By Harjot Oberoi Delhi, Oxford University Press 1994, 494 pp. Available from South Asia Books, P.O. Box 502, Columbia, Missouri 65205,
Oberoi needs to see that the construction of religious identities Slants al the central Core of a movement and flows centrifugally from its teaching, their dilution is seen at the periphery. Borders the periphery are always porous whether they are religious, political, military, social or psychological Seeking g a definition of religious tenets from lifestyles and practices of people has its own pitfalls, For instance, studying the practices of pilgrims at Lourdes or the people in Haiti would lead to diametrically Competing and diverse definitions of Roman Catholic belief. Fun but not very enlightening. For understanding Catholicism one would need to go to the scripture, religious teaching, canon etc. There is often a quantum difference between teaching and practice, And Sikhs are no exception. Oberoi seems to have missed this essential conceptual distinction. Sikhism is young, Many Sikhs look back to only two or three generations of Sikh identity, In such mixed families mixed practices will occur, But Sikh scholars al- ‘ways reacted strongly to any decanal conflict or efforts to dilute Sikh identity or adulterate Sikh practice with Hindu rites. Oberoi notes such instances but rejects their lesson that Sikh identity and uniqueness were doctrinally established. He seems to treat such responses as knee jerk, gut reactions – angry outbursts of minimal consequence. He doesn’t see that whenever Sikhs or the Singh Sabha attempted a clarification of their teaching they were not inventing something new, only restating the tried and true.
When looking at Sikhs in the 19th century one needs to remember that Sikhism had very little peace since its inception, Many of the curators of its gurdwaras and its heritage tamed out to be non-Sikhs, primarily Hindus, During the late 18th and early 19th centuries when Sikhs wielded political power, the religion attracted many new converts of convenience, Many of them never shed their earlier beliefs and practices entirely but merely grafted on the Sikh identity rather uncertainly, Naturally, their practices remained mixed But the message and evolution of the Sikh code of conduct and of Sikh doctrine remained clear.
Like the ebb and low in the affairs of all men, there are many cycles in the 500 years of Sikh history. During peaceful eras Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims mixed more easily in the rural setting of Punjab where lives are closely interdependent and intertwined. At times of tension particularly during the watch of Guru Arjun, Guru Tegh Bahadur and Guru Gobind Singh, Sikh identity was not quite so fluid as Oberoi thinks. Same also during the days of Banda Bahadur. It was not so popular to be Sikh then. During Ranjit Singh’s time many non-Sikhs adopted the Sikh label for political convenience. As a parallel, witness the case of the Marrano Jews in Europe. In the past decade again, because Sikh identity it’s under challenge, one can see an enhanced awareness of uniquely Sikh values. Like all religions and at any time, Sikhism too has many believers at the periphery who are only marginally connected to the Sikh tradition.
To define Sikh religious boundaries one needs Lo look at the continuity of Sikh teaching and its uniqueness from others, not showcase selected settings or families at special times in history. Yes, there has been an evolution in how Sikhs view and define Sikhism singe the times of Guru Gobind Singh. But it does not follow that they have constructed, adopted or enforced a new definition of Sikhism as Oberoi contends. It is that with time and education Sikhs were (and are) developing a clearer understanding and interpretations of their uniqueness, message and tradition.
To me Oberoi’s excellent data do not reveal what he claims that Sikh identity was uncertain or unformed until recently, Instead his study says that in Sikh practice there was always a tussle between two competing forces, The clear Sikh leaching and doctrines on the one hand and two factors on the other the predominant Hindu society, and the natural tendency for laxity in discipline seen in all people. Somewhat akin to entropy found in all organized systems. This | think is what Harjot Oberoi’s data show quite convincingly.
Prior to this work, perhaps the only treatments of the subject were by Hew McLeod (Who is A Sikh?) and two short 19th century monographs in Punjabi –Narain Singh ‘s Hum Hindu “ and Kahari Singh Nabha’s Hum Hindu Nahain “,the latter has since been translated into English by jamil Singh . In this Harjot Oberoi makes us think about things that we have not thought very often and in ways that are not always comfortable .And that is excellent.
By:I.J.Singh,
New York University.
Article extracted from this publication >> July 29, 1994
