I am deeply troubled by Spellman’s article, “A Question of Orthodoxy,” of January 21,1994 in the Globe & Mail. He asserts.”There is a strong religious argument against Sikhs wearing the turban. One Guru emphasized that external symbols were undesirable in religion.”

Debates by “scholars” on Sikhism are perfectly legitimate as an outcome of historical interpretations. However, to equate theories to the teachings of Sikh Gurus, and to use them as a prop for personal bias, is entirely unjustified. Spellman’s assertion that Sikh articles of faith are unnecessary for spiritual development is based on nothing but a fallacy. He believes that an inconsistency exists between external symbols and inner piety inherent within Sikh teachings.

In reality, Spellman has made a grave error in interpretation. Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism, indeed criticized externals, but only if they were divorced from the inner pilgrim- age to the heart; the inner spiritual journey. Sikhism, though, has been a dynamic religion, which continued to develop under the other 10 Masters.

A proper study of the Sikhism requires the synthesis of an evolving Sikh tradition under the other Gurus. Without this a distorted and corrupt perception of Sikhism will emerge based upon bias and immaterial factors, such as historical specificity, rather than continuity. Likewise, Christianity when analyzed in terms of only Christ’s life, or works requires the synthesis of an evolving Sikh tradition under the other Gurus. Without this a distorted and corrupt perception of Sikhism will emerge based upon bias and immaterial factors, such as historical specificity, rather than continuity. Likewise, Christianity when analyzed in terms of only Christ’s life, or works from the Church fathers, or from the theology of Martin Luther would be misrepresentation. No absolute assertions can be made by any sane researcher from these studies

Guru Nanak, moreover, didn’t see a contradiction between externals and spirituality, so long as the external represents inner transformation. Unfortunately, Spellman’s bias forced him to view Sikhism from a narrow, unjustified viewpoint based on his own value judgments. These judgments influence his erroneous conclusion of Sikh symbols being unimportant to Sikh spirituality. The whole assertion is based on distorted evidence, prejudice, and a false premise.

Proper study of Sikhism is essential. However, disillusioned convictions passed as “scholar- ship” are useless. I hope, true scholars would continue to pursue their studies, but would avoid taking absolutist stance in asserting their theories. Sikhism has been dynamic and complex, and scholars must avoid misinterpretations and sweeping generalizations. Otherwise, only fraudulent and biased “scholar- ship” are useless. I hope, true scholars would continue to pursue their studies, but would avoid taking absolutist stance in asserting their theories. Sikhism has been dynamic and complex, and scholars must avoid misinterpretations and sweeping generalizations. Otherwise, only fraudulent and biased “scholarship” will be the result. Arvind Singh Hamilton, Ontario

Article extracted from this publication >> March 4, 1994