Keepingin view that many Rehits in various Rehit Namas lack logic and are contrary to Gurbani, a new Sikh Rehit Maryada, Code of Conduct, was drafted by the Rouh Reet Committee (SGPC) during 1931. The draft prepared this committee was considered by the Religious Advisory Committee of the SGPC and was submitted to the SGPE on January 7,1945,1.e., after 14 years, to do some additions and deletions. Now the question is: If it is a code then it should have been written like a code and should be interpreted as a code (Code: a Systematic statement of a body of law; especially: one given statutory force). Thus, it ought to be free from redundancies and uncertainties, and must not be capable of being understood in two or more possible senses. Unfortunately it is not so with the present Code of Conduct, published by the SGPC.

Let us examine a few codes from the Rehit Maryada, published by SGPC: (a) Status: On its first page it says: “The SGPC in its meeting of February 3, 1945 vide resolution #97 has approved to do additions and deletions according to the recommendations of Religious Advisory Committee. “It means that there were some additions and deletions, recommended by the Religious Advisory Committee, to be done bat it is not clear from it and elsewhere in the text, whether the recommended additions and deletions were done or not. It is also not clear when and by whom it was declared as a statute. I have not come across any such edict (Hukam Nama), issued by the Akal Takht or SGPC, where the presently circulated Sikh Rehit Maryada (Sikh Code of Conduct) has been declared as a statute for the Sikhs. In spite of the above facts almost all the Amritdhari Sikhs were unanimous in accepting it as an approved statute by the Panth, the Akal Takhtand the SGPC, whenever I discussed it with them.

(b) Definition of a Sikh: The definition of a Sikh given in the Rehit Maryadais not understood properly by many Sikhs. Let us discuss briefly the definition of a Sikh given in the Rehit Maryada, printed by the SGPC: The literal translation is as follows: “A woman or aman, who believes in one Almighty, ten Guru Sahibans (from Sri Guru Nanak Dey Ji to Sri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib), SriGuru Granth Sahib and Bani and advice of ten Guru Sahibans and the Amrit of Dasmesh Ji and does not accept any other religion, is a Sikh.”

The work ‘nischa’ means “faith” or ‘belief’. But it is interpreted by many Amritdharis as: To be a Sikh it is obligatory and imperative to be blessed with the holy Amritas finally ordained by Guru Gobind Singh. I am sorry to say that ‘faith’ or ‘belief? Cannot be interpreted as ‘obligatory’ or ‘imperative’ under any circumstances. It does not mean that I am against the concept of Amrit.

However, academically it is unfair to interpret a statement according to one’s own whims. If it is obligatory then it should have been mentioned clearly and boldly in the definition of a Sikh to remove any confusion in its interpretation and application of the definition in the court of law. ‘Bani and advice of ten Guru Sahibans is also not at restatement. Because only six Gurus revealed bani (Gurbani) which was incorporated by the Fifth Nanak, Guru Arjan, andthe Tenth Nanak, Guru Gobind Singh, in the AGGS. The other Gurus followed and preached the Gurbani that is enshrined in the AGGS. “A woman or man’ is also not a proper statement because it excludes children. In North America and other western countries the school authorities could refuse the children to adhere to the Rehit Maryada in the school on the plea that the definition of a Sikh is not applicable to children. ‘A woman or man’ is to be replaced with “A person’. I had pointed out earlier that the above definition is much better than those found in the literature, it can be made as a perfect definition with some modification to serve as a code.

Furthermore, the critical analysis of the Code of Conduct shows that the word ‘Sikh’ has been used throughout the text except at a couple of places Where the word “Amritdhari” is used. For example: i) Only Rehitwan Amritdhari (Sigh or Singhni) can go to certain places at the Takhats (but no such place have been specified in it, That indicates the inaccuracy of the code, and the adjective ‘Rehitwan” for Amritdhari is redundant because nobody can be Amritdhari without observing Rehits); ii) The Amritdhari Singh should convince his wife to be Amritdhart. These two statements indicate that an Amritdhari is different than a Sikh. According to Rehit Maryada it is only an an Amritdhari who has additional privileges of visiting certain places at the Takhts and convincing his wife to be Amnitdhari. Thus a Sikh has all the other rights, mentioned for a Sikh in the Rehit Maryada, e.g., he can’ recite Gurbani and kirtan, and deliver lecture in the sangat in the Gurdwara, and can administrate Gurdwara except visiting certain places at the Takhts, that too have not been specified.

Article extracted from this publication >>  October 30, 1996