By: Dr. I.J. Singh New York
The World Sikh News (February 5, 1993) reported that as a part of its action on the controversy surrounding the doctoral thesis by Pashaura Singh and the writings of Piar Singh, the SGPC has directed that ‘Sn Gum Granth Sahib could not be a subject matter for research .,..” Although additional details on this directive or the process by which it was concluded have not been revealed, this is a matter of far reaching impact on all Sikhs everywhere. The directive effectively ostracizes Pashaura Singh and Piar Singh, the two scholars whose work sparked such strong condemnation.
Pashaura Singh in his doctoral thesis from the University of Toronto suggested that Guru Nanak probably initiated Guru Angad in the art of versification and further that Guru Arjan modified the basic writings of Guru Nanak in light of the changing circumstances and the needs of a growing community. Piar Singhs reputed to have questioned afresh the authenticity of the Kartarpur version of the Guru Granth. In one context the actions of the SGPC are understandable. Who else but the SGPC should speak and act on behalf of the Sikhs to guard the doctrinal purity of Sikh belief and practice?
Tam writing now not to stake any definite position in the matter ‘but only to provoke. A wider debate. I hope to kindle a community wide discussion through this forum. I believe it is only in discussion and free exchange of ideas that we define our goals, sharpen our focus and hone our skills. If the SGPC is to be our parliament, a wide ranging debate is necessary. We also need to look at some broader questions of what constitutes academic freedom and what are legitimate limits on the night to dissent. These are not empty notions but eventually reflect on how we view ourselves and how others see us both are important in knowing what we are.
Ever since the invasion of the Golden Temple in 1984 and the subsequent news blackout by the Indian government, I have wondered about the larger question of what constitutes censorship and what is rightfully freedom of expression? Like many other Sikhs, I too protested the Indian governments control and manipulation of news from the Punjab under the guise of national security. | know that the Indian is not alone in this, all governments routinely try to control and manage dissidents, We are all aware that in the United States in the 1950s many artists and authors were seriously harassed for their alleged links to communists; that period is now universally regarded as one of infamy. The record of most erstwhile communist nations in these matters is so shabby that it hardly needs comment.
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 Dayan and, a Hindu swami, all because Guru Nanak was scornful of many Hindu practices and departed from the Hindu way. (Dayan and 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 charitable particularly when the writing is by one of their own. Attempts by the SGPC at censorship are not new; decades ago it condemned some writing and ostracized the authors when it could.
In matters of religious censorship, well known indeed is the case of Galileo who was finally forgiven by the Roman Catholic Church a month or so ago after 500 years in limbo. Not so long ago, Salman Rushdie wrote some nonsense. Most Muslims took umbrage. The Iranian Islamic clergy put out a million dollar contract on his life, The only tangible result of the controversy was that a lot more copies of “The Satanic Verses” were sold, and many more read Rushdie than would otherwise have, for that book is not so readable. Similarly, a lot more attention has been garnered by Pashaura Singh than his thesis would have deserved. Several scholars have expressed highly critical opinions on Pashaura’s thesis which sparked this decision by the SGPC. Let me be clear I am not writing this to defend Pashaura’s thesis; my views on it are a matter of record, 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 wonder ‘about the notion of blasphemy in Sikh ideology.
It is not easy to separate the two but criticism of an idea need not become condemnation of the person espousing it, in denouncing an idea one needs to retain the moral high ground. A directive by the SGPC enjoining Sikhs not to read Pashaura Singh or 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. 1 think the Church stopped doing this about twenty years ago though not many Catholics were paying much mind to it for years earlier. 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 Rushdie and Pashaura after the publicity than would ever have; the only thing they have in common is that neither makes for notably good or interesting reading. Part of the problem lies in the fact that insofar as religions deal with historical events, people and places, they are amenable to historical analyses. But, religions also deal with a reality not clearly discernable w0 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 soul scan commune with it, for it transcends the intellect. Yet the intellectual, historical analysis enhances our understanding of a religion. Religions therefore, 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 judgment. It follows then that the most effective commentators on a religion are scholars who are deeply touched by its inner reality, not others who are content to look at it as outsiders for they would be like those who, being an osmic, judge the fragrance of a flower only by a chemical analysis. I point to the fact that 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. To us Sikhs, gurbanl is the revealed word of God but the Guru Granth is also a book, to be read and analyzed, To others gurbani appears as literature, mochas we view the Bible, There is no harm in that and we need not feel threatened by such an outlook.
The early history of Sikhism presents a web so tangled that it is not easy to trace a strand clearly and unambiguously to its source, Also Sikhism emerged within the milieu of the Hindu society where history, mythology and folklore are inseparably intertwined, and where the oral tradition still reigns. Sikhism evolved in such an ambiance with a predominantly oral tradition but not much of a written one, in those days preceding printing and mass education, documents was handwritten. There were few scribes, some had their own agenda reflecting many factions and divided loyalties. In the oral tradition of India, history and myth have frequently mixed. Guru Nanak 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 reconciled. Consequently, historians will argue and ponder, reflect and debate when they look at the colorful panorama of Sikh history, their inevitable disagreements point to the richness of our very complex past; in no way can they demean our heritage. point to the fact that the early history of Christianity is even more tangled, and even now 2000 years later, scholars are not of one mind on who wrote which chapter of the New Testament or when. 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 from the time of the Gurus to the twentieth century. Following virtuosos and sages like Bhai Gurdas and Bhai Nandlal, we have produced scholars like Bhai Vir Singh and Puran Singh who combined the mystic’s vision with a sure grasp of historical detail. We have also seen classical historians like Ganda Singh, Harbans Singh and Banerjee who have examined Sikh history most minutely. Such a development 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 misinterpretations of scholars like McLeod and Khushwant. These authors and Pashaura or Piar Singh are neither the first nor the last with whom we should and will differ in scholarly debate. 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.
The strictly analytical studies of religion need to be evaluated differently. One need not look for either“ blossom or blasphemy” in them, One attitude leads to suspended judgment and uncritical acceptance, the other to a Khomeni-like response to a Salman Rushdie, Neither becomes: us forasmuch stance is not consistent with Sikh teaching. I believe the library 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 opinion must not be censored; let it be buried by better ideas in the free marketplace of ideas. Erroneous ideas, even delicious ones, are best countered by the fresh air of seminars, discussions and debates, not by suppression. The answer to bad research is more research, not less, 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. Spinoza, 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.
That we may differ is right, almost a duty. Yet, 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. One could argue that the suppression of a book by the SGPC or the Church is not much different from the censorship imposed by a government. The Indian government has routinely done it and the Sikhs have universally condemned it every time, the question is; “How should a religion respond to irresponsible research?” Once again, I submit that these matters need to be debated and answers sought consonant with Sikh scriptures, history, and tradition.
Article extracted from this publication >> March 5, 1993
