By Gurtej Singh
Dr. W.H, McLeod’s penchant for creating controversies, where none exist, must constitute a record of sorts. His latest book, who is a Sikh, Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 140, reveals him best at his trade. Of late, particularly since the ongoing political crisis in the Punjab, his writings have become conspicuous for their political content as well as disregard for established facts of history. Those who look for these distortions in the present work shall be amply rewarded.
All unbiased analysts of Hindu culture and behavior from Alberuni to Max Weber and Nirad C. Chaudhri are aware, that it represents a uni-central, geo-centered, exclusive and opinionated society. Pluralism, the soul of co-existence, is totally alien to it. These traits have put it in direct social and political confrontation with other societies. Proper resolution of conflict involves recognition of autonomous status of about thirty other nations constituting the Indian subcontinent. Instead Hindu India has consciously chosen to keep them in permanent subjugation as a prelude to final assimilation. But since the step has to be justified as a prelude to final assimilation. But since the step has to be justified to the liberty loving west, the argument that comes in handy is that, ‘Sikhism is just a sect of Hinduism and quest for separate identity is promoted by separatist organizations and Sikh Temples under the influence of the Khalsa.’ It may be recalled that the argument seriously advanced by M.K. Gandhi was that the Muslims being descendants of converts from Hinduism were a part of the Hindu nation. In varying degrees the same is used against disadvantaged minorities in independent India. Like their predecessors Moughals, Afghans and Britishers, the present rulers, have come to believe that the Sikh temples must be brought under State control in order to contain the quest for separate identity. This is the true context of Dr. McLeod’s book, a large part of which cannot otherwise be comprehended. One progressively realized that he is projecting the post 1947 predicament (“debate has followed these lines throughout the present century”) coloured by imperialistic design to disintegrate the Order of the Khalsa.
The plan is to so re-define a Sikh that Hindu takeover of Sikh shrines is rendered possibly by a pseudo democratic process. Punjabi Hindus who have denied their mother tongue in successive Census operations since 1947 being considered capable of posing as Sikhs on the day of polling.
Immediate context is also relevant; It is based on two deliberate distortions. First one is a clever trick by which definition of a Sikh for the sole purpose of management of Gurdwaras is represented as defining all those who claim to belong to the faith and is then derided as ‘definition by legislation’. The mention that of the more than ten thousand Gurdwaras in the Punjab alone only one hundred and thirty are managed by the SGPC is omitted; so is the fact that participation of the Sahijdharis is provided for in the Act. The second one, that the SGPC has usurped the exclusive right to define a Sikh, is a total inversion of facts. The SGPC drew up an authentic version of the Sikh code of conduct by consent of all the constituents of the Panth. It appointed a committee of known scholars on October 1, 1932. The committee invited and processed suggestions received from various shades of opinion from within and outside the country; the suggestions and the draft proposal were widely publicized. Almost every known opinion maker was involved in the exercise which finally concluded on January 7, 1945. Definition of a Sikh in Sikh Rahit Maryada is thus arrived at after due consideration. What sort of scholar is he who can presume that the one proposed by him must prevail in contradistinction?
That is only the beginning. His definition os Sahijdhari is supported by no authority and is clearly inadequate as sattainment of Sahij or spiritual equipoise is equally mandatory for all Sikhs including the Khalsa. The insinuation that a well-defined distinct group of SahiJdharis ever existed in confrontation with the Khalsa is totally wrong. Demonstrable fact is that by the free consent of all the constituents, Order of the Khalsa has assumed leadership of the Sikh panth and has always borne responsibility to protect its interests. Sahijdharis may have felt themselves in no position to abide by the Khalsa rahit but have at no stage opposed it. They have held no ideals not equally dear to the Khalsa. Their opposition would be meaningless as Khalsa is a voluntary association and the rahit or the ground rules of it are freely accepted.
McLeod cannot pursue his thesis of differing identities so lightly. In addition he will have to establish that he articulates a desire for preservation of threatened Sahijdhari identity and is not advancing the specious argument of a renegade or an agent of the Hindu cultural imperialism. In the absence of all that we must hold that the entire emphasis of this book is totally misplaced.
Doctrinally there is no possibility of conflict between Sahijdharis and the Khalsa, historically they have always (up to 1947) replenished the Khalsa ranks. The “persistent problem” of those who “observe multiple identities” agitates McLeod more than it has ever agitated the wearer of such apparel.
His discovery of a new constituent of the Sikh panth, namely the Hindu Sikh, is amazing to say the least. The species is not known to history. The Moughals for instance did not know it either. It would be more tenable in suggest the existence of Jew Muslims, Jew Christians and Muslim Christians as they at least have common scriptures and as Islam recognizes earlier Prophets. Sikh Gurus deny the scriptural value of Vedas, decry the possibility of God ever incarnating and squarely denounce the caste system. There are the basic doctrines of any shade of Hinduism. How can a Hindu remain a Hindu if he heeds to the Guru? A Hindu who honestly claims to be a Sikh would be a living absurdity.
Before we go into the methodology of defining adopted by Reverend McLeod, we must note that he uses the epithet Tat Khalsa to designate leaders of the Singh Sabha without explaining himself, Can the authority of “the liberal, the lax and the ambivalent” who constitute a majority in every dispensation, suffice to define who is a Christian or a Hindu? Could those who hold fast to the original doctrines of the faith be dubbed as “fundamentalists”? He does both of these unto Sikhs and Sikhism.
His understanding of the essential nature of the Hindu caste system is wholly inadequate. When the Sikh Gurus deny its divine origin, its racial connotation, its pollution potential and its relevance to salvation, they are throwing it out log stock and barrel. These are the assumptions on which the system rests. Absence of martial relations between say white and black Americans does not mean that society is practicing the caste system.
The variety of Namsimran he upholds has no place in Sikhism. Mere repetition of the Name is specifically condemned by the Gurus as of no avail; the age old Hindu concept of the spiritual potency and compulsively compelling power of Mantras is emphatically abandoned by them. Suffice it to say that no Sikh theologian from Bhai Gurdas to Sirdar Kapur Singh and Sardar Daljit Singh agrees with him. It will be remembered that Guru Nanak exhorted the Siddhas to stop muttering Mantras and to join the struggle in the real world in order to qualify for salvation.
Being conditioned by the false concept he is obliged to observe “attributes of royalty” were added later to the status of Guru. That status is derived from the profound concept that God is the only True Sovereign. The concept is available in Sikhism from the day one. Erudite Bhatt’s whose “Coronation Odes” composed on the occasion of the installation of second to fifth Gurus forma part of the Guru Granth Sahib compiled in 1604 AD belie McLeod conclusively.
He draws various distinctions between Gurus’ message which he admits is cogent, clear and sophisticated and that of the Sants whom he labels as “ordinary people” and yet he continues to maintain that Sikhism is a part of the Sant tradition. That is possible if we totally forget that the Guru claimed prophet hood, took proper care to preserve and preach his doctrine, appointed a successor to continue his work and that his panth is making history even today. Of no Sant and of no other panth can this much be said?
His discussion of taboos of religion does not take into account that they never need yield to rational justification or interpretation. In the banning of tobacco, halal or sexual relations with Muslims, he sees anti-Muslim bias at work. He forgets that only Gurus distinct orders could have made them an article of faith and not the ephemeral ground of historical antagonism with rulers paying lip sympathy to another great culture. If rationalization is to be sought it has to be in terms of the Sikh doctrine contained in the Guru Granth Sahib. It upholds sanctity of the institution of marriage and bans extra-marital relations; Khalsa rahit stresses it only partly. Antihalal taboo is in the context of the Guru resenting its imposition as a symbol of political power’s claim of sole access to ‘Spiritual truths, Tobacco can be considered Muslim by no stretch of imagination. His attempt at projecting such taboos as anti-Muslim is untenable. The conclusion that he somehow desires to undo Guru’s reconciliatory work and use taboos as a wedge between two great cultures similar in so many fundamental ways, is inescapable.
One prominent feature of the book is the many loose ends the author leaves untied. Bandi’s dispute with the Tat Khalsa is made acapital of but the eventual reconciliation and the acceptance of the Khalsa rahit by them is conveniently forgotten. Presumably because such an event taking place amongst the contemporaries of the Tenth Guru would knock the bottom out of the theory being propounded in this book. Incidentally, Ranjit Singh was never proclaimed a Maharaja in 1801 as is clear from there being no mention of it in the Anglo-Sikh treaty of friendship concluded in 1806. Not the least interesting part of the book is where (p. 74 paras 1&2) hearticulates Hindu perceptions without quoting a single source. He deems it highly relevant although it is external criticism in behalf of unnamed representatives of a rival culture. This selective use of history makes his book a piece of motivated propaganda.
The book fails to work out the theological implications of Guru Nanak describing God as having unshorn hair. Had it been analyzed in the context of Sikh concept of nam-simran that is the progressive realization of the virtues prophetically revealed to be attributes of God, McLeod would not have ascribed the practice of wearing the hair long to Jat cultural traits. Even otherwise the tradition of wearing the hair long can be traced to the hoary past of the Indians in general. It appears to have continued into late mediaeval times. The last Great Moughal who ordered the first general massacre of Sikhs after the execution of Baba Banda, also issued an edict requiring all state employees to shave off. The idea was to detect Sikhs who managed to survive under the cloak of State patronage. It is recorded that many Hindus committed suicide by jumping into wells to avoid suffering the indignity. The episode draws attention to two vital aspects. Contemporary Moughal administration was aware that the Khalsa wears the long hair because of deep rooted faith and the Hindus regarded the practice to be the hall mark of dignity.
The selective use of historical evidence is rampant in this small volume. A wrong date and an unexpected style of writing are deemed conclusive arguments to dismiss two rahitnamas as spurious. Inspite of “other features indicating an early date” of a document, the author arbitrarily assigns a convenient date with remarkable precision (eighteenth or early nineteenth century) just before voicing a full throated lament at the absence of earlier documents. His preference for Chhibber becomes comprehensible when he affirms, “portions of its prolific content can be offensive to modern Khalsa taste and that it emphasizes “menace posed by polluting Muslims”. That a Brahmin is articulating the grievances of his parent community never occurs to him. The use of ‘B40 too falls into this category.
What is one to make of his inference that throughout history general run of Sikhs have always considered themselves as Hindus, particularly if one knows that he is basing that inference on a single entry in one of the Janamsakhis written by an unknown writer?
The book is also full to the brim of convenient or self-serving arguments which are casually dropped for the first time and are later exploited as established facts.
Institution of langar is introduced as an innovation by Guru Amar Das quite forgetting that Guru Nanak had himself set it up at Kartarpur or that the existence of Guru Angad’s langar under the supervision of Mata Khivi is mentioned in the Guru Granth Sahib. The author also employs logical absurdities to buttress false arguments. His Jat theory has been exposed as one big conjecture yet he continues to cling to it by the fingernails. He is prepared to assume anything and everything to support the untenable thesis but fails to see militancy writ large in Guru Nanak’s message. Riddles such as although the Muslims were freely employed in positions of authority during the Sikh rule, the Sikhs still held on to anti-Muslim bias, are hard to understand. One that must surely take the cake is found on pp. 73-74. He is arguing that the separate Sikh identity is contested by “many Punjabi Hindus who have no claim to formal affiliation with the panth.” Would it be worth mentioning if Jews or Christians objected to the separate identity of Muslims? McLeod is like the proverbial bull in a china shop and is working overtime to ensure that reputation.
For building up his curious thesis Dr. McLeod has had to turn a Nelson’s eye to several universally acknowledged doctrines of Sikh theology and it speaks volumes for his disdain for facts that he has done it with perfect equanimity. Guru Granth Sahib the duly appointed Guru is the only Sikh canon. He would put the Dasam Granth on the same pedestal notwithstanding the fact that it was not in existence until well after the demise of Guru Gobind Singh. It was compiled around the middle of the eighteenth century and the decision on its authorship, final form and status was consciously differed by a collective will of the panth. That is where the matter rests even today. It is however very clear that had Guru Gobind Singh intended that his bani should have canonistical value he would have added it to Guru Granth Sahib just as he entered the bani of his immediate predecessor. That is what Guru Arjun had done. No action of an individual or a group in history or the pleadings of a pseudo historian can ever change that established fact.
Doctrinally the Sikh prophets have demanded absolute allegiance to what they preached since it was the Will of God they revealed. As illustrated by the oft used simile in Sikh theology, the Sikh must consider him a dead body and must completely surrender to the doctrine as the body completely and finally accepts the grave Guru being likened to the grave. In these conditions and in the face of the well settled doctrine that all Gurus are the same Nanak, how is it possible for anyone to claim allegiance only to one or a few of the Ten Masters? How can difference in preaching be at all assumed?
The main purpose of propounding the strange thesis becomes clear towards the end. It is simply to challenge the authority of the SGPC and to pave the way for handling over of Gurdwara management to Hindus with the help of a spurious definition of a Sikh. He imagines that his generally lax Sikh friend’s will provide the necessary handle, in that he is certainly mistaken. But Reverend McLeod has perhaps discovered a devious method of ushering in an era of communal harmony which has eluded India for thousands of years. This can be achieved merely by employing the same methodology to define Indian Christians and Indian Muslims. If it is provided that whosoever desires to be taken for a Sikh, Christian or a Muslim should be regarded as such, the currently explosive Babri Masjid issue can be solved by the ballot, strife in the Christian North-east and Muslim Jammu and Kashmir can come to an end. Sentiments of those who never Muslim saints like Nigahia, Kabir, Nizamuddin Aulia, Sakhi Sarvar and Sai Baba of Sirdi to name only a few can be pressed into service. Suitable stratagem can be evolved to hand over the Churches to Hindu Christian management after all the theory that Jesus Christ spent the last years of his life preaching in India and finally rests in Kashmir has already received much publicity. It cannot be beyond McLeod to work out something plausible with a suitably academic veneer. This can ensure him a permanent place as a great benefactor of the sub-continent and maybe that of an original genius. Such a status may be worth seeking for he is never likely to pass off as an objective historian, though his books may cause a momentary flutter in the circles which knows next 1o nothing about Sikhism so far. The day is not distant when he will be discovered.
Gurtej Singh, formerly of the Indian Administrative Service, resigned and was appointed National Professor Sikhism in succession to late S. Kapur Singh, the renowned Sikh theologian.
“Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves and under a just God cannot long retain it” Abraham Lincoln.
Article extracted from this publication >> March 2, 1990
