By Gobind Singh Mansukhani
This latest publication of Dr. McLeod contains a lot from his previous lectures and essays on Sikhism and some new matter. It reiterates mostly the views and conclusions on Sikh history and tradition mentioned in his earlier works.
The first chapter on The Sikhs mentions four kinds of Sikhs: Sahijdhari, Kesadhari, Amritdhari, Mona/Patit. We know that there are no Mona Sikhs, A Mona isnota Sikh under the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1971. A Patit isalso nota Sikh unless he comes to the fold according to the Rahit Maryada. However, Sahijdharis are accepted as Sikhs under the Rahit Maryada of the SGPC. Mona or Patit is degraded in the Sikh religion.
In the second chapter McLeod lends his support to the theory that Sikhism is not a new religion, but as offshoot of Hindu tradition (p. 14). He writes, “If we concede that the links with the Sant doctrine are altogether too obvious to be ignored, must we then accept that the Sikh movement is a Sanf movement? Should the Nanakpanth be regarded as one among many such panths emerging within the larger context of Hindu tradition and still remaining a part of it?” (P. 24) Then he cleverly asks a question: “Must we conclude that Nanak was a sanf?” He feels that “because he (Guru Nanak) represents the essential concerns of the sants we are bound to locate Guru Nanak within the sant tradition.” (p. 31). In this connection, let us find out what Guru Nanak has to say onthe matter. In the Sidhgoshti, Guru Nanak in reply to the question put by the Sikhs as to what his mat (faith) is and who is his Guru, affirms that his mat is that of the Sabad (not santmat): Sabad is my Guru and my mind(consciousness) is the disciple”. (AG p. 993).
Guru Nanak went further and institutionalized the role of the Guru whose mediation is vital for salvation. Thus the Guru is the pivot of Sikhism.
The difficultly with McLeod is that he does not understand the difference between a Sant and a Guru. A Guru is a divinely inspired nonkarmic being, commissioned by God to set things right ina time of crisis while sants and bhagats are legion and do not set up a line of successors and institutions to implement their teachings. The sant like a philosopher’s stone can change a person into a better person (from iron to gold) but the Guru can transform an ordinary person into a Guru just as the Gurus did to establish a line of tested Gurus.
In the third chapter McLeod divides the approaches to Sikhism into two categories, (1) Singh Sabha interpretation of Sikh history, (2) Western Historiographical. 1 believe there is a 3rd approach which I call the intuitive or internal approach which comes from a deeper reflection on Gurbani, spiritual endeavor or Kamaee when the Guru may open the inner lock of the discipline to fill him with wonder and rapture with the presence of God within himself and without. This is the illuminative and real approach to the understanding and interpretation of Sikhism.
McLeod equates “manjiholders” with “‘masands (p. 42) This is far from correct. Those who were assigned manjis by Guru Amardas were missionaries, while the Massand system was started later by Guru Ramdas and consolidated by Guru Arjan Dev. The massands were given the duty of collecting offerings and Daswand from Sikhs on behalf of the Gurus and to bring them to the Guru on the main Sikh festivals, in addition to missionary work.
McLeod discusses the militancy of the two later Gurus and thinks that two pressures were responsibility for it, namely “the presence of a substantial and highly active Jat constituency and the experience of protracted war fare through much of the century”. This thesis has already been challenged by Jagjit Singh and others, and the reasons therefore are the Sikh egalitarian revolution and the need of survival as also the struggle of basic human rights for which Guru Gobind Singh was forced to wage war against the then rulers.
The fourth chapter deals with the Sikh Doctrine, I agree with him that the right terminology is not available for explaining the important concepts of Sikhisrn. Godin Sikhism is different from the Christian God. So also words like Guru, Nam, Haumai, Hukam, Panth, Khalsa. Let me take the word Panth. Guru Gobind Singh started the Khalsa Panth: “Agya Bhai Akal Ki tabi chalai Panth”. Before that, Sikhs followed the instructions of the Gurus from time to time. However according to McLeod, “Panth isa large entity which contains Sikhs of the Khalsa, together with many, who for various reasons do not accept the full Khalsa discipline” and again Rahit need not be regarded as a code which automatically excludes all who do not meet its strict requirements.” The Rahit was laid down for the Khalsa and was compulsory but not for the nonKhalsa. Hence penalties were laid down for Tankhan and Kurahit. This shows that the Khalsa was the Panth bound by Rahit, while the other Sikhs may or may not observe the Rahit. Therefore itis clear that the only Panth that was, and is, the Khalsa, and there was no such thing as Sikh Panth. The Panth is Singhi to use the word of McLeod while those who do not keep the Rahit are just Sikhs. One has to be careful in giving proper and valid interpretations to Sikh terminology.
The fifth chapter deals with “Who is a Sikh?” After reproducing the definition given in the Sikh Rahit Maryada of the Shromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee Amritsar, McLeod states that a “Sikh he or she, should be a Sikh of the Khalsa”, which implies that he limits the Sikh only to a Khalsa or Amritdhari Sikh. He seems to be oblivious of the definition of a Sikh given in the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1971, namely “Sikh means a person who professes the Sikh religion, believes and follows the teachings of the Ten Gurus only, and keeps unshorn hair.” This is the latest definition and clarifies the issue. This is foolproof, for otherwise anyone without unshorn hair can pass off as a Sikh. Those who shave or trim their hair are either Sahijdharis or Patitis, but a Patit is not a Sahijdhari. McLeod is confused and as such calls those Sikhs who cut their hair without qualifying for either Patit or Sahijdhari status as “affiliated Khalsa”. This new classification is contrary to Rahit Maryada.
Chapter Six dealing with the Literature of the Sikhs is quite useful and informative. However McLeod regards the Mohanpothies and their existence “with some skepticism”, but they do not exist if only he were tomake serious attempts to go and study them. Mohanpothis are accessible, one original copy is lying in Patiala with Bawa Bhagat Singh grandson ofS. Prem Singh Hoti, and the other in a small village near Hoshiarpur. His usual doubts about the events mentioned in the janam sakhis is repeated here, for he wants historical and a hundred percent proof of every event and story, ignoring the fact that oral tradition is very strong among the Sikhs as in other religious communities.
The last chapter deals with the Sikh diaspora aS 2 result of military service overseas, and immigration due to the limit on land holdings in the Punjab. Due to the pressure of growing population and the spirit of ‘enterprising, large number of Sikhs moved to the Far East.
Article extracted from this publication >> September 22, 1989
