By Daljeet Singh

Who is a Sikh by W.H. Mcleod

The problem of Sikh Identity

Clarendon Press, Oxford pages 140

Few persons would write a book, “Who is a Christian” without a close study of the Bible, or “Who is a Muslim” without reference to the Koran; but Mcleod knows of no such inhibitions. And, though he concedes that the two questions “What is Sikhism” and “Who is a Sikh” are fundamentally the same, he proceeds to answer them without quoting the authority of hymns from the Guru Granth, wherein both these issues have clearly been answered and defined. Except for the solidary phrase, “Nam, Dan, Isnan” he has noticed a single hymn from the Guru Granth to support his views. This omission appears to be deliberate, because it is difficult to believe that Mcleod is ignorant of the numerous hymns specifically dealing with the two questions. This suggests both the level and the motive of the publication. Even in explaining the meanings of “Nam, Dan, Isnan” Mcleod has erred seriously. Considering the world “Gurmukh” preceding the phrase and the entire context, “Naam, Dan, and Isnan” convey that with the Grace of God one is bestowed with the bounty of Naam, compassion, and purity. And, Naam is not a name, a quality or a thing, it signifies the Dynamic and immanent aspect of God that permeates and directs the entire cosmos. In the Guru’s system there is no greater gift one can get than being “attuned to Naam.” For, the gift of Naam includes the gift of every conceivable virtue, including compassion and purity. But in poetic phraseology God is called Emperor, Father, Brother, Just, Protector Shelter of the shelter less etc. Except for the use of devotional diction, the words, “Dan and Isnan” and numerous other gifts enumerated in this long hymn, out of which Mcleod has picked up this phrase, do not add anything to the attributes of Naam or God, which, the Guru describes as the “Ocean of virtues.” Secondly, in this hymn of Guru Nanak the word, “Isnan” does not at all refer to any ritual “bathing”. Separately, the Guru writes “one who bathes himself in Naam becomes purified of the dirt of evil; and again go to bathe at the Tirath, for Tirath is Naam.” Similarly, Mcleod misinterprets the words “Naam Simran” by saying that these mean repetition of a “word” or a “name”. He does the same blunder as did Trump, with the possible difference that whereas Trump did it because of lack of understanding Mcleod seemingly does it know because he is unlikely to be ignorant of the Guru’s hymn deprecating all mechanical or ritualistic practices:

“Every-one repeats God’s name, but such repetition is not the way to God,”

Every student of Guru Granth knows that Guru Nanakin the very first opening hymn of Guru Granth (Japuji) specifically puts the question, “How to be a True man (Sachiara) and dispel the wall of darkness,” and then replies, “By carrying out the Will of God, God’s Will being altruistic. Guru Nanak, thus, clearly answers the questions: “What is Sikhism?” “How to be a Sikh?” and “who is a Sikh?” The Guru Granth is full of hymn after hymn endorsing these answers and emphasizing that God being “all love”, his will or Naam is dynamic and altruistic. It is in the background that Guru Nanak gave a call to every seeker. “If you want to play the game of love, then come on to my path with your head on your palm; once you set your foot on it, then waver not and be prepared to lay-down your life.” The path Guru Nanak suggests is the path of doing altruistic deeds. This certainly does not require repetition of a Mantra or a word, or of being a pacifist. Similarly, Guru Arjan spoke to Bhai Manjh, “You may go on with the easy path of Sakhi Sarwar worship, because the Sikh path is Very difficult and unless you are willing to be dispossessed of your wealth, and to sacrifice your very life, it is no use coming to me.” In fact, it is the same call for total surrender and sacrifice that Guru Gobind Singh gave on the Baisakhi day, 1699 A.D. while choosing five Piaras, and creating the Khalsa, Ideologically, Guru Gobind Singh was no less pacifist than Guru Nanak and the latter was no less dynamic than Guru Gobind Singh. Mcleod’s view that the ideology of Guru Nanak is different from that of Guru Gobind Singh or that there are on that account different kinds of Sikhs only betraying his complete ignorance of Sikhism. Sikh doctrines are embodied and defined in the Guru Granth, it is clearly misleading to derive Sikh thesis from the Janam Sakhies or without the Guru Granth. Actually, it is to avoid confusion about the Sikh doctrines that Guru Arjun took the sagacious step of compiling and authenticating the Guru Granth. None of the Gurus did anything that was not sanctioned by it. Mcleod is just making puerile distinctions. How can early Sikhism are called pacifist when it is Guru Nanak who calls God the Destroyer of evil doers, rejects Ahimsa, and calls truthful living higher than Truth, and that one is measured by the deeds one performs. It is not easy to believe that Mcleod is so completely innocent of the Sikh doctrines in the Guru Granth. This seriously affects the value of the book. Since Mcleod’s description of the very fundamentals of Sikhism is baseless, the structure of “Who is a Sikh” that he tries to build thereon is equally fallacious. Guru Granth is the authentic scripture of the Sikhs which Guru Arjan compiled and which Guru Gobind Singh anointed as the Sikh Guru. There is clear historical evidence, which Mcleod has knowingly omitted, both of Mohsin Fani and Sant Ramada’s that Guru Hargobind emphasized that he was working in line with Guru Nanak’s thesis of Naam and that his sword was to destroy the tyrant and protect the weak. Guru Gobind also emphasized the unity of the thought of all Gurus, saying that only fools did not understand it. It is also incorrect that there was reconciliation of principles with ascetic Udasis. In fact, Mcleod omits to record the early Sikh tradition in Mehma Parkash that Baba Gurditta died after a hunting incident, and his son Guru Har Rai kept an army. What he quotes was Udasi tradition, not Sikh tradition.

In spite of Mcleod’s long labors in Sikh studies his tendency incorrectly to represent Guru Nanak’s doctrines, as exemplified in his consistent reluctance to cite the authority of the Guru Granth is clear enough. Guru Nanak’s doctrine of carrying of the Altruistic Will of God, who is deeply interested in the world inevitably leads to his system of an inalienable combination of the spiritual life and the empirical life of man and the consequent Miri-Piri doctrine. Guru Hargobind only symbolized it by the two swords he donned and institutionalized it by raising the Akal Takhat adjacent to Harmandir. The first five Gurus motivated the Sikh society in the new ideals, weaning them away from the earlier Indian religions, and the later five Gurus continued to train it in those ideals, till the Tenth Master did the epitomic work of choosing the five Piaras (Sant-Sipahis or Wholemen) creating the Khalsa to shoulder the responsibilities of the mission for pursuing and defending righteousness, and closing the line of succession by appointing the divine Word in the Guru Granth as the future Guru. Mcleod’s view that the first five Gurus preached the “Naam Simran” ideal of inferiority, and later Gurus what he calls the “heroic ideal” is a complete distortion of Sikhism. For, it is Guru Nanak who made a diametric departure from the earlier religions by: (a) calling life real as against its being regarded as Mithya, Maya or a sufferi

(b) Rejecting monasticism, asceticism and withdrawal from life, and recommending full life participation and total social responsibility;

(c) Rejecting the religious doctrine of Varn Ashram Dharma and related ideas of caste, pollution, etc., and instead recommending equality of man in all spheres of life;

(d) Rejecting ideas of celibacy and downgrading woman and instead accepting equality of man and woman, and a house holder’s life

(e) Rejecting the inviolability of the doctrine of Ahimsa and removing thereby the hurdle of ahimsa while pursuing righteous causes; and

(f) breaking the dichotomy between the spiritual life and the empirical life of man existing in earlier religions, and instead combining the two, thereby rejecting life negation and accepting life-affirmation,

It is this thesis of Guru Nanak that was laid down in the Guru Granth and was followed and lived by the succeeding Gurus. Mcleod’s conjectural division in the Sikh ideal embodied in the Guru Granth and then suggesting consequent multiple Sikh identities, shows lack of authenticity of his work if it is not an attempt to misrepresent Sikhism.

Another unfortunate feature of the book is that Mcleod not only fails to support his view by hymns from the Guru Granth, but also artfully omits considerable historical and scriptural evidence that contradicts his views.

For example, it is a historical fact that at the time the sixth Guru donned the two swords, and earlier at the time of the fifth Guru, Jats were a minority among the Sikhs, and Baba Budha, a Jat, and Bhai Gurdas indicated their opposition to the Guru’s policy of militancy. Mcleod also omits to mention Guru Hargobind’s statements to Mohsin Fant and Sant Ramdas that he was pursuing Guru Nanak’s this is, Hence Mcleod’s thesis that militant tradition was present in the Panth on account of Jats is baseless. For, Guru Hargobind even recruited mercenaries because volunteers or recruits from the Panth were not available originally. While there is no evidence to suggest that Jats kept a kirpan and unshorn hair and others did not, he also omits to mention that both Guru Nanak and Guru Arjan have described God as having handsome hair. In addition, he fails to mention contemporary Sainapat’s clear statement that it is the condition of keeping hair lay down by the Guru that led to some dissent among Sikhs of Delhi

The Gurus have described the final stage of spiritual achievement by different words like Saihj Nirban, Mukti, etc., but by these words they only mean being attuned to Dynamic Naam or God’s will. Mcleod’s suggestion that the Saihj ideal is only for Saihjdharis and not the Khalsa is wholly fallacious. In fact, the word Sehjdhari appears only after 1699, when some Sikhs found themselves not strong and ready enough to accept the Amrit. Neither ideologically, nor historically, Mcleod has been able to provide any basis for his classification. Every Khalsa is a Sikh but every Sikh is not a Khalsa; for, Guru Gobind Singh entrusted all social responsibility to the Khalsa and not to the Sikhs who on their own admission were unprepared to accept Amrit. Ideologically speaking, to call a person a Sikh who does not believe in the ten Gurus and Guru Granth is a contradiction in terms. Only a charlatan can profess that he believes both in Guru Granth and Hindu scriptures; for a Sikh Hindu is as much an absurdity as a Sikh Muslim or a Sikh Christian.

Mcleod, while he says that the prohibition against smoking and use of Halal suggests Guru Gobind Singh’s anti-Muslim bias, conceals the fact that whereas Hindu Hill Princes were hostile to him and even invited the Imperial forces to make a joint attack against the Guru, it was a Muslim Pir Budha Shah who sent his sons and followers to join the Guru’s forces against the Hill Princes. Two of Pir’s sons died while fighting for the Guru, showing instead of prejudice, the immense respect the Guru commanded among pious Muslims. Many of Mcleod’s statements like those concerning “Sacha Patsha” and Prem Sumarag are equally untenable. For, Prem Sumarag on the basis of available manuscripts, internal and historical evidence and language has been dated a production of the first quarter of the eighteenth century by Mohan Singh Koh! J.S Grewal and Randhir Singh, but Mcleod without examining any manuscript places it in a mid-ninetieth century simply because its contents controvert Mcleod’s conjectural view. Use of such tactics is quite un-academic. Another fault of the book is that the author relates facts and perceptions of the nineteenth century, when many fair weather friends had entered during Sikh rule the Sikh circles, to the earlier centuries of strict definition, rigorous test and trials and when looseness of faith or pretended loyalties could not last unexposed.

It is, indeed, unfortunate and sad that a scholar who produced the laborious work, on Janam Sakhi has in this volume, by his disregard for ideological and historical accuracy, selective use of material and unbalanced approach, come quite near the level of partisan writings.

Article extracted from this publication >> January 5, 1990