APPENDIX B

 

Harjot Oberoi

 

 

 

Yet if women and men are inherently equal in Sikh tradition in terms of roles and status, why are they not given similar representation in Sikh history? It is a question that can perhaps best be explained in light of McMullen’s analysis of differentiation. Namely, what is officially touted as normative with regard to gender in history is not necessarily the same as the actual operative aspects of the same history. Further, Harjot Oberoi (1994: 30-31) has posited that the principles of silence and negation are paramount in addressing issues that could be conceived as ambiguous within tradition. This chapter addresses these principles of silence and negation along with those of accommodation and idealization, specifically with regard to secondary sources of Sikh history.1

 

I may add that in addition to McMullen’s analysis of differentiation, and Oberoi’s principles of silence and negation, historians also use the principles of deception and manipulation in writing history. For example, Harjot Oberoi’s The Construction of Religious Boundaries: Culture, Identity and Diversity in the Sikh Tradition2 is replete with deception and manipulation of historical information, as demonstrated by the following four samples:   

 

1. This book is about Sikhs and their history, but the author does not mention even once the basic principles of Sikhism or the definition of a Sikh from Aad Guru Granth Sahib, which is the only authentic source of Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat). Had he done so, readers such as me could use his references to understand what he is talking about. Instead, he gives two examples: the religious rituals observed by Ruchi Ram Sahni’s father, and the palanquin-bearers observed by Henry M. Clark, an observant evangelist, while travelling in Punjab in the 1880s. By citing these two examples, Oberoi expects the readers to learn that Sikhism has no definite principles; an idol worshipper or huqqa smoker or one who cuts hair is a sincere and devout Sikh. And he builds his entire thesis on the basis of these two examples. With respect to Sahni’s father, we read:

 

He had his daily role of idol-worship with all the warmth of a sincere believer, so much so that when he was ill, he would ask me to go through the forms and formalities of washing the idols in the morning, properly dressing them, and making them the usual offerings of flowers, sweets and scents. On such occasions my father’s cot was carried to where the idols were, and he would himself sing hymns at the appropriate places. I never questioned myself whether it was right or wrong to do what I was bidden by my father to do. It was enough for me that I was carrying out my father’s wishes. To judge from the warmth of feeling and regularity, with which the worship was conducted, I have every reason to conclude that my father was a sincere idol worshipper. The only thing that now raises doubts in my mind is the fact that both in the morning and at night he recited, with equal warmth and regularity, the Sikh scriptures Reheres and Sukhmani (emphasis in the original).3

 

Now anyone who is familiar with the religious beliefs and customs of eighteenth and nineteenth century Punjabi Hindus would have no problem in identifying the person in the example cited above as a typical Punjabi Khatri Hindu. Besides, Sahni does not make any mention, specifically, that his father considered himself a Sikh. A simple fact that Harjot Oberoi failed to grasp! For him to label Sahni’s father as “Sikh” because this person recited selected portions of the Sikh scripture amounts to outright gross distortion of the facts at hand as well as the Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat), which categorically rejects the worship of idols: 

 

Hindus are utterly mistaken and going on the wrong path. They worship whatever Nard told them to worship. They are spiritually blind and dumb and groping in the darkness. The ignorant fools worship stones. How could a stone that itself sinks in water help a human being across the ocean of worldly temptations?

AGGS, M 1, p. 556.

 

Moreover, it is intriguing that Oberoi chose an example from Ruchi Ram Sahni’s unpublished manuscript: Self-Revelation of an Octogenarian in the possession of Mr. V.C. Joshi,4 while ignoring Struggle For Reform In Sikh Shrines5 authored by Sahni decades earlier. In this book Sahni has described his eyewitness accounts of the atrocities inflicted by the British officials and their henchmen on non-violent Sikh volunteers. Why didn’t Oberoi pick an example of a Sikh from this book? Is it because Sahni’s eyewitness accounts of Sikhs refutes unequivocally Oberoi’s flawed claim that Sikhs had no distinct identity before the British conquest of Punjab?

 

Anyone who heard the call to protect and safeguard the Granth and Gurdwara (the two greatest objects of veneration by the entire community) and was prepared to risk his life in preventing the sacrilege at the hand of Muslim fanatics, became an Akali (immortal) for the time being, but as soon as immediate task was finished, the Akali would revert to his or her hum-drum life as a house-holder. It is a significant fact that in adopting the role of an Akali, no sex distinction is observed.6

 

Looking back upon what I have myself seen of the Akali movement, particularly during the past quarter of a century, I feel the account presented in these pages does but scant justice to the epic drama that I myself witnessed, mostly at close quarters, being enacted from day to day and month to month.7, 8

 

The second example cited by Oberoi is that of labourers who smoked and had cut their hair:

 

The doli [planquin]-bearers on the Dalhousie road, though they seem to be Sikhs, yet use tobacco freely. When I asked the reason, they told me they found it very hard work to carry dolis without refreshing themselves with huqqa, so when they left their homes to come up for the summer work, they had their hair cut, and so gave up Sikhism. On their return home for the winter they paid a few annas and were reinitiated.9

 

How and why did the Christian missionary (Henry M. Clark) assume that the huqqa smoking coolies/labourers with cropped hair were Sikhs, as smoking and cutting of hair is forbidden for the Sikhs? Could it be a part of the campaign of misinformation and defamation the missionaries and the British imperialists were spreading against the Sikhs to demoralise them after the annexation of Punjab? Or could it be that coolies/labourers were pulling his leg when he struck a conversation with them? Besides, even if they were Sikhs, how could any reasonable person extrapolate from this solitary case that huqqa smoking and hair cutting was common among Sikhs at that time?

Probably, Oberoi doesn’t know that even prior to Guru Gobind Singh’s inviolable injunction issued to the Khalsa against cutting body hair and smoking, it was also a general precept of earlier Gurus. Bhai Nand Lal Puri, grandfather of the famous child-martyr Hakikat Rai (1728) visited Guru Har Rai (1630-1661) at Kartarpur to seek benediction. He was advised not to shave, or shingle the Kesh (hair), not to smoke tobacco, and not to wear a cap (the traditional slave’s headgear) on the head.10, 11

 

Guru Nanak himself advised against eating and drinking anything that is injurious to health:

 

Dear Sir! Food, which is injurious to body and mind, ruins happiness.

AGGS, M 1, p. 16.

 

Further, it is interesting to note that the second example is from an article “Decay of Sikhism” published in Punjab Notes and Queries by Reverend Clark in 1885.12 However, it is odd that later, in order to discredit the Singh Sabha reformers (Tat Khalsa), Oberoi himself refutes the notion of “decline and decay” of Sikhism propagated by the British:

 

The ideologues of the Singh Sabha, in order to enforce their new version of Sikhism, also wanted to demonstrate that prior to their intervention Sikhism was week and ill-equipped to cope with the future. … Unfortunately, historians have tended to take the British discourse, seconded by the Sabha’s literature, at face value, a neat little model that posits decline in Sikh fortunes and then shown an ascendancy¾variously called the Sikh revival or renaissance. Following British rule, the Sikhs were undoubtedly faced with complex changes, both in institutional domain of the community and the every day life of the faithful: but terms like ’decline’ and ‘effete’ conjure up images that do not easily correspond with social reality.13

 

Then to buttress his argument Oberoi quotes Joseph Davey Cunningham:

 

Among all the prophets of doom there was a dissenting note that has largely been ignored. The colonial state took the extreme course of silencing this lone voice, dismissing Joseph Davey Cunningham from the administrative service. Cunningham remained, nonetheless, one of the most informed individuals on the Sikh faith in the mid-nineteenth century Punjab. In his well-known work on Sikhs he says:

 

The observers of the ancient creeds quietly pursue the even tenor of their way, self-satisfied and almost indifferent about others; but the Sikhs are converts to a new religion, the seal of the double dispensation of Brumha [Brahma] and Mahomet [Mohammed]: their enthusiasm is still fresh, and their faith is still active and a living principle. They are persuaded that God himself is present with them, that He supports them in all their endeavours, and that sooner or later He will confound their enemies for His own glory. This feeling of the Sikh people deserves the attention of the English, both as civilised nation and as a paramount government. Those who have heard a follower of Goroo [Guru] Govind [Gobind] declaim on the destinies of his race, his eyes wild with enthusiasm and every muscle quivering with excitement can understand that spirit which impelled the naked Arab against the mail-clad troop of Rome and Persia. …

 

The Sikhs do not form a numerous sect, yet their strength is not to be estimated by tens of thousands, but by the unity and energy of religious fervour and warlike temperament. They will dare much, and they will endure much, for the mystic Khalsa or commonwealth; they are not discouraged by defeat, and they ardently look to the day when Indians and Arabs, and Persians and Turks shall all acknowledge the double mission of Nanuk [Nanak] and Govind [Gobind] Singh [parentheses by B. Singh].14

 

Here, Oberoi is endorsing Cunningham’s view that the Sikhs were firmly committed to the teaching of Guru Nanak and Guru Gobind Singh and were fired with optimism about their future. In contrast, in the rest of the book he is trying to convince the readers that Sikhs had no separate “Sikh identity” ¾ there was no difference between Sikhs and Hindus and, anyone -- an idol worshiper or a huqqa smoker or one with cropped hair was a Sikh.

 

2. According to Oberoi:

     

In the case of the subcontinent, the either/or dichotomy is not to be taken for granted, for the religious life of the people, particularly in the pre-colonial period, was characterised by a continuum. There was much inter-penetration and overlapping of communal identities. It is not without reason that Indian languages do not possess a noun for religion as signifying single uniform and centralized community of believers.15

 

Here, he is proposing that the Indian subcontinent was free from religious demarcations in the pre-colonial period. In other words there was no religious animosity, and pre-colonial India was a peaceful and harmonious society. Historians like Romila Thapar have started rewriting Indian history to promote this view: “Imagined Religious Communities? Ancient History and the Modern Search for a Hindu Identity.”16 However, there is not even a hint in the history of the subcontinent that lends support to Oberoi and Thapar’s view. 

 

He says, “It is not without reason that Indian languages do not possess a noun for religion as signifying a single uniform and centralised community of believers.”17

 

Maybe he has not studied Indian languages! Indeed, there is a noun for religion in Sanskrit and related languages and it is called Dharma (Dharam). For the Hindus, Dharma is the Varna Ashrama Dharma/caste system. In the ever-changing scene of the shifting importance of deities, creeds, racial antipathies and other considerations, there was one factor, which was persistent and constant. It was the concept of Hindu Dharma. This concept was synonymous, or very closely interwoven with the social order of Brahmanism¾Varna Ashrama Dharma/caste system. Like the banks of a river it determined the limits within which the current of Indian social life must flow and the direction in which it must move. So long as the current remained confined within the prescribed social limits, all varieties and sorts of dogmas, ideas, faiths, creeds, customs and practices were tolerated and allowed to be a part of Hindu Dharma. But any threat to the framework of the social order was frowned upon or combated against, depending upon the seriousness of the threat posed. When a Hindu ignored duties of his caste of his birth, he destroyed his Dharma. It was only through caste that one belonged to the Hindu community, without the caste identity one was a pariah.18

 

This view of Varna Ashrama Dhrama is endorsed even by modern Hindu Avtars like Mahatma Gandhi and Swami Vivekananda:

I believe in Varna Ashrama (caste system), which is the law of life. The law of Varna (color or caste) is nothing but the law of conservation of energy. Why should my son not be a scavenger if I am one?

Mahatma Gandhi, Harijan, 3-6-1947.

He, Sudra may not be called a Brahman, though he (Sudra) may have all the qualities of a Brahman in this birth. And it is a good thing for him (Sudra) not to arrogate a Varna (caste) to which he is not born. It is a sign of true humility.

Mahatma Gandhi, Young India, 11-24-1927.

There is something in caste, so far as it means blood: such a thing as heredity there is, certainly. Now try to [understand]—why do you not mix blood with the Negroes, and the American Indians? Nature will not allow you. Nature does not allow you to mix your blood with them. There is unconscious working that saves the race. That was the Aryan’s caste. … The Hindus believe—that is a peculiar belief, I think; and I do not know, I have nothing to say to the contrary, I have not found anything to the contrary—they believe there was only one civilized race: the Aryan. Until he gives the blood, no other race can be civilized.

(From a speech given by Swami Vivekananda to a white audience on February 2, 1900, in Pasadena, California, USA).19

 

“Inter-penetration and overlapping of communal identities,” was tolerated as long as it did not challenge the caste system and the supremacy of Brahmans. For example, one of the most outstanding features of Buddhism is its compassion and tolerance. Lord Buddha himself showed respect to Brahmans and Ashoka-the-great advocated respect for them in his edicts. Then, why were the Buddhists, of all the creeds of Indian origin, singled out for special punitive treatment, and purged out of the Indian body politic in a manner the human system eliminates a foreign element? This hostility could not be because Buddhists were atheists, as other atheistic creeds like the Sankhya were left untouched. The Buddhists who shared some common features with Hindus were singled out for destruction because they did not recognize the authority of Vedas and other Hindu scriptures, and they undermined the supremacy of the Brahmans by rejecting the caste system ¾ unpardonable sin in the eyes of Brahmans. On the other hand, Buddhism and Jainism are far less divergent than the multitude of widely different paths of Hindu Dharma. From a purely theological point of view, Jainism was no less heretical than Buddhism, but the Janis suffered far less persecution than the Buddhists. It was so because, if the necessity arose, Jainism was willing to admit a god of popular Hinduism to their galaxy of gods. Besides, it was also not opposed to the theory of caste. It was thus very much less hostile and more accommodating to Brahmans.20

 

I agree with Oberoi that Vedas, Bhagavad-Gita, Ramayana and other Hindu texts do not use the word Hindu,21 but they have other words and expressions to classify/identify people: Varna Ashrama Dharma, Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaisya, Sudra, Antyaja (untouchable) and malesha (unclean, polluted) ¾ anyone outside the pale of Hindu society, foriegners.22  Permanent human inequality by birth is the summum bonum of Brahmanical ideology. The Brahmans proclaimed that Prajapati (God) created the caste system and the Sudra as a slave of the other castes. Moreover, Prajapati was the God of Aryans only, from whom the Sudras were excluded. It was also claimed that gods do not associate with every man, but only with an Arya, a Brahman, or a Kashtriya, or a Vaisya, who can make religious sacrifices to gods. Nor one should talk with everyone, as God does not talk to everybody but only to an Aryan. The order and rank of castes is eternal as the course of stars and the difference between the animal species and human race. Thus the Sudra was excluded from the domain of religion and barred from any religious activity.23

 

Manu claimed that Brahma (God) enacted the code of the caste system and taught it to him. He taught it to Bhrigu and the latter would repeat it to the sages.24 It was Manu who codified Varna Ashrama Dharma/caste system dividing the Indian people into four castes and myriad of sub-castes and, the Antyaja (unouchable/outcaste). It is based on the avowed principle that “men are for ever unequal.” Caste system is the most rigid social mechanism devised by human ingenuity to entrench human inequality and hierarchy. It raised “caste status” above “economic status” and “political status.” It compartmentalized the economy according to its own social patterns, and prevented the economic forces from attaining full potential.  This system was designed to serve the interests of a small minority of people, the Brahmans, at the expense of the vast majority belonging to other castes, the bulk of whom belonged to the Sudra caste.

 

Lower still were the Antyajas (untouchables/outcastes) outside the pale of Hindu Dharma, whose mere shadow could pollute the upper castes. The entire conquered/enslaved population of Advasis (aboriginal tribes) called Dravidians was forced into Sudra and untouchable/outcaste ranks. Never in the history of mankind was such an “evil and cruel system” conceived by intelligent but depraved men for the exploitation of man by man. It took away the human dignity of vast majority of the Indians and subjected them to untold injustices and atrocities. The untouchables/outcastes were treated worse than animals for thousands of years and this is continuing in villages across India even today.

 

The caste system also made political power subservient to political patronage. In fact, the preservation of the caste or sub-castes became the over-riding motive/consideration of the Brahmanical order.

 

The Brahman invoked divine sanctions to perpetuate this system for eternity. Sacred Hindu scriptures proclaim that the caste division has divine sanction. Manu declared that the soul of one who neglected his caste-duties might pass into demon. The Bhagavad-Gita preaches that according to the classification of actions and qualities of people, God creates the four castes. According to a passage from Mahabharata: As cisterns for cattle, as streamlets in a field, the Smriti (code of caste system) is the eternal law of duty, and is never found to fail. The Dharma-Sutras enjoined that a King have to rely on the Vedas and Dharma Sastras for carrying out his duties.25 To combat Buddhism, strict adherence to Dharma (caste system) and obedience to Brahmans is constantly insisted upon in Mahabharata. According to Bhagavad-Gita if anybody wants to quit the works and duties of his caste and adopts those of another caste, even if it would bring a certain honor to him, it is a sin, because it is a transgression of the rule.26 Next surfaced the doctrine of Karma to desensitize people’s sense of justice and compassion against atrocities committed on the masses to enforce the caste system.  According to this “divine law”, one reaps the fruit in this life for the deeds performed in the previous life. So, if a person is subjected to injustice and cruelty in this life, it is due to one’s own actions in previous life, not due to the perpetrators of cruelty and injustice. By observing the caste rules strictly and serving the superior castes faithfully one can earn the reward for the next life. The Karma theory is a cruel and an unconscionable joke on the Sudra and the untouchable¾ as only faithful commitment to the duties of his caste would earn him a reward in next life!

 

Under the caste system some sections of the Indian population were regarded as almost bestial rather than human. The whole conquered Sudra race (Dravidians) was equated with burial ground. Aitareya Brahmana describes Sudra as “Yatha-Kama-Vadhya” (fit to be beaten with impunity) and “Dvijatisusrusha” (menial service was his prescribed lot). One text puts the murder of a Sudra on the same level as the killing of a crow, an owl or a dog. A Sudra could be killed at will. The excessive contempt, humiliation and degradation of the Sudra reached its climax in the permanent institutions of untouchability and unapproachableness.27

 

The Sudra was prohibited from amassing wealth, as it would subject his superiors to him. Sudra was also barred from the realm of religion and prohibited from making religious sacrifices open to other castes.28 The exploitation of the masses reduced them to the level of dumb driven cattle.

 

Al-Biruni, the celebrated mathematician and astronomer, is regarded as one of the foremost Indologist. He came to India in the wake of the invading forces of Mahmud of Ghazni in the 11th century C.E., and he spent many years studying the Indian people, their culture and literature.   He writes:

 

Hindus totally differ from Muslims in religion, as Muslims believe in nothing in which Hindus believe, and vice versa. On the whole, there is very little disputing about theological topics among themselves, at the utmost they fight with words, but they will never stake their soul or body or their property on religious controversy. On the contrary, all their fanaticism is directed against those who do not belong to them¾against all foreigners. They call them mleccha, i.e. impure, and forbid having any connection with them, be it intermarriage or any other kind of relationship, or by sitting, eating, and drinking with them, because thereby they think they would be polluted. They consider as impure anything which touches the fire and water of a foreigner, and no household exist without these two elements. Besides, they never desire that anything, which once has been polluted, should be purified and thus recovered under ordinary circumstances. They are not allowed to have social interaction with anybody who does not belong to them, even if he wished it, or was inclined to their religion. This too, renders any connection with them quite impossible and constitutes the widest gulf between Hindus and Muslims. Moreover, Hindus believe that people are unequal in every respect, whereas Muslims consider all men as equal, except in piety. This is the greatest obstacle, which prevents any approach or understanding between Hindus and Muslims.29

Daulat Rai concurs with Al-Biruni when he writes that whatever the Hindus do, Muslims do the opposite, even simple things like putting on a shirt. Hindus put on the shirt from the right side whereas Muslims from the left. Hindus hate blue color but Muslims cherish it and consider it as sacred. Hindus regarded saffron color sacred while Muslims hate it.30

Besides, there was no love lost between Muslims and Hindus. Muslim invaders killed thousands of Hindus, looted their properties and carried away men and women as slaves in the thousands and some bigoted Muslim rulers deprived Hindus even the comforts of life. They were forbidden to wear good clothes, eat good food, ride horses, wear turbans or keep good homes or valuables ¾even beautiful children or wives. They were allowed to have minimum possessions for mere survival. Often they were given two alternatives: conversion to Islam or pay Jazia (tax on non-Muslims).31

Hindus regarded Muslims as maleshas (unclean). They were considered so much outside the pale of Hindu society that Hindus once converted to Islam could on no account be taken back in the parent fold even though converted forcibly.32

3. Oberoi claims that for much of the nineteenth century Sikhs were deeply involved in the worship of miracle saints and undertook regular pilgrimage to their shrines:

 

Among these saints Sakhi Sarvar, also known, as Lakhdata … was widely worshiped by Sikhs. … In the 1911 census 79085 Sikhs said that they were followers of Sakhi Sarvar. It is very likely that, in the nineteenth century, Sikh followers of Sakhi Sarvar were far greater than is apparent from 1911 figures. The exact numbers were not reflected in the census reports for three reasons. First, those who reported their religion as Sikhism might simultaneously have worshipped Sarvar and taken part in rites, rituals, and festivals associated with him: religious boundaries were highly flexible and the categories ‘Sikh’, ‘Muslim’, and ‘Hindu’ did not have the implications they do today. Second, the census officers were not epistemologically equipped to handle beliefs and practices that did not mesh with the three ‘great traditions’ of Punjab. Third by the time of 1911 census the Singh Sabha movement had been actively campaigning to wean away Sikhs from the worship of pirs like Sakhi Sarvar. This exercise was highly successful, and by the turn of the century entire Sikh villages which had worshipped Sarvar and taken part in the ritual cycle associated with that pir stopped doing so. Consequently, the figures from 1911 census are poor indicators of Sarvar’s following among the Sikhs.33

 

As I have stated in the beginning of this article, the vast majority of today’s Sikhs are descendants of Sultani-Hindus. Most of the Sikhs of the nineteenth and early part of the twentieth century were not more than three or four generations apart from their forefathers. Thus, it is understandable that some of them continued to worship Sarvar, but to assert that “Sarvar was widely worshiped by Sikhs,” based on assumptions and speculations enumerated above by Oberoi defies logic and commonsense. It is futile to argue about assumptions and speculation, rather, let us examine the census figures. The figure 79,085 is indeed a substantial number, but it is only 2.74 percent of the total Sikh population of 2,883,729 in 1911.34 How could any reasonable person construe from this figure that “Sarvar was widely worshiped by Sikhs”? Moreover, there was a large influx of new entrants into the Sikh faith, as shown by the doubling of Sikh population from 1881 to 1931: from less than two million in 1881 to four million in 1931, raising the percentage in the total population of the province from about 8 to over 13.35 So it is not surprising that the new converts were holding onto their earlier beliefs contrary to the categorical rejection of gods, goddesses, saints and pirs (Muslim holy men) in Aad Guru Granth Sahib and Rehatnamas.

 

Further, generally the Sikhs did not approve of such practice as pointed out by Ratan Singh Bhangu in his Prachin Panth Parkash (1841).36 He says that Sikhs did not believe in ghosts, spirits and graves, nor did they have any faith in Guga and Sarvar. Rather, there were frequent clashes between Sikhs and the Sarvarias in villages and towns. In this context, Rose clearly endorses Bhangu’s view: “Comparatively few Sikhs are followers of Sarvar and there is in fact a sort of opposition in the central districts between Sikhs and Sultanis. You hear men say that one party in a village, worship the Guru, the other worship Sarvar; that is that one party are Sikhs and other ordinary Hindus who follow Sarvar.”37 Oberoi has quoted Rose four times to support his arguments but has ignored or concealed Rose’s observation about the relationship between Sikhs and the followers of Sarvar. But the question is why did he do so? Moreover, he has quoted Macaullife’s observation about the worship of Sakhi Sarvar among Hindus and Sikhs to buttress his argument that Sarvar worship was prevalent among the nineteenth century Sikhs38 while concealing Macaullife’s statement that Gurus Arjan,39 Hargobind40 and Tegh Bahadur41 advised Sikhs not to worship Sarvar. Besides, to backup his contention “it is very likely that, in the nineteenth century, Sikh followers of Sakhi Sarvar were far greater than is apparent from 1911 figures” he argues:

 

By the time of 1911 census the Singh Sabha movement had been actively campaigning for over three decades to wean away Sikhs from the worship of pirs like Sakhi Sarvar. This exercise was highly successful, and by the turn of the century entire Sikh villages which had worshipped Sarvar and taken part in the ritual cycle associated with that pir stopped doing so. Consequently, the figures from 1911 census are poor indicators of Sarvar’s following among Sikhs.42

 

But, later in the chapter “Resistance and Counter-resistance: The Triumph of Praxis” he argues vigorously that the Singh Sabha was an elite organization confined to urban setting and was vehemently opposed by the so-called Sanatan Sikhs and the Sikh peasantry and artisans, who nicknamed it Singh Safa (organization of destruction).43 If there was that much opposition to Singh Sabha then how was it so successful to wean away Sikh peasantry and artisans from the worship of pirs like Sakhi Sarvar?

 

4. Oberoi has not used AGGS to support his thesis except once when he argues that Gurus did not start a separate religion. Here he not only distorts Guru Arjan’s hymn affirming that Sikhs are distinct from Hindus and Muslims, but also makes misleading statements by putting words in Professor Sahib Singh’s mouth:

 

Those who argue for the distinct Sikh world-view from initial Guru period often quote the following verse:

 

I neither keep the Hindu fasts nor the Muslim Ramadan.

I serve him alone who in the end will save me.

My Master is both the Muslim Allah and the Hindu Gusain,

And thus have I finished the dispute between the Hindus and the Muslim.

I do not go on a pilgrimage to Mecca

Nor bathe at the Hindu places;

I serve the one Master, and none beside Him.

Neither performing the Hindu worship nor offering Muslim prayer,

To the formless One I bow in my heart.

I am neither Hindu nor Muslim.44

 

      Taking the last line as the key to this hymn, many have argued that Guru Arjan is proclaiming here that Sikhs are neither Hindus nor Muslims, and therefore form a distinct religious community. There are several textual problems with this reasoning. As pointed out by Sahib Singh, the most eminent Sikh exegete of this century, Guru Arjan wrote this hymn in a definite context; he was responding to an older verse by Kabir, included in the Adi Granth:

    

      I have no dispute,

      For I have renounced the path of both the Pandit and the Mullah.

      I weave and weave to make my own way,

      And sing of the Supreme Being to empty the self.

      All the codes inscribed by the Pandit and the Mullah,

      Those I absolutely renounce and will not imbibe.

      Those pure of heart shall find the Supreme Being within,

      Kabir says in knowing the self, one realizes the Supreme Being.45

 

Guru Arjan is only reinforcing Kabir’s thoughts. In line with a dominant theme in the medieval sant poetics, both Kabir and Arjan speak of rejecting the received Hindu and Muslim orthodoxies, of not taking part in their formal modes of worship and pilgrimage, of finally asserting that the mystery of the Supreme Being is to be resolved in one’s heart. It is over simplistic to suggest that they are discounting one set of categories to embrace a new set of labels.46

 

From both Guru Arjan and Kabir’s hymns, it is crystal clear to any reasonable person who can read English that both Guru Arjan and Kabir rejected Hindu as well as Muslim beliefs and their religious practices. In each verse Guru Arjan proclaims that he is distinct from both Hindus and Muslims. And in the last line he tells in no uncertain terms that he is neither a Hindu nor Muslim. In spite of this Oberoi asserts: “It is over simplistic to suggest that they are discounting one set of categories to embrace a new set of labels.” Then what label does Oberoi want to apply to Kabir or Guru Arjan, as both of them rejected earlier categories of Hindu and Muslim beliefs?

 

Unlike Kabir, Guru Nanak set his community of followers apart from the caste-society to launch a movement against the atrocious caste ideology and the bigotry of Muslim rulers. The impact of Guru Nanak vis-à-vis Kabir on the Indian people is quite obvious to students of Indian history. And AGGS confirms that Guru Nanak’s followers were called Sikhs right from the beginning:

The people say that Nanak is the image of the Almighty, Who is the Controller (nath) of the world.  He has promulgated a philosophy of the highest order that has changed the course of Ganges *.

 

* It means that Guru Nanak rejected earlier religious traditions, and challenged social, political and economic system of his time.

AGGS, Balvand and Satta, p. 967.

 

Sangat (Sikh congregation) is the result of love for Guru’s teaching. There a gurmukh (God-centered being) listens to the attributes of the True One.

AGGS, M 1, p. 350.

 

One finds Sangat (Sikh congregation) through God’s kindness (righteous conduct).

AGGS, M 1, p. 412.

 

Balvand and Satta attest in their composition that the Sikh community accepted Ram Das as Guru, not his opponent Baba Mohan.

The Sangat (congregation) and the wider Sikh community greeted him as an image of the Infinite One.

AGGS, Balvand and Satta, p. 968.

Dear Sikhs, consider the bani of the true Guru as Truth, as it is the Creator, Who makes the Guru utter it.

AGGS, M 4, p. 763.

When I meet a Guru’s Sikh, I touch his/her feet with great humility.

AGGS, M 5, p. 763.

 

From the above verses of Aad Guru Granth Sahib it is quite evident that Sikh Gurus established a distinct community from the very beginning of the Sikh movement. Further Oberoi’s statement: “There are several textual problems with this reasoning” is misleading and erroneous, amounting to intellectual dishonesty! He does not point out even a single textual problem! Sahib Singh did not say anywhere that there is textual problem with Guru Arjan’s passage. Actually, it was McLeod who suggested textual problems related with this passage:

 

There is hymn by Kabir which appears in the midst of a Guru Arjan cluster, and which includes an unusually explicit rejection of both Hindu and Muslim authority. … The exception is worth noting because several writers, following Macauliffe, have accepted the hymn as the work of Guru Arjan. This is probably incorrect, for an analogue appears in the Kabir-granthawli tradition, and even in the Adi Granth version it bears the name Kabir.47

 

Sahib Singh has explained this anomaly of Kabir’s name instead of “Nanak” in Guru Arjan’s sabad (stanza) by pointing out that Guru Arjan wrote this passage to explain Kabir’s views more clearly and assertively (Guru Arjan Sahib aapne shabad vich kbir ji de dite khial di viakhia kar rahe han). The last couplet of Guru Arjan’s hymn, which Oberoi has concealed, is addressed to Kabir. Guru Arjan asks Kabir to declare:

Hey Kabir make a declaration: “After testing the paths of Hindu gurus and Muslim pirs, I have found my Master myself.”

AGGS, M 5, p. 1136.

There are other hymns of Guru Arjan, wherein he comments in a similar manner on the thoughts of Kabir and Farid. Oberoi’s interpretation of the fourth verse of Guru Arjan’s hymn as “And thus have I finished the dispute between the Hindus and the Muslim” is also not correct. Instead, it should read “I have no religious connection both with Hindus and Muslims (I have rejected both Hindu and Muslim paths). Oberoi’s grotesque distortion of this hymn is misleading. His erroneous statements about “textual problems” is a mirror image of his opinion of Aad Guru Granth Sahib:

 

“Religious texts like Adi Granth are so amorphous that those in favor of the status quo, reformists and insurrectionist, could all with ease quote chapter and verse in favor of their cause.”48

 

It seems that Oberoi either did not read or has concealed, “his mentor,” McLeod’s opinion about the AGGS:

 

The fact that Guru Nanak’s thought is not set out systematically does not mean that it is necessarily inconsistent. On the contrary, one of the great merits of his thought is its very consistency. The accusations of inconsistency have been leveled against him, but we believe that the system outlined in the present chapter will constitute a rebuttal of the charge.49

 

A number of references to the creative activity of God have already been quoted and there are many more available. The frequency with which they occur is significant in that it brings out clear and explicit concept of the personality of God. Again the comparison with Kabir is interesting. An affirmation of the personality of God does emerge from Kabir’s works, but it emerges rather by hint and implication than by explicit statement. References to God as Creator are comparatively scarce and lack the clarity of Guru Nanak’s declarations. The same also applies to other attributes which imply a notion of personality. In Kabir’s works we must often grope; in Nanak’s we find clarity.50

 

It is unacademic, unprofessional, unethical and intellectually dishonest to make baseless statements about Aad Guru Garnth Sahib (AGGS) without properly studying it.51 Finally, I have asked Oberoi repeatedly to clarify the following statements he has made in his book, but to date there has been no reply:

 

a.       What do you mean when you say that Indian languages do not have a "noun" for religion?

b.       What does "Indic culture" mean?

c.       Why did Achaemenid Persians give the name "Hindu" to all those people who lived on or beyond the river Sindhu, or Indus? If the Indian people acquired the name Hindu this way then why didn’t the name Sindhu change to Hindu or Sindh change to Hind or Sindhi change to Hindi? Did the natives have any name for their country or religion or ethnic identity?

d.       Why isn’t the word "Hindu" found in any Hindu Scripture?

Analysis of the four examples described above demonstrates unambiguously that Oberoi has used distortion, misinformation and deception/manipulation of historical information to build his thesis: The Construction of Religious Boundaries: Culture, Identity and Diversity in the Sikh Tradition. Therefore, it is no wonder it is the same rudder that navigates Jakobsh’s thoughts in manufacturing Relocating Gender In Sikh History: Transformation, Meaning and Identity.

 

 

References

 

1. Doris R. Jakobsh. Relocating Gender In Sikh History: Transformation, Meaning and Identity. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2003, p. 8.

 2. Harjot Oberoi. The Construction of Religious Boundaries: Culture, Identity and Diversity in the Sikh Tradition. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1994.

3. Ibid., p. 2.

4. Ibid., p. 2.

5. Ruchi R. Sahni. Struggle For Reform In Sikh Shrines (Ganda Singh, Ed.). Amritsar: Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC).

6. Ibid., p i.

7. Ibid., p ii.

 8. The Morcha: My personal testimony. The Guru-ka-Bagh morcha, to call it by the name by which it was generally known at the time, was an event which would live not only in Sikh history, but also in the history of Mahatma Gandhi’s non-violent, non-co-operation movement. Having been in the thick of both the movements myself and having watched their progress from day to day from inside, I can say in all sincerity that I do not know of another instance of a large community observing absolute non-violence, in word and deed, day after day in the face of the severest provocation and suffering abuse, ill-treatment and tortures, not only without uttering a word of complaint, but literally with words “Wahi Guru, Wahi Guru Ji” on the lips of one and all members of Akali Jathas.

 

I wish to record here that having read some of the harrowing accounts of torture which old Sikh martyrs are said to have suffered uncomplainingly and even cheerfully, I was in my hearts of hearts reluctant to believe that such things could have really happened, and that, probably, the historians of those days under the impulse of religious enthusiasm had been carried away to indulge in the language of exaggeration, but after I had myself accompanied from day to day Jathas of a hundred Akalis from their start at Akal Takhat to their place of destination till they were stopped, and having witnessed with my own eyes the inhuman beatings which they received at the hands of a batch of policemen, generally under the orders of a European officer, till they had either become unconscious or were at least unable to stand on their legs and every one of them had to be carried to a special hospital established at Amritsar, having seen all these things not for a day but for almost the whole period during which the Guru-ka-Bagh struggle lasted, I cannot but add my own personal testimony to the absolute truth of harrowing incidents I have narrated in the following pages in this chapter. I consider it a privilege, though a painful kind, to have lived through these tragic times and witnessed the strange things which not only the elect few but the masses of Sikh community suffered and bore with patience, courage and fortitude I frankly find myself unable to describe, p. 108-109.

 

Meanwhile the usual beating of small batches of Akalis continued at Guru-ka-Bagh. Jathas of four or five men at a time attempting to go forward to cut wood from nearby lands for Guru-ka-Langar, were stopped and beaten with lathis to semi-consciousness. One day of which I am speaking an old Akali is said to have implored Mr. Beaty that he might be given a specially severe thrashing, because “that alone would purge his very sinful soul”. I know there are some sophisticated people who consider such things in the light of a joke. At one time I myself used to look upon such statements as exaggeration, but having seen such strange things to happen in connection with Guru-ka-Bagh morcha, I have come to realize better that I did before the wonderful power of the spirit in life of a man of faith, p. 130-131.

 

Many Sikh mothers, wives and sisters garlanded their sons, husbands and brothers and gave them a loving send-off to Jaito. A mother whose eldest son had fallen in the first Shahidi Jatha, garlanded her second son for the second Shahidi Jatha and said to him, “Dear son, fight the battle of your Panth and bless your mother with the heroic sacrifices, p. 229.”

 

Considering the limited numerical strength of the Sikh Community, I am not a little surprised that, under the stress of the times, and the new forces that arose so many heroes, big and small, should have been thrown up, nobody can say how and from where. Almost everybody, who was sworn before the Akal Takhat for the service of the Guru under the direction of his Jathedar, became a hero. He behaved in a manner in which he himself could not have expected to behave before he had heard the call and obeyed it. He went through sufferings and made sacrifices that could only have been demanded of seasoned soldiers. In their case it was not blind obedience like that of the Balaclava horsemen. Not desperate submission to an order because it must be obeyed, but the indomitable, unconquerable faith that they were doing the right thing in the service of their God and community. The stories of Crusaders pale into insignificant before the Guru-ka-Bagh or Jaito episode for instance, because, if for no other reason, the Akalis practised non-violence such as Christ himself preached in the Sermon of the mount, p. v-vi.

 

To put it briefly, to be an Akali was, in the word of Shelley,

 

To suffer woes which Hope thinks infinite;

To forgive wrongs darker than death or night;

To defy power which seems omnipotent;

To love and bear; to hope till Hope creates;

From its own wreck the thing it contemplates;

Neither to change, nor falter, nor repent, p. vi.

 

9. Harjot Oberoi. The Construction of Religious Boundaries: Culture, Identity and Diversity in the Sikh Tradition. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, p. 3.

10. Kapur Singh. Parasaraprasna. (Piar Singh and Madanjit Kaur, Eds.) Amritsar: Guru Nanak Dev University, p.86.

11. Ganda Singh. Punjab Dian Varan (Punjabi). Amritsar: Ganda Singh, 1946, pp. 19-20.

12. Harjot Oberoi. The Construction of Religious Boundaries: Culture, Identity and Diversity in the Sikh Tradition. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, p. 3.

13. Ibid., p. 214-215.

14. Ibid., p. 215-216.

15. Ibid., p. 12.

16. Ibdi., p. 6.

17. Ibid., p. 12.

18. Jagjit Singh. The Sikh Revolution: A Perspective View. New Delhi: Bahri Publications, 4th reprint, 1998, p. 21-22.

19. G. B. Singh. Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity. New York: Prometheus Books, 2004, pp. 239-240.

20. Jagjit Singh. The Sikh Revolution: A Perspective View. New Delhi: Bahri Publications, 4th reprint, 1998, pp. 21-24.

21. Harjot Oberoi. The Construction of Religious Boundaries: Culture, Identity and Diversity in the Sikh Tradition. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, p. 16.

22. Jagjit Singh. The Sikh Revolution: A Perspective View. New Delhi: Bahri Publications, 4th reprint, 1998, pp. 1-69.

23. Ibid., pp. 27-28.

24. Ibid., p. 31.

25. Ibid., p. 31.

26. Ibid., p. 41.

27. Ibid., pp. 38-46, 51-55.

28. Ibid., pp. 51-53.

29. Qeyamuddin Ahmad (Ed.). India by Al-Biruni. National Book Trust, India, third reprint, 1995, pp. 9, 45-46.

30. Daulat Rai. “Sahib-i-Kamal” Guru Gobind Singh (Hindi). Amritsar: Gurmat Sahit Charitable Trust, 7th reprint, 1993, p. 49.

31. Ibid., pp. 25-64.

32. Jagjit Singh. The Sikh Revolution: A Perspective View. New Delhi: Bahri Publications, 4th reprint, 1998, pp. 50-51.

33. Harjot Oberoi. The Construction of Religious Boundaries: Culture, Identity and Diversity in the Sikh Tradition. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp. 147-148.

34. Ibid., p. 148.

35. J. S. Grewal. The Sikhs Of The Punjab. New Delhi: Cambridge University Press, 1994, p. 137.

36. Ratan Singh Bhangu. Prachin Panth Parkash (Punjabi, Vir Singh, Ed.). New Delhi: Bhai Vir Singh Sahit Sadan, 1993, pp. 42 & 47.

37. H. A. Rose. A Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North-West Frontier Province, Vol. III. Patiala: Punjabi University, reprint, 1970, pp. 436-437.

38. Harjot Oberoi. The Construction of Religious Boundaries: Culture, Identity and Diversity in the Sikh Tradition. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, p. 152.

39. Max A. Macauliffe. The Sikh Religion, Vol. III & IV. New Delhi: Low Price Publications, reprint, 1993, Vol. III, pp. 7-8, 419.

40. Ibid., Vol. IV, pp. 147-149.

41. Ibid., Vol. IV, pp. 339-340.

42. Harjot Oberoi. The Construction of Religious Boundaries: Culture, Identity and Diversity in the Sikh Tradition. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, p. 148.

43. Ibid., pp. 381-417, 398.

44. Ibid., p. 57.

45. Ibid., p. 57.

46. Ibid., p. 58.                  

47. W. H. McLeod. The Evolution of the Sikh Community in Sikhs and Sikhism. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 72.

48. Harjot Oberoi. The Construction of Religious Boundaries: Culture, Identity and Diversity in the Sikh Tradition. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, p. 22.

49. W. H. McLeod. Guru Nanak and the Sikh Religion. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1996, p. 149.

51. 51. Jasbir Singh Mann, Surinder Singh Sodhi, and Gurbakhsh Singh Gill (Eds.). Invasion of Religious Boundaries. Vancouver: Canadian Sikh Study & Teaching Society, 1995, P. 303, Appendix III.


Previous Chapter | Table of Contents | Next Chapter



Copyright©2006 Baldev Singh. About the author


Print this Article                Email this Article                Comment on this Article