Modern political theory lays down a number of tests for judging of a group whether it is genuinely a nation or not, In such matters as the determination of the nationhood of a group of people, ultimately no laws can be of any avail, because the appeal in such cases lies solely to the force of the will of the group to be accepted in a certain character by the rest of the world. In the last resort the appeal lies to the inherent strength of conviction in a group and its power to have its claim admitted. One strong nation or group of nations might accord recognition to the national character of one group and might withhold the same recognition from another, though similar group, accordingly as it might suit their convenience. So, the mere fact that the national character of a group is disputed by some nation or nations, does not necessarily invalidate the claim of the former ; it only shows that such claim might be inconvenient to others. Ultimately strength and will alone will determine the issue. The rebel provinces of North America were recognized as a sovereign nation by the French Kingdom immediately after the conclusion of the War of Independence with Great Britain, while such recognition has been withheld by the Allied nations until the present time from the people of Indonesia who are a distinct nation, situated away from the main land in the sea, and historically not part of any larger nation. Which proves that such recognition is a matter of convenience and force. Laws and principles might be interpreted and applied in this or that way accordingly as it may suit the bigger of the partners, as almost all the rules of international law are.
But even according to the recognized principles of political theory, the Khalsa is a nation, and few can be proved to be such with a better or historically sounder claim. In determining what constitutes a nation Doctor B.R. Ambedkar has analysed the national feeling very pointedly and lucidly, thus
“Nationality is a social feeling. It is a feeling of a corporate sentiment of oneness which makes those who are charged with it feel that they are kith and kind. This national feeling is a double edged feeling. It is at once a feeling of fellowship for one’s own kith and kin and the anti-fellowship feeling for those who are not one’s own kith and kin. It is a feeling of “consciousness of kind” which on the one hand binds together those who have it, so strongly that it overrides all differences arising out of economic conflicts or social gradations and, on the other, severs them from those who are not of their kind. It is a longing not to belong to any other group. This is the essence of what is called a nationality and national feeling.’
If we apply this very clear and indisputably correct test to the Sikh people, we find that the claim of the Sikhs to be considered a distinct nation or national group, distinct both from the Hindus and the Muslims, cannot be disputed. The Sikhs feel as one, as belonging one to another, and as being distinct from every other social group, Hindu, Muslim, Christian or other. This feeling is so strong that in the most solemn moment of their life, at the time of offering morning and evening prayers in congregation, all Sikhs everywhere all over the world recall the sacrifices and brave deeds of all Sikh martyrs and sufferers in the cause of their faith, and call moreover, Divine Grace on all members of the Khalsa everywhere. These are the noble words of the Sikh Prayer:
“May Divine protection extend wherever the Khalsa resides;
May the supplies and swords of the Khalsa be in the ascendant;
May the staying and banners of the Khalsa be eternally blessed.”
The Khalsa feels as one; the Khalsa has a consciousness of kind, which makes him call to mind in his daily prayers not only his fellows living in the present, but also those of the past. There is thus a cementing feeling of oneness among all Sikhs, which has existed all through history, a feeling which excludes effectively all others from being members of the Khalsa Commonwealth, unless they get initiation into it through conversion, and which makes the Sikh long to be of his own group and not of any other. This feeling is so strong that two Sikhs, however dissimilar in their outlook, social grade and habitat, will be drawn to each other much more powerfully than either of them would feel drawn to a nonSikh of his own class, province or profession. This feeling is powerful and vocal, and it stamps the Sikhs effectively as a distinct social group refusing to be merged into any other group or to be considered as a part of a larger whole in which they might figure as a mere community.
Why the distinct and separate national charter of the Sikhs is so often lost sight of, is because racially most of the Sikhs belong to the very same castes and sects into which the Hindus are divided. There is a resemblance, in some cases close, between certain Sikh and Hindu customs, but this resemblance and apparent affinity is due to the operation of several social and economic factors, which due to the difficult circumstances through which the Sikhs had to pass right from the inception of the Khalsa, could not be effectively checked.
Article extracted from this publication >> November 2, 1990
