coverage, but
some Sikhs in the congregation were displeased. Why a woman, a
trustee asked. The only answer that made sense to me was: Why not?
But it made no sense to that trustee and some others.
I remember that when one woman wanted to be one of the five

Sikhs who normally initiate others formally into the ranks of the Khal-
sa, the influential granthi of the local gurudwara vetoed the idea. His
arguments were no different from those of the Roman Catholic hierar-
chy on why there should be no women priests; to wit, that none of the
first five Sikhs who had embraced the initiation into the Khalsa Order
in 1699 were women. I find such reasoning regressive at best, if not
asinine.
These are contemporaneous events. But when we look at happen-

ings of long ago, we need to remember that we can’t judge yesterday’s
138
behavior by today’s standards. One does not measure the past by the
yardstick of today. Just as it makes little sense in condemning Jeffer-
son for owning slaves, similarly one cannot ignore the cultural and so-
cietal context of the times when we sit in judgement of history.
Many societies practice polygamy, a few show polyandry. It is

more important to recognize that such practices reflect customs, norms
and an unequal power equation between the sexes in a society. Cer-
tainly, such practices need to be judged but by the standards of the
times that they reflect, and they need to be non-exploitive. In Sikhism,
the collective body of Sikhs can derive a code of ethics which is con-
sistent with Sikh history and tradition, and is applicable to all Sikhs.
Such a Code (maryada) was adopted by the Sikhs after long delibera-
tion and it clearly mandates a monogamous relationship. In Sikhism,
sanctity of marriage is respected, promiscuity is not.
In many diverse but important issues such as birth control, abor-

tion, reproductive rights, divorce, care of the environment, peace and
disarmament, etc., Sikhism does not issue binding edicts or advocate
unchanging positions written in stone. It is understood that many such
issues are culturally dependent and time driven; they can change with
our socio-economic circumstance and educational or technological de-
velopment. The emphasis in Sikh teaching is on transforming an indi-
vidual into a mature, ethical being who will act in every situation in a
thoughtful, non-exploitive, generous, honest, caring, responsible and
mature manner.
History tells us that perhaps 80,000 Sikhs attended the convention

called by Guru Gobind Singh in 1699 when the Khalsa was ordained.
Many, if not nearly half, must have been women. As a young, feminist
Sikh woman friend — Gagandeep Kaur — often points out to me, per-
haps many of those women were busy with their squabbling children.
Perhaps they never heard the dramatic call by Guru Gobind Singh;
there were no sound systems then. Many of them might even might
have been busy with /angar if 80,000 had to be fed. Given these pre-
occupations and considering the Indian society of which they were the
products, many of them might have thought it more prudent to leave
139
such matters to their men, particularly if it was going to involve fight-

ing and battles. Don’t forget that Guru Gobind Singh made his calls for
volunteers while brandishing a flashing sword. History also tells us
that following the first five, and Guru Gobind Singh himself, over
20,000 became Khalsa that weekend; many of them were women.
If Sikhs rarely mention sex, sexuality or gender issues in their

homes or gurudwaras, they are merely reflecting the attitudes of the
larger Indian society which is, in these matters, extremely circum-
spect. The question is how and when did the traditional Indian (Hindu)
society which, judging from the Kama Sutra and Khajuraho etc, was
not unaware of the joys of sex, become so Victorian and prudish.
Again, there are a number of issues to be considered.
Hindu erotica is found in the Vedas. Hindu erotic art dates from
about the tenth century. Even now, as we sit poised at the beginning of
the twenty-first, phallic worship remains an integral part of services in
Hindu temples dedicated to Shiva, though many of the worshipers
would be aghast at what they are doing, if only they understood it.
The West seems to have emerged from Victorian prudery to unbri-

dled, uncensored sex while Indian society seems to have gone in re-
verse. The controlling, directing influence on Western society may
well have been the modern psychological insights of Freud, Jung and
others. In Indian society, Islamic invasions and the Islamic world view
may have been of greater import. Consequent to the many invasions of
India and its subsequent conquest by the Moslems, many Hindu wom-
en were forcibly taken by the invaders and conquerors as the prize of
victory, the spoils of war. The conquered people, in order to protect
their women, devised codes to keep them from venturing outside. The
society thus became guarded and pleasure became suppressed or un-
acknowledged.
In addition, one should not forget that there has always been an el-
ement in the Hindu world view that exalted denial of sex and family.
Brahmacharya and denial of the procreative instinct is a Hindu ideal,
somewhat like the higher calling of the celibate clergy in Roman Ca-
140
tholicism. Sanyas or withdrawal from life — renunciation of family

life — remains for the Hindu a highly desirable goal in life. It wasn’t
such a giant step then for the sexually-aware Indian society to become
one that can outdo the Victorians any day in being sexually repressive
and hypocritical. (It is only in Indian movies that sexuality is acknowl-
edged and that too somewhat obliquely.)
On the other hand, Sikh teaching, and the lives of the Gurus, have
consistently upheld the family life as the ideal. It is a model that many
scholars such as Daljeet Singh and Kharak Singh, among others, have
labeled “a whole-life system.” The Sikhs, therefore, have sought to de-
fine a middle ground between a promiscuous society and a repressive
one. Whereas one Hindu scriptural postulate holds that sexual passions
can be surmounted by indulging in them, Sikhism teaches that unreg-
ulated passions eventually lead to sorrow and disease. (The Hindu po-
sition here reminds me of Oscar Wilde who is reported to have said
that the only way to conquer temptation is to yield to it.)
Not only does Sikhism deny any gender — and consequent sexual
identity — or form to God, its scripture has an interesting inherent
structure. Since the Sikh Gurus were teaching to a largely Hindu audi-
ence, many of the teachings are couched in Hindu metaphysical and
mythological lexicon. Since the closest relationship that humans have
or can comprehend is that between a man and a woman, Sikh teaching
used this male-female bonding as a metaphor for the ideal union be-
tween the human and the divine. Repeatedly, Sikh scriptures treat all
men and women equally as the female in this relationship and God as
the only male.
Such examples are not meant to advocate an unequal power rela-

tionship between men and women. Instead, such metaphors, in a sense,
recognize the inevitable instinct for sexual coupling as a most power-
ful human need and desire. In Sikhism the human relationship should
mirror the sanctity which exists in the human-divine connection. In
more prosaic terms one could say that the human bond should be like
a true coin which has two equal but different faces. Nikky Guninder
Kaur has a lengthy and persuasive analysis on the Sikh scriptures from
141
what many would consider a feminist perspective. Some of Bhai Vir

Singh’s writings also turn out to be more than a pleasant story well
told; he has successfully interpreted Sikh teaching as a way for the em-
powerment of women in some of his fiction like Sundari and Baba
Naudh Singh. But the whole territory lies relatively unexplored.
Sikhism repeatedly takes note of the fact that all birth is a result of
sexual activity which makes continuation of life possible. As Kapur
Singh points out with a plethora of scriptural citations , sex too has a
place in a normal, harmonious, disciplined life. And that is the teach-
ing of Sikhism. In a life governed by such a healthy outlook, the two
sexes ought not to be at war, nor should one exploit the other. Sexism
can have no place in Sikhism, therefore, and nor can dowry, sati or the
condemning of widows to a life of solitude and isolation.
But, the fact is that there are only about 22 million Sikhs in the
world, most of them in India. Much as the United States reflects Judeo-
Christian values even though it guarantees separation of Church and
State by law, similarly, India reflects largely Hindu values, even
though it is nominally a secular country. Hindus form over 80 percent
of the population. Hinduism is a rich, old and ancient tradition. Many
of the Sikhs converted from Hinduism a mere two or three generations
ago. Most people blindly follow, more or less, their religious traditions
and the Sikhs are no different. Within a sea of Hindu teaching and
practice — all Indians are saturated in them, engulfed in them — Sikh
teaching remains, for many Sikhs, far from being thoroughly internal-
ized and integrated into their lives.
Having lived in the United States for almost 38 years, I can see
how my attitudes have changed over the years. Particularly when I vis-
it India or meet an Indian who has just arrived here, I am struck by how
different I have become living here, how this society has influenced
my thinking and behavior. So, even though I become flustered, angry
and impatient, I can also understand how the Sikhs living and growing
up in India have been shaped by the predominantly non-Sikh milieu
around them. The only cure, it seems to me, is for them to delve into
the teachings of Sikhism. Their sense of self can only emerge from an
142
understanding of their own roots. That sounds pretty preachy, so I will

stop.
Yes, there is a clear Sikh teaching. Yes, Sikhs have produced some
remarkable and memorable women who have led them, even in the
thick of battle. Yes, there are Sikh women whose names are inscribed
on our history’s scroll of honor. Yes, we repeat and read the hymns on
these issues everyday.
Not that it is unique to us, but there is an awful, yawning gulf be-
tween all that we preach and what we practice.
143
i ; Lali ebidln Hiseeee —
-# Nips vais as wrinian
24
ECOLOGICAL AND
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
IN SIKHISM
The exploration of space in the twentieth century has afforded us a

unique perspective of our existence and of our environment. A revolu-
tion in science was started by Copernicus at about the same time that
Nanak was starting a spiritual revolution in self-awareness. Both rev-
olutions, progressing apace, still incomplete, define man’s place in
God’s creation.
Science today echoes the vision of Nanak 500 years ago. Nanak
spoke of solar systems without end, a universe that defies description
and lies beyond human comprehension. In the Sikh world view, God
is the creator of all and is revealed through His creation — a creation
which transcends man’s instruments, his philosophies, his space voy-
ages and defies his measurements. Nanak speaks of “Hundreds of
thousands of worlds ‘neath and o’er ours; Scholars fail to define God's
bounds ...”. In very direct but surprisingly modern idiom, Guru Nanak
speaks not just of this Universe but many more — innumerable galax-
ies, beyond human comprehension. Guru Nanak clearly refutes any
claims as to the time, day or year of creation, and speaks of the void
that preceded creation.
It is into such a creation that God has placed man with a divine
spark of intelligence and the power to redesign and utilize God’s cre-
145
ation for his ends. But to redesign towards what ends and for what pur-
poses? Nanak’s reyerence for life, for nature and for God’s creation is
illustrated by his many writings — such as: “Air — the breath of life;
Water — the progenitor; Earth — the universal mother.” At another
time Nanak said: “True are thy universes; Holy thy worlds and cre-
ation; Holy thy actions; True thy decree”. A somewhat similar thought
is expressed in the Old Testament (Psalms xix, |): “The heavens above
declare the glory of God. The firmament below shows his handiwork.”
The environmental crisis facing mankind can be gauged by the

simple statistic that over 20 billion tons of waste a year — much of it
effluent from factories, homes and farms — end up in the sea. Also, a
town like Delhi has lost 60 percent of its forest cover within a decade
as aresult of its growing demand for fuel. (For illustration, I pick Delhi
and not New York because for many reasons the crisis in developing
countries is even more horrendous. They cannot neglect industrial de-
velopment; yet to underestimate the future repercussions of poor envi-
ronmental policies now will be foolish.)
It is now easy to easy to see what the Sikh attitude towards the cur-
rent ecological and environmental crisis should be. The emphasis of
Sikh teaching is not in the laying down of highly precise, rigid, un-
changing and specific rules of how man might utilize God’s creation
including his fellow beings on mother Earth. These technical matters
would require technical expertise and decisions made by scientifically
trained minds with a highly sophisticated base of knowledge. And
what we decide today will change tomorrow based on new informa-
tion. The essence of Sikh teaching is to provide man with a healthy,
progressive, forward-looking and responsible philosophy to guide hu-
man actions so that decisions are intelligently and ethically made.
The Guru recognized that existence is a strange bargain; life owes

us little, we owe it everything. It follows then that if air or ‘pavan’ is
Guru the life-giving force, it would be sinful to pollute it; if water or
‘pani’ sires us and earth is mother, dumping our garbage into our rivers
would be unforgivable. Guru Nanak in his writings was celebrating
what Keats called “the poetry of earth”.
146
ECOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS IN SIKHISM
In the lives of quiet desperation that humans lead, what ethical val-
ues to give to man in a manner that is both simple and universal, yet
effective at the same time? Guru Nanak addressed these issues very di-
rectly and forthrightly. While exhorting man not to renounce the world
but to meet its challenges squarely, not to shun progress but to pursue
it responsibly, the Guru gave guidelines for what constitutes responsi-
ble living.
Sikhism teaches against a life of conspicuous, wasteful consump-

tion. The Guru taught man to be aware of and respect the dignity in all
life, whether human or not. Such a respect for life can only be fostered
where one can first recognize the divine spark within oneself, see it in
others, cherish it, nurture and fulfill it. Translated into easily under-
stood terms: To spend a life which depends for its existence on an hon-
est job honestly done (the work ethic), the rewards of such a life to be
shared with others to inculcate a sense of giving of one-self and social
responsibility, and all this is to be done with an awareness of the Infi-
nite within one.
A life dedicated to such a philosophy, Sikhism asserts, would ad-

dress both the internal environmental crises of man’s spirit and the ex-
ternal environmental crisis of mother earth caused by man’s spiritual
emptiness and irresponsibility. Sikhs believe that the environmental
crisis is primarily and fundamentally spiritual in nature. An awareness
of man’s symbiotic relationship to mother earth, air, water — in fact,
to his total environment is necessary.
Life, for its very existence and nurturing, depends upon a bounte-
ous nature. Man needs to derive sustenance from the parent, not to de-
plete, exhaust, pollute, burn or destroy it. Sikhs believe that an
awareness of that sacred relationship between man and the environ-
ment is necessary for the health of our environment and this planet,
and for our own survival. A new ‘environmental ethic’ can only arise
from an honest understanding and dedicated application of our old,
tried and true spiritual heritage.
147
ee fh Gee Ae aT EB ecjeax: aot
ieee. & ies ee BS FES
5 ea: ideale
EPILOGUE
These days, most Sikhs that I meet seem to have a beef; they think that
the world has done them wrong. They express considerable bewilder-
ment, frustration, impatience and a sense of impotence with the dichot-
omy between how we view ourselves and how others see us,
particularly those who have very little knowledge of us. The gulf has
widened considerably since 1984 when the Indian army attacked the
Golden Temple and forty other gurudwaras across the Punjab. The
problem has been exacerbated by the relentless campaign of the Indian
government which has used its massive resources in a worldwide cam-
paign to portray the Sikhs as terrorists hell bent on fragmenting India.
If many Sikhs appear shell shocked, there is plenty of good reason.
Whether they are educated or barely literate, most Sikhs are justi-
fiably proud of their heritage, their young religion, and the achieve-
ments of their people. Yet, they say, “the world knows so little of us
and what it does know is often wrong — colored by the Indian govern-
ment’s propaganda.” How is it, they want to know, that we have not
been able to show the world the beauty, majesty and richness of our
religion? Why is it that the world knows so little or cares even less
about us and our fate?
The rage and frustration are understandable but, | submit, such

feelings are not entirely justified. Let us not be too hard on ourselves.
Do not forget that the Sikh religion is young; 500 years in terms of
history is not even a drop in the bucket. Our numbers are minuscule,
there are about as many Sikhs as there are Jews.
The British are wrongly blamed for many of the ills of Indian so-
ciety, but in one matter they could really share some. When the British
149
came to India, they brought their own world view and philosophy. The
outwardly obsequious Indian mind resented it but learnt to ape an alien
language, culture and tradition. And necessarily neglected and deval-
ued its own. Survival demanded the former, the latter became inevita-
ble. At least partially at fault is the traditional Indian system of
education in which the mind is viewed as an empty bucket to be filled.
The teacher speaks, the student listens — no ifs or buts. The great gift
of Western philosophic tradition to mankind is the Socratic method
which depends on “ifs and buts” to awaken and stretch the mind.
More importantly, we represent perhaps the first generation of

Sikhs with the availability of nearly universal education in both our
traditional lore as well as the western modes of communication. In our
fathers’ days, Sikh college graduates were few and far between. Less
than two generations ago, our forefathers ran modest businesses in
small towns or were farmers. Their education was limited to a smatter-
ing of the mother tongue and some instruction in the scriptures. They
were just as innocent of the rest of the world as the world was of them.
To some extent the first world war and later the second, provided them
the first opportunities to expand their horizons. It is good to remember
that from the time of the Gurus until the dawn of the twentieth century,
the imperatives of survival were such that the Sikhs knew very little
peace and leisure except briefly during Ranjit Singh’s reign. War and
repressive governments dominated their existence far too long but
shaped their indomitable spirit.
Our generation which grew up primarily after 1947 has enjoyed

prosperity in the Punjab, widespread education, opportunities to trav-
el, and unheard of ways to broaden the mind. Prior to this time our con-
tacts with the world outside Punjab were limited. Many of this new
generation have successfully grafted the western oriented, outer di-
rected, exploratory attitude to life on to their own Sikh heritage, be-
cause the two have always been quite compatible.
For the past forty years or so, we have been under siege in India,
more so since 1984. Yet these years have seen a remarkable growth in
literature on or about the Sikhs by Sikhs and others. Universities and
150
EPILOGUE
Colleges in India have sprouted academic programs with a focus on

Sikhs Studies. I point particularly to the number of Khalsa Colleges
and Sikh institutions as well as to the establishment of Guru Nanak
Dev and Punjabi Universities in India within the past twenty-five
years. Even outside India, particularly in Great Britain and North
America, departments and academic activities on Sikhs Studies have
burgeoned. Conferences on Sikh Studies have been hosted by the Uni-
versity of California and new Sikh Studies programs have been devel-
oped at Columbia University as well as the Universities of British
Columbia, Toronto and Michigan. Books and newspapers that high-
light Sikh concerns are published and widely distributed. Some of
what is new is also nonsense and may not survive. But time will sepa-
rate the wheat from the chaff.
The past twenty years or so have seen a quantum leap in the num-
ber of academic programs in hitherto neglected areas; look at the
growth of Black Studies, Islamic Studies, Hebraic Studies and Women
Studies, for example. It is time that Sikh Studies emerged to take its
rightful place alongside these new academic disciplines. The domain
of Sikh Studies is a newly developing one; the dimension of this fledg-
ling yet to be defined, but it is a vigorous product of a vibrant people.
We are still learning — our Vedantic roots, our Semitic antecedents,
our revealed, unique religion of the Book — but we are greater than
the sum of the parts. We are still learning to disagree amongst our-
selves without being disagreeable. A new world requires new strate-
gies and tactics, a new armory of the mind. And we are learning.
There are also other indications of growing self-awareness. This

year I received many New Year cards with a Sikh motif, more than
ever before; only a few years ago, such cards would have been impos-
sible to find in the market. Television and radio in many cities outside
India offer programming from a Sikh point of view; these would have
been unthinkable only a few years ago. In the area of human rights, the
U.S. Congress and Amnesty International have taken note of the Indi-
an government’s lawlessness and state sponsored terrorism in the Pun-
15
jab. Many young Sikhs escaping the horrors in India have been granted
political asylum in the United States in the past few years.
Christianity and Islam flourished because of political patronage in

their heyday. The Jews have honed their skills during two thousand
years of suffering, have had centuries of contacts with Europe which
was dominant both politically and economically, and have a state. Re-
member that no country or government speaks for us. We are still
young.
If we are dissatisfied with where we are it only means that our

goals are higher than our grasp, and that is as it should be. T.S. Eliot
reminds us,
“Between the conception

And the creation
Between the emotion
And the response
Falls the shadow
Life is very long.”
Let us not be too harsh or impatient with ourselves. To Sikhs I

would say somewhat irreverently, “You have come a long way, baby.”
I should add “You have a longer way to go.”
152
GLOSSARY
Amrit Sikh initiation roughly comparable to the rite of

confirmation in Christianity. Introduced by Guru
Gobind Singh in 1699. Those who receive Amrit are
called Amritdhari and accept the lifestyle and sym-
bols of the Khalsa.
Anand Karaj Literally “sacrament ofjoy.” It is the Sikh marriage

ceremony.
Babri Mosque A mosque in Ayodhya built by the Moslem king

Babar who ruled India in the sixteenth century. Hin-
dus contend that it occupies the exact site where
their god-king Rama was born.
Bhagvad Geeta Sacred book of Hindus. Contains the teachings of

Krishna.
Brahma One of the trinity of Hindu gods. The supreme cre-

ative spirit in Hinduism.
Brahmin The highest, priestly caste among the Hindus. His-

torically only males of this hereditary caste were al-
lowed to perform Hindu sacred rites.
Chappaties Flat bread, usually unleavened. Staple of Punjabi

food.
Dasam Granth Many but not all of the writings in this compilation
are attributed to Guru Gobind Singh. They are not
included in the Guru Granth.
153
Durga Consort of Shiva. Usually depicted with eight arms

and a garland of skulls. Embodiment of power in
Hinduism.
Ghadar Party A political association of Indians, largely Punjabi

Sikhs, based in California and British Columbia.
Active in the early years of the twentieth century
against the British occupation of India.
Granthi Scholar or curator of the Guru Granth, usually in

charge of a gurudwara.
Gurbani Teachings of the Gurus and saints as enshrined in

the Guru Granth. Loosely interpreted, it often
means not only the content of the Guru Granth but
also the writings of Guru Gobind Singh (Dasam
Granth), Bhai Gurdas and Bhai Nand Lal.
Gurudwara Sikh house of worship. Analogous to a church,

mosque or temple.
Guru Granth Guru Arjan compiled the main body of the text in
1604 as the Adi Granth. It contains the writings of
the Sikh Gurus as well as of Moslem and Hindu
saints, some of whom were from the lower castes of
Hinduism. Guru Gobind Singh added the writings
of Guru Tegh Bahadur and installed this sacred
scripture of the Sikhs as the living Guru.
Halal Flesh from an animal slaughtered in the ritual way,

according to Islamic teaching. Akin to kosher meat
in Judaic practice.
Imam A scholar of Islamic religion.
Indra Hindu Vedic god of rain and thunder. Protector of

cows, priests and other lesser gods.
154
GLOSSARY
Karma The concept of eventual justice. It contends that ev-

erything that happens is preordained, according to
one’s actions in an earlier life. A corner stone of
Hindu philosophy.
Katha Exposition of Sikh scriptural writing or heritage

during a Sikh religious service, in the presence of
the Guru Granth.
Keertan Singing of the liturgy in a Sikh religious service.
Keshadhari Sikhs who maintain the five external symbols of

Sikhism. Not all keshadhari Sikhs are Amritdhari.
Lakshmi Consort of Vishnu. Goddess of wealth in Hinduism.
Langar A meal prepared by volunteers and served to all, ir-

respective of their religious beliefs, after a religious
service. Many gurudwaras serve langar twice a day,
others have continuous langar available at any time
of the day. Men and women vie for the opportunity
to serve and the people are seated randomly without
regard to gender, economic status, caste, etc. This
breaks the usual Hindu restrictions.
Manu Scholar and law giver of Hinduism, the final author-

ity in Hindu law. He codified many of the Hindu rit-
uals and practices, including those of the caste
system and the status of women in Hindu society.
Lived perhaps between 600 and 200 B.C.
Namdharis A small subsect of Sikhs. They share all of the

teachings of Sikhism except one: whereas Sikhs be-
lieve that Guru Gobind Singh vested the Guru
Granth with all spiritual authority, the Namdharis
look to a Guru in human form to guide them.
Patit Literally an apostate. Used in a derogatory manner

for Sikhs who follow Sikhism as their religion, were
155
once Keshadhari if not Amritdhari, and now do not

maintain unshorn hair. Technically a Patit Sikh is
he who, having broken a cardinal rule of Sikh disci-
pline, is no longer in a state of grace.
Ramayana A Hindu epic detailing the trials, tribulations and

triumphs of their god-king Rama.
Sangat Also called Sadh Sangat. Literally, a congregation

united in holy purpose or prayer.
Sati A Hindu custom in which a widow was burnt at the

cremation pyre of her dead husband. Finally out-
lawed by the British, it is sadly still occasionally
practiced in India by some Hindus.
Sehajdhari Sikhs who follow Sikhism as their religion, except

that they were never initiated by Amrit into the
Khalsa and never maintained unshorn hair, the most
visible external symbol of the Sikhs. They are to be
distinguished from the Patit Sikhs.
Sevadar Literally, one who serves. It is the traditional term

in Punjabi for an officer of the gurudwara or a Sikh
organization.
S.G.P.C. Shiromini Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, a

Sikh organization which supervises the administra-
tion of historic gurudwaras all over India. Came
into existence in 1922 by an act of the Government
of India after the Sikhs wrested control of their gu-
rudwaras from the British government following a
massive agitation.
Shiva One of the trinity of Hindu gods. The supreme spirit

of destruction in Hinduism.
156
aia
=
IKHS ARE NOW a visible presence all over

S the globe. Their young, logical and
practical religion invites considerable interest
and attention.
Dr. IJ. Singh has written a thoughtful
series of essays on issues and problems — |
confronting Sikhs at the turn,of the millennium,
As a Sikh who has lived much of his life in a |
non-Sikh milieu in North America, he pemects
on what it means to be a Sikh, the import of ||
Sikh observances in daily life, the interaction
of Sikh beliefs and practices with those of |
other religions and the experiences common
to all Sikh immigrants.
These perceptive essays challenge Sikhs
and intrigue non-Sikhs. Religious, historical,
social and political issues are debated. The
PYceme)(o mee-Vecteteyns and practices of the Sikhs
are recast in language and concepts that are
contemporary and relevant. Forthrightly but
tactfully, the essays engage issues that impact’,
on everyday life, but without neglecting the
magic and meaning of tradition. They run the
gamut from the essence of Parshad to drug |
abuse; from Sikh articles of faith and Khalistan
to racism and sexism.
This volume should be of special interest
to Sikhs everywhere who are young enough tq;
be inquisitive and questioning about their Ee
heritage. It should serve those who are ria!

for a more logical, rational basis for their
lifestyle. It is of particular value to specialists
in Sikhism, world religions, comparative
religion and culture, interfaith communication
and the Sikh diaspora.
FRONT PHOTO: DETAIL FROM THE SHISH MAHAL

BY JULIE W. MUNRO
BACK PHOTO: THE GOLDEN TEMPLE BY ROBERT RAY

10-B Carden Street
P.O. Box 96, Guelph, Ontario
Canada N1H 6L6 ‘

Sikhs and Sikhism: A View With A Bias: I.J. Singh

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sikhs and Sikhism: A View With A Bias: I.J. Singh

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sikhs and Sikhism: A View With A Bias: I.J. Singh

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sikhs and Sikhism

A VIEW WITH A BIAS.

The Centennial Foundation

Sikhs and Sikhism : a view with a bias

BL2018.S515 1998 294.6 C98-900492-9

First published 1994

Revised edition published in 1998

I. J. Singh was born in Gujranwala (now in Pakistan), and educated at

|S te SUS Tel 245)

18 Khalistan? One Sikh’s: View a... eto ee eee 99

The essays in this collection define an ordinary Sikh’s journey into

In these writings, therefore, rational, intellectual conceptualiza-

My mother taught me that the reality of religion transcends logic.

Thinking about these matters was not always easy or comfortable

The question must be asked: Why write? It is a luxury, a form of

The response, particularly of young Sikhs, to this book since it was

My encounters with Sikhs and their religion have provided me with

tions. A third group deals with politics, either internal as demonstrated

Many Sikhs may not agree with some of I. J. Singh’s assessments,

For the more general audience, I. J. Singh introduces many key

[3 General intellectual issues reviewed in the proceedings of the To-

NO Immigration and consequent challenges discussed in the essays in

The challenges confronting modern Sikhism discussed in essays

Sikhism is a practical religion. Sikhs are a practical, down-to-earth

The absence of a priesthood or any form of brokerage between

But while there continues to be a dire need for ongoing scholar-

Scholarly works are meant to assist in the practice of one’s faith,

The project that the author has undertaken — a self-examination

Truth, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. It is therefore a

The Centennial Foundation, as part of its mandate to commemo-

belittled if it was reduced to an “approved” or “official” treatise — but

If it generates a dialogue in every household that it finds its way

Wishing you, dear reader, a happy Baisakhi 299!

The Centennial Foundation

In this preamble there is a little nostalgia and some history. In a round-

There have been three significant migrations of Sikhs to this coun-

The second migration of Sikhs followed India’s independence in

proach to Sikhism is also different. They think differently. They are

Many of our raucous and disagreeable differences reflect the vari-

interaction. I recall when the New York congregation bought a build-

These essays are an odd collection much as any life is but in a

Sometimes I think that reason does not govern or direct us very

There are families which have for generations treasured handwrit-

who travel around India from village to village collecting donations

Isn’t it best, as Abraham Lincoln is reputed to have said, to be less

By teaching, by example and through the Guru Granth, the Gurus

It is no coincidence that the religion is called Sikhism and the fol-

Concomitantly, one also becomes aware that Sikhism is not now a

What does it mean to be a good Sikh? An excellent student is one

ing. In reality it marks only the beginning of a life-long career, a com-

By this reasoning, even the rite of confirmation in the Sikh religion

In essence every Sikh is a convert to the religion, being born into

presence of the Guru, therefore, manifests in the congregation in mind-

In many ways the Guru Granth is like a book of recipes or pre-

With this prelude, it is easy to understand the ceremonies and rit-

The atmosphere surrounding the Guru Granth should be such that

Appearance before the Guru can be likened to a retreat. It should

The Sikhs have some remarkably different and contradictory ways of

These and other questions were brought home to me two or three