Chapter 14: Absurd, Misleading and Deceptive Statements

Chapter 14

Absurd, Misleading and Deceptive Statements

1. Jakobsh has used the term “Sanatan Sikhs” without explaining its meaning! This term is found neither in AGGS nor is there any reference to it in Sikh tradition. Harjot Oberoi coined this term in order to diffuse the “distinct Sikh identity” similar to the way W.H. McLeod, a missionary from New Zealand, fabricated “sant tradition” to destroy the uniqueness of Nanakian philosophy. According to Oberoi, “The aristocrats and religious orthodoxy, the latter represented by families of guru lineages, mahants, pujaris, and other heterodox groups, are Sanatan Sikhs.”¹

Such people are Sanatan Hindus, and calling them Sanatan Sikhs is misleading, as they have made no contribution to the Sikh movement. It fact they were invariably helping the enemies of Sikhs. Let us look at their leader Baba Sir Khem Singh Bedi and his protégés. His followers used to call him the 13th Nanak²and he wanted to be recognized and worshiped as a Guru,³ but in the Sikh community there were no takers of this idea, except his underlings. He used to wear a janeu sacred thread). His son Kartar Singh¾ “Kartaru Be-din” advised and helped Mahant Narain Das who murdered 150 Sikhs in cold bood.⁴ His other son, Gurbakhsh Singh Bedi, made a public statement in 1910 that Sikhs were Hindus.⁵Bhai Autar Singh, a protégé of Khem Singh Singh Bedi, maintained in his tracts published later that Sikh Gurus had worshiped gods and goddesses, accepted no Muslim as their follower and maintained the distinctions of caste.⁶Bawa Chajju Singh contented that Sikh Gurus were “only Hindu reformers,” or that Sikh scriptures were only “mutilated copies” of Hindu scriptures.⁷ They were opposed to the Sikh reform movement, Gurdwara liberation movement and the Anand Marriage Act.^{8, 9}

Here is an example of a man who fits Oberoi’s definition of a Sanatan Sikh. Up to 1905 when he started his law practice in Lahore, Lala Lajpat Rai had uncut hair and turban, when he became Arya Samajist he shaved off his beard (1907) and when he became a Gandhiite he replaced his turban with a Gandhi cap.¹⁰

How could any “scholar” in his right mind use the word “Sikh” in any manner or connotation for such persons?

Guru Nanak’s composition is replete with denunciation of Yogis, Brahmans, mullahs and Qazis. He rejected unequivocally ascetic life and celibacy. So how could mahants, pujaris and udassis be considered as Sikhs? When the Udasis took control of Gurdwaras in the early eighteenth century they fabricated a story that Baba Sri Chand adopted Guru Hargobind’s son Baba Gurdita to carry on his work. Baba Gurdita was a married man and an avid hunter and he died in a hunting accident. So how could he be an Udasi? Moreover, he was born after the death of Sri Chand. Udasis played havoc with Sikh theology and traditions and most of the mahants and pujaris came from this “degenerate and parasitic” order.¹¹

2. “MacMunn writing in the early twentieth century made an explicit connection between Britons and the Sikh Jat. He recounted the words of advice from a British officer to Dalip Singh, the son of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, who was sent to England after Punjab’s annexation: ‘You will be among your own people there, for you are a Jat and the men from Kent, are Jats from Jutland’ (MacMunn 1932: 14).”¹²

Jakobsh imparts an impression as if Dalip Singh was sent to England on a pleasure trip or for higher education. Her Eurocentric mind is unwilling to find out or divulge what truly happened. It is difficult for her to say that Maharaja Dalip Singh, a ten-year-old boy was kidnapped by the British and put in the custody of a missionary couple, Dr. and Mrs. Johan Logan. Bhajan Lal, a Brahman convert to Christianity, was appointed his tutor. Dalip’s mother was put in jail and Dalip was not allowed to have any contact with his relatives or other Sikhs. Being brainwashed he converted to Christianity and, finally exiled to England far away from his people. Upon conversion, his long hair was cut and presented as a trophy to Mrs Logan. Mr. Logan realised only after the death of his wife what he and his wife had done to young Dalip when he looked into the eyes of his own “motherless” children.¹³

3. “In insisting that recruits undergo initiation rites before entering the British military system, the British considered themselves to be the protector of the faith alone, responsible for the continuance of the true martial Sikh spirit in Punjab.”¹⁴

This is a baseless and false assertion and an echo of the malicious Hindu propaganda that it was the British who created separate “Sikh identity.” Does Jakobsh know that all the Sikhs in Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s army and civilian administration were Khalsas? That is why his government was called Sarkar-i-Khalsa (Khalsa Raj). Even Hindus in Maharaja’s administration kept uncut hair and some of them like the Dogra brothers and Brahmans like Lal Singh and Tej Singh took “Khande Di Pahul.” It is a different matter that they were saboteurs in disguise. Similarly, all Sikhs in the armies and civilian administrations of Phulkian States were Khalsa Sikhs. Even the Hindu employees - Brahmans, Khatris, Aroras and Banias kept the Sikh “external form”--they appeared “more Sikh” than ordinary Sikhs. In contrast, under the Britsh rule, Sikh commissioned officers in the armed forces were exempt from “Khande Di Pahul” or Sikh “external form” and neither was it a requirement for civilian employees. Therefore how could Jakobsh or anyone say that the British were the protectors of the Sikh faith? Besides, the granthis (priests, chaplains) attached to the Sikh army were essentially Hindus disguised as Khalsa who were propagating Brahmanical version of Sikhism, which she says that the British were trying to purge to restore Sikhism to its pristine purity:

“The British administration, which admired the martial resonance of Khalsa ideology, turned to the tents of Guru Gobind Singh for guidance and took upon themselves to stem the tide of the Hinduization of Sikhism through the recruitment tactics. Sikhs who were not of the Khlasa faith were characterised as already desecrated by the menacing arm of Hinduism.”¹⁵

It is not only that the British turned over Gurdwaras to Hindu mahants and pujaris, but also popularised spurious literature like “Bala Janamsakhi, Dasam Granth, Gurbilas Patshahi 6, Bansavlinamas and Rahitnamas” that were written for the purpose of distorting Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat) in order to make it a part of Hinduism.

4. “The ‘higher’ morality of the imperialist and superiority of the Western ideology was sought to be effectively established by accentuating the low status of Indian women.¹⁶ In the case of the British, the image of the oppressed Hindu women served a political function as affirmation of European superiority and justification of the imperial enterprise.”¹⁷

I agree with these statements, but they need elaboration to expose the hypocrisy and devious mind of the British imperialists. European historians/writers, particularly, the British have been repeating like a parrot that the British colonization was humane and beneficial since it eradicated many evil customs and practices prevalent among the “uncivilised heathens.” And they never miss the opportunity to remind us of female infanticide and sati. I have already discussed the issue of female infanticide in detail.

The custom of sati was limited only to Hindu rulers and aristocrats, but after the Muslim conquest of India, there were not many such Hindu families left. On the other hand, Sudras and Antyajas (untouchables), who constituted the vast majority (85-90%) of the Hindu population were not only economically destitute but were also, deprived of their human dignity under the caste system. What did the British colonists do for them? Instead of ameliorating their situation, the British aggravated and amplified their situation. They made the caste and religious distinctions deeper and more pronounced by dividing Indian people into different groups as I have already pointed out. The share of Sudras or Untouchables in the army or civilian administration was insignificant in comparison to their population. There was a reason why the British rulers instead of helping the Sudras and untouchables, became partners with the high castes in the exploitation of Sudras and untouchables! They looked upon the Sudras and untouchables as a “reservoir” for Christian missionaries to fish. The bigger the reservoir the larger the catch! The greater the persecution of this wretched class, the greater the incentive for them to convert to Christianity¾“a civilized religion”! I can’t help asking why didn’t the British outlaw untouchability?

Now, let us examine what the British did to the Sikhs after the annexation of Punjab. They took control of Gurdwaras and made Hindu mahants and pujaris their in-charge to revive the caste system among Sikhs. The mahants and pujaris (priests) of Golden Temple refused to accept karah parshad (sacramental food made from flour, butter, sugar and water) from newly converted Sikhs from the lower castes¹⁸ and they began to refuse the admission or accept the offerings of Sikh revivalists who were converting Muslims or low caste Hindus.¹⁹ This was done by the British controlled mahants and pujaris to prevent the conversion of low caste Hindus or Muslims to Sikhism leaving the field wide open for Christian missionaries. In order to divide the Sikhs, British officials started glorifying Sikh Jats as the “pinnacle” of Sikh society:

“British considered a ‘new’ breed of men¾ ‘handsome … resembling Hindoos in general, but with a finer muscular development, and a more robust appearance’ who were skilled in martial arts and unsurpassed as agriculturists (Steinbach 1846: 212).”²⁰

And they invented the “Aryan race theory” to justify Sikh Jats and Rajputs as the closest remnants of the great Aryans that invaded India. “Trump (cited in Beames 1869: 137) had unequivocally noted that there is no doubt that these Jats, who appear to be the original race in the country, belong to the real Aryan Stock.”²¹ But at the same time they were denigrating and ridiculing other Sikhs as inferior:

“Full of intrigue, pliant, versatile, and insinuating, they have all the art of lower classes of Hindus, who are usually employed in transacting business: from whom, indeed, as they have no distinction of dress, it is very difficult to distinguish them.”²²

So, what were the imperialist and missionaries really up to? There is no doubt that their goal was to convert Sikh population en-masse, as is evident from the writings Fitzpatrick and Clark:

Though the Brahman religion still sways the minds of a large portion of the population of Punjab, and the Mohammedan of another, the dominant religion and power for the last century has been the Sikh religion, a species of pure theism, formed in the first instance by a dissenting sect from Hinduism. A few hopeful instances lead us to believe that the Sikhs may prove more accessible to scriptural truths than Hindus and Mohammedans [italics by B. Singh].²³

5. While ridiculing Nikki-Guninder Kaur Singh’s analysis of Bhai Vir Singh‘s work, Sundri, Jakobsh says:

“Needless to say, Sikh women during Mughal or for that matter during the time of Vir Singh, did not ‘gallop freely with men’; neither did women ‘choose’ between living at home and roving the countryside along their male companions.”²⁴

First of all Sundri is a heroine, a role model for Sikh women, in a novel. Heroes and heroines can perform tasks and feats that ordinary people often can’t even think of. Bhai Vir Singh nowhere urges Sikh women to be equestrian champions; he urges them to emulate Sundri’s character. Further, ordinary people cannot acquire all the attributes of heroes and heroines; they do only those they are capable of.

Second, this novel is set in a period when Sikhs were locked in life and death struggle against the Mughlas and their collaborators, the caste ideologues. Sundri represents a woman from that period when women did ride horses and fought side by side with men. During the two ghaloogharas (holocausts) most causalities were old men, women and children.

Third, Jakobsh herself has cited evidence that there were female leaders and rulers during the misl period:

The British were well aware of the record of successful female rule in Punjab. Upon the death of a husband or son during misl (confederacy) period of earlier Sikh rule, women had often taken over the leadership. George Thomas had written appreciably of Bibi Sahib Kaur, a ‘woman of masculine and intrepid spirit’, who bravely defended the capital city of Patiala during his expedition of 1798. He was sufficiently impressed by Sahib Kaur to assert that she was ‘a better man than her brother’, Raja Sahib Singh, who had fled the city during the siege (cited in Gupta 1980).²⁵

How does Jakobsh think these women became rulers or leaders? Does she think Sahib Kaur took charge of troops leaving behind bread on the hot plate (tave te roti) or cotton roll on the spinning wheel (charkhe te puni)?

6. Jakobsh endorses McLeod and Oberoi’s mischaracterization of Namdharis (Kukas) as a millenarian movement.²⁶ Like them she also does not say anything of who sabotaged this glorious movement in the annals of Sikh history. Both McLeod and Oberoi have only scratched the periphery of Namdhari (Kuka) movement. It is understandable why McLeod is not willing to face the truth about Namdharis because being a missionary it is too much for him to face the immorality and heinous crimes of the British! But what is Oberoi’s excuse? Perhaps it has something to do with his “Indic culture” and “Sanatan Sikh” heritage! Before the annexation of Punjab by the British, there was already religious ferment among the Sikhs due to the licentiousness of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, his sons and Sikh Sardars, and the overwhelming influence of Brahmans, Bedis, Sodhis, pujaris and mahants over them. The infiltration of Dogras (Rajputs) and Brahmans into high positions in government and the introduction of Brahanmical rituals and ceremonies in the precincts of Darbar Sahib and other Sikh centres raised alarm bells about the coming calamity.

Reacting to degradation of Sikh values all around in the Khalsa Raj, Baba Dayal and Baba Balak Singh were telling Sikhs that Piri (spiritual sovereignty) is the foundation of Miri (temporal sovereignty). Without Piri, Miri is futile and unsustainable which turned out to be so accurate. They exhorted Sikh masses to believe only in the Formless One (Nirankar), reject all gods and goddesses, discard all Brahmanical rites and ceremonies, and to conduct their lives according to the teachings of Guru Granth Sahib. Baba Dayal’s²⁷followers were called Nirankaris and he passed away in 1853. Whereas the Nirankari movement was limited to Rawalpindi area in Western Punjab, the Namdhari movement of Baba Balak Singh spread very quickly throughout Punjab under Baba Ram Singh who succeeded Baba Balak Singh²⁸ after his death in 1862. Baba Ram Singh shifted headquarters from Hazaro near Attock to Bhahni Sahib, Ludhiana.

After the loss of the Khalsa Raj and the annexation of Punjab by an alien power in 1849, there was deep introspection within “sagacious and pious” Sikhs. Bhai Maharaj Singh called upon the Sikh masses to “come home” to drive away the alien enemy, Farangi. Sensing that Bhai Maharaj Singh had the potential to rekindle the Khalsa spirit of Miri-Piri, the British took him prisoner and finding that he is non-conciliatory to the English assumption of sovereignty, deported him to Rangoon in 1850, where he died in 1856.²⁹

Baba Ram Singh exhorted Sikhs to follow the strict Khalsa Rahit (discipline) and to accept Guru Granth Sahib as the only Guru and he condemned the Sodhis, Bedis, mahants and Brahmans as impostors. Besides introducing a number of social reforms, he set up an elaborate missionary work. He understood very well that the British annexed Punjab through deception with the connivance of Dogras and Brahmans. With a political goal of restoring Sikh power, he called for the rejection of British- made goods and everything the British stood for. Sensing the danger, the British quarantined him in his village in 1863. In spite of this restriction, the movement gained momentum under his dynamic leadership. There were about 100,000 Namdharis (Kukas) within a very short period.^{30, 31} The British launched a misinformation and defamation campaign against the Namdharis through their toadies, mahants, pujaris and the so-called Guru-ansh (descendents of Gurus), Bedis and Sodhis. One of the most damaging rumours was that “Baba Ram Singh calls himself reincarnation of Guru Gobind Singh.”³²The British and Brahmans also spread similar misinformation against Baba Dayal. The British also indulged in character assassination of Baba Ram Singh and his followers in order to discredit his movement through a campaign of defamation. It was claimed that Ram Singh contracted venereal disease through adulterous affairs and his followers were sexually loose, especially, women. Women were made the target as they were very active in spreading the Namdhari message.³³Ignorant Sikhs were taken in by this false propaganda and toadies denounced Baba Ram Singh and his followers as wicked and misguided.³⁴

During the Sikh rule the relations between Muslims and Sikhs had healed and improved so much that “only the Muslims” in the Sarkar-i-Khalsa (Khalsa Raj) administration showed “complete loyalty” during the Anglo-Sikh War. So to turn the Muslims against Sikhs, the British agents who had infiltrated the Namdhari movement attacked Muslim butchers in three towns. May be the saboteurs escaped or were used as sacrificial lambs. Seventy-five Kukas were blown up with canons without trial and, Baba Ram Singh was exiled to Burma where he died 1880.^{31, 32}

It is noteworthy that following the same policy of “divide and rule,” Indira Gandhi used British methodology to defame Sikhs and to arouse hatred among Hindus against the Sikhs. In 1982, Indian Government agents placed severed “cow heads” before the Hindu temples at Amritsar to blame the Sikhs.³⁵ To label Namdhari movement as millenarian movement is to ignore the evil designs of the British and an attempt to cover up their heinous crimes.

7. “It was not uncommon practice for Hindu families to commit their eldest male progeny to Sikhism.”³⁶

This is an erroneous and misleading statement, an echo of Hindu campaign of misinformation against Sikhism. She has quoted British intelligence officer, D. Petrie, in support of her arguments, however, for some reasons she has concealed his report of 1911 about the attitude of Hindus towards Sikhs:

Hinduism has always been hostile to Sikhism whose Gurus powerfully and successfully attacked the principle of caste, which is the foundation on which the whole fabric of Brahmanism has been reared. The activities of Hindus have, therefore, been constantly directed to the undermining of Sikhism both by preventing the children of Sikh fathers from taking Pahul and by reducing professed Sikhs from their allegiance to their faith. Hinduism has strangled Buddhism, once a formidable rival to it and it has already made serious inroads into the domain of Sikhism.³⁷

The practice of making their elder son a Khalsa was limited only to Punjabi Khatri and Arora families, who were Sehjdhari Sikhs (who have not taken Khande di Pahul). There is no evidence that any “Hindu” family on their own asked their children to become Sikhs. However, there are numerous examples of Hindus who adopted Sikhism on their own, like the renowned scholar Professor Sahib Singh, legendary Bhagat Puran Singh of Pingalwara (house for crippled) who dedicated his life to serve the homeless, orphans, cripples and invalids, and the veteran Akali leader Master Tara Singh. Master Tara Singh was inspired to become a Sikh from the heroic stories he heard in a local Gurdwara. But when he expressed his desire to become a Sikh, his father asked him to leave the house. His mother intervened and it is remarkable that under his influence all his brothers adopted Sikhism.

Contrary to this myth that Hindus used to “commit” their elder son to Sikhism, there is strong historical evidence that some high caste Hindus collaborated with Mughals in the extermination of Sikhs. The Rajput chiefs of Shivalik hills declared war on Guru Gobind Singh.³⁸ Khatris and Brahmans of Goindwal had a hand in the execution of Guru Arjan.³⁹ Diwan Sucha Nand advised the Subedar (governor) of Sirhind, Wazir Khan to execute the younger two sons of Guru Gobind Singh whereas the Muslim Nawab of Malerkotla pleaded for mercy for the young ones.⁴⁰ The upper caste Hindus emerged as the greatest beneficiaries of the Mughal-Sikh conflict, and developed a vested interest in it both for keeping their positions and influence in the Mughal government and carrying on their war against Sikhism. It was Zakariya Khan’s Diwan Lakhpat Rai who took a vow to eradicate Sikhs and Sikhism.⁴¹ Farrukh Siyar in 1716 issued an edict, fixing a price on the head of every Sikh. Hunting parties of Hindus led by Lakhpat Rai joined Mughal forces to destroy the Sikhs. The booty hunters were mainly Hindus like Chuhar Mal Ohri of Amritsar, Deva Chaudhary and his Brahman Diwan Har Sahai of Patti, Sahib Rai the Chaudhary of Naushera, Pahar Mal grandson of Raja Todar Mal, Karma of Chhina, Rama Randhawa of Talwandi, Sahib Rai Sandhu of Noshera Datta and Harbhagat of Jandiala and Massa Ranghar of Mandiala, a Muslim.⁴² Raj Kaul, son of Gangu Brahman who was at one time household servant of Guru Gobind Singh, was granted land near a nehar (canal) at Andha Mughal, a suburb of Delhi. He dropped Kaul as his last name and replaced it with Nehru (from nehr). His father Gangu betrayed Guru Gobind Singh’s mother and two younger sons and handed them over to Subedar Wazir Khan of Sirhind.⁴³

Moreover, in 1900 the Arya Samaj leaders reconverted some Rehatia Sikhs through a ceremony involving the shaving of their heads in public.⁴⁴Lala Lajpat Rai, and Sir Gokal Chand Narang the author of Transformation of Sikhism, who were born in Sehajdhari Sikh families turned out to be one of the most anti-Sikh and anti-Punjabi communalists after they joined the Arya Samaj movement.

8. “Their well-known abilities as agricultural cultivators as well as their categorisation by the British as the pinnacle of the ‘martial race’, paved the way for their preferential treatment by the Punjab administration in the form of land grant in fertile regions and low land revenue demands, particularly in the agriculture colonies.”⁴⁵

It is true that Sikhs did benefit from land grants in the “Canal Colonies” in western Punjab, but that was barren land that the farmers made productive with their blood and sweat. To suggest that the Brtish did it as a favour to Sikhs is a farce. The driving force to bring the barren lands under cultivation was for the economic benefit of the British imperialists; they were the primary beneficiaries. Does Jakobsh know that the British threw out of work millions of weavers in Bengal and throughout India by destroying the cottage industry by bringing in cheaper imports from British factories, and they created famine in Bengal by exporting rice from India to other parts of the empire? Besides, to cultivate barren lands they needed cultivators. Since vast majority of the Sikhs happened to be cultivators, they were given land to cultivate. Moreover, Hindu and Muslim cultivators were also given land in the same colonies.

It must be pointed out here that it was the farmers of “Canal Colonies” who revolted under the leadership of legendary Ajit Singh against high farm taxes, high water fees and the laws that the government passed to deprive the farmers of the rights of ownership to the land.

Finally, there is something unique about the Sikh farmers, which distinguishes them from Hindu farmers. Maybe it has to do with the corrosive and dehumanising effect of Brahmanism. Sikh Gurus liberated Sikhs from the shackles of Brahmanism. Here are two examples that illustrate my point. When the British proposed to the ruler of Bikaner (Rajasthan) to bring canal water from Punjab to his desert kingdom, he refused on the advice of Brahmans. The British took him to the canal colonies in Western Punjab to show him what water can do to his desert. He reluctantly agreed, but on the condition that most of the land in Sri Ganganagar area be allotted to Sikh farmers.⁴⁶ The second incidence is the experience of Sikh farmers who migrated to Haryana and U.P. after 1947. They were surprised that Haryana and U.P. farmer did not use iron or iron-tipped ploughshares. The reason was that iron tipped ploughshare could injure the oxen! They also did not cut Banyan and Pipal trees from their fields or chased wild cows and monkeys that destroyed crops. The huge Banyan and Pipal trees render large areas uncultivable, but it is sin for a Hindu farmer to cut them. And cows and monkeys are holy to the Hindus.⁴⁷

Besides, Sikhs have demonstrated their versatility as superior cultivators. They have brought the “green revolution” not only in Punjab, converting this food deficit area before 1947, into the breadbasket of India, but also made the desert bloom in Rajasthan and transformed the jungles of Tarai in U.P. into one of the most productive agricultural land in India. And they are equally thriving in the agricultural valleys of Argentina, Australia, British Columbia, California, and New Zealand.

9. In her discussion of the Singh Sabha Movement, Jakobsh can’t hold back her anti-Sikh feelings. She seems rather upset over why the Sikhs insist that they are not Hindus, why the Sikhs campaigned for the legal recognition of Sikh marriage ceremony (Anand Karaj). She reproduces all the abuses the Arya Samajists used against the Sikhs and their Gurus. She can’t help without twisting even a simple straightforward editorial advice to educators and students about the importance of good health and physical fitness. It is remarkable that in the very beginning of “education revolution” in 1890s, Sikhs were laying emphasis on physical education and sports by incorporating them into the curriculum of three R’s:

It is a matter of great concern for every Sikh, every government on the Indian soil and every apostle of peace to see any deterioration in the physique and hardiness of these sons of Mars. Handsome, brawny youth… come out of our school or college rooms with haggard look, sunken eyes, tottering frame and pale faces. … Hence for the Sikhs at least, the culture of intellect and development of brain and enrichment of mind alone are meaningless, absurd and detrimental to the true interests of the community as well as of the country. It is therefore the duty of the men of light and leading to insist upon adequate arrangements being made for the revival of our national games like gatka, riding, chaker throwing, wrestling and others. … The question is a common place one, on the surface, but a little thought will disclose its immense gravity and far reaching consequences, for the decay of physical vigour is the first sign of the death of a nation (from the Khalsa Advocate, 13 September 1913).⁴⁸

Jakobsh has totally twisted this editorial to fit into her obsession with “Sikh hypermasculinity:”

“Nonetheless, there were repeated concerns that Sikh men attending institutions of higher learning were in danger of losing their manly carriage. Insisting that Sikhs had distinct needs, being of a different breed from other Indians, calls were made to address this dilemma.”⁴⁹

10. Jakobsh says there was stiff opposition to the Singh Sabha movement from the peasantry in the countryside, especially by women who taunted the reformers:

“They become Singh Sabhas, when they can’t provide.”⁵⁰

She has attributed the interpretation of “Bun gai Singh Sabhiay, jaddon muk gai arrey de daney” and the insight of sexual innuendo of this proverb to Surjit Singh Hans of Punjabi University.⁵¹Not satisfied with his interpretation, she gives it a “Eurocentric feminine twist” by making it an expression of resentment by the voiceless and powerless women against male domination:

“The taunt has been closely associated with Punjab’s womenfolk. … In Sikh history, although barely perceptible, the taunt has tended to survive time as well as layers of male bias of history. … In the case of Sikh history, women’s taunts are sexualised; women taunt men for not being true men (Fenech 1996: 181).”⁵²

It is preposterous to suggest that the rural Sikhs, especially the women were opposed to the Tat Khalsa reformers. On the contrary, they were the backbone of the Tat Khalsa reformers. For example, in support of the Anand Marriage Bill in the Legislative Council introduced by Tikka Ripudaman Singh of Nabha, Tat Khalsa reformers mobilised the Sikh masses holding over 300 hundred public meetings and sent co-ordinated petitions carrying 700,000 signatures.⁵³ Besides, under the influence of Tat Khalsa reformers, almost all the Singh Sabha chapters broke their ties with the Amritsar Singh Sabha headed by Baba Khem Singh Bedi, consisting mostly of British toadies⁵⁴ and “Sanatan Sikhs” like Avtar Singh Vahiria, who was carrying out the false propaganda in cahoots with Hindu organisations that “couple married through Anand Karj rite would become brother and sister rather than husband and wife.”⁵⁵

This taunt has nothing to do with gender; it was a part of Hindu campaign of misinformation against Singh Sabha movement. Jakobsh has distorted the taunt to fit her views. The taunt that I have always heard and seen in writing is “Bun gia singh sabhia jaddon muk gae gharan de dane” (One becomes a Singh Sabha activist after running out of grains in the house.). In other words a poor man becomes Singh Sabha activist. She has changed “gharan de” to “arrey de”,¾from grains in the house to “grains” of man, (libido).

There was vigorous opposition to the Singh Sabha Movement from Punjabi Hindus and they did their level best to sabotage it. For example, as far back as June 1863 in the village of Khote there was a large gathering of Namdharis for an inter-caste marriage, but the village Brahmans protested and sought the help of Deputy Commissioner of Ferozepore to stop the weddings.⁵⁶ The Deputy Commissioner supported the Brahmnas not the Namdhari Sikhs. So it is abundantly clear that British did their level best to Hinduize Sikhism.

The Hindus vehemently opposed the Singh Sabha Movement, Anand Marriage Act (pp. 180-91) and the movement to liberate Gurdwaras from the control of the British and their henchmen¾mahants and pujaris.⁵⁷ They called the progeny of couples married by Anand ceremony as bastards.⁵⁸ They spread rumours about Singh Sabha throughout the Sikh population, especially in the countryside to mislead Sikh masses. They called Singh Sabha as “Singh safa,” safa being a reference to the rampart destruction by the plague epidemic of 1902.⁵⁹ On the other hand Sikhs regarded Singh Sabha as the destroyer (safa) of “all Brahmanical influence.” But Jokobsh is happy with the Hindu interpretation of safa. Arya Samajists and other anti-Sikhs forces joined hands in opposition to the Anand Marriage Act.⁶⁰

Here is another example how the Arya Samajist indulged in dirty tricks to mislead Sikhs. Lahore was the center for education in Punjab where the Arya Samajists had their college. However, they did not want the Sikhs to build a college in Lahore, as it would have taken away Sikh students, whom they wanted to brainwash against Sikhism. So they came up with a scheme to change the Sikh opinion in favour of building the college in Amritsar [Guru Ki Nagri (Guru’s city/town)] instead of Lahore, writes Ruchi Ram Sahni:

Now Bhagat Lakshman Singh became a strong protagonist of the Amritsar party. In fact it was his advocacy that led to the formation of a small party in favour of Guru Ki Nagri as the site of the chief educational institution of the Khalsa. Lakshman Singh used to write to the Tribune and other papers under the nom de plume of “A degenerate Sikh”. But the letters were really written by one of his near relations who was a leader of Arya Samaj. Lakhsman Singh little realized at the time what he was doing and was very sorry for it afterwards. He said he was carried away by his youthful enthusiasm for his faith. He must be in his teens at that time.

The second gentleman who appeared a little later was no other than a cousin of my own, Rai Bahadur Lala Lubdha Ram. He had been, he told me, in the thick of the plot himself. In 1893, my cousin and myself were occupying the same house at Lahore, where he had been lately posted as an executive Engineer in the railway department. He told me that some year earlier, half a dozen Arya Smajist formed a scheme to get a petition signed by thousands of “Sikhs” begging the Governor of the Province who was actively helping the Sikhs that the college should be located at Amritsar and not at Lahore. Thousands of foolscap signed sheets were circulated through an army of paid men all over north-western Panjab, each sheet bearing the same words to the effect: “I request that the Khalsa college be established at Guru Ki Nagri (Amritsar) and not Lahore.” The rest of the page was divided into two ruled columns, one for the names of the petitioners and the other for their address.

In this manner several lakhs of signature were said to have been obtained. These sheets were pasted together and then folded up into an impressive Roll. Men who go so far and put themselves to so much trouble and expense in getting up a memorial are not expected to leave things half done. The Roll was wrapped up in an expensive piece of silk and then carried in a palanquin to the Government House on the shoulders of four stalwart Sikhs.⁶¹

It must be pointed out here that it is the same Lakshman Singh whom she has quoted again and again as a source of information on Singh Sabha and Anand Marriage Act. Lakshman Singh was what Oberoi describes a “Sanatan Sikh.”

Besides, is there any reform movement in the world, which is not resisted and rejected by some people who are its target? Conservative and religious women in the United States used all sorts of derogatory names against the pioneers of “National Organisation of Women” like Betty Freidan and others. So it is expected that some Sikhs did deride the Tat Khalsa reformers but it has nothing to do with the sexual inadequacy of the reformers.

Finally, Jakobsh has stated that in 1881, Sikhs were the most uneducated⁶² community in Punjab, but she failed to disclose that in 1940 Sikhs were the most educated, especially women.⁶³. And this remarkable achievement of Sikhs was due to hard work, genius, insight and foresight of Tat Khalsa reformers whom she has represented as oppressive monsters who wanted to put Sikh women in a “cage with fettered feet.”

11. Jakobsh’s anti-Sikh feelings surfaced in the open from her stance, tenor and tone when she discusses Singh Sabha Movement and the Anand Marriage Act (chapters 5-7). Her thesis is the study of the development of gender identity in Sikh history, but she is unwilling even to accept that Sikhs are not Hindus. She does not understand why the “Tat Khalsa” reformers asserted that Sikhs are not Hindus and wanted the Anand Marriage ceremony to be legally recognised? Or why they launched a vigorous campaign to liberate the Sikh masses from ignorance, superstition and Brahmanical beliefs and practices? Or why they challenged the so-called “Sanatan Sikhs” who were saying that Sikhs are Hindus? It is too much for her to swallow the overwhelming support “Tat Khalsa” reformers enjoyed in the Sikh community and she is really upset over their successes in getting rid of Brahmanical influence among the Sikhs. She seems to be so upset that to console herself, she relishes using the abuses the Arya Samajists were hurling at Sikhs during the Singh Sabha campaign for the enactment of Anand Marriage Act and the liberation of Gurdwaras from the control of the British and their henchmen. She relishes calling Sikh Children of Anand marriages as haramzadas (illegitimate).⁵⁸ How could any decent woman, not to speak of a women specialising in “women studies” and concerned with women rights, rejoice in calling another woman’s child as illegitimate? To get even with “hypermasculine” Tat Khalsa, she makes no reference to Gurdwrara reform movements in which peaceful Sikh volunteers were mercilessly beaten and shot by the British officials and the police: During this five years of the non-violent Akali movement 400 died, 2,000 were wounded and 30,000 men and women were jailed. She has simply dismissed it as an aggression on the part of Tat Khalsa reformers on the poor mahants who were the legal owners of gurdwaras:

By and large mahants were not members of the Khalsa orders, many completely rejected the outward Khalsa symbols. Given Tat Khalsa endeavours to unify Sikh identity markers and practices, mahants had long proved a source of irritation and dismay for the reformers. Yet mahants were legally in position of power due to their historic association with the shrines they maintained. They were, however, increasingly denigrated as representing the worst of Hinduized Sikhism and as definite obstacles to Sikh interests. Ultimately, Tat Khalsa reformers came to see the fruits of their intense labours against these custodians. In 1925, the Sikh Gurdwara Act was legislated; with this Act, control of Sikh shrines was arrested away from the ‘old’ orthodoxy¾mahants and Sanatan Sikhs who were represented by guru lineages¾ and placed under the jurisdiction of the ‘new’ orthodoxy.⁶⁴

Not satisfied with her belittling of the Gurdwara reform movement she goes on to eulogise Swami Dayanand, his teachings and the Arya Samaj movement⁶⁵ and, attributes the success of Tat Khalsa reformers to the tactics they learned from Christian missionaries⁶⁶and Arya Samajists.⁶⁷

References

1. Doris R. Jakobsh. Relocating Gender In Sikh History: Transformation, Meaning and Identity. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2003, p. 96.

2. Harjot Oberoi. The Construction of Religious Boundaries: Culture, Identity and Diversity in the Sikh Tradition. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1994, p. 316.

3. Sangat Singh. The Sikhs In History. New Delhi: Uncommon Books, 4th edition, 2001, pp. 140-146.

4. Ruchi R. Sahni. Struggle For Reform In Sikh Shrines (Ganda Singh Ed.). Amritsar: Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC), pp. 243-244.

5. J. S. Grewal. The Sikh Of The Punjab. New Delhi: Cambridge University Press, 1994, p. 146.

6. Ibid., p. 146.

7. Ibid., p. 146.

8. Ibid., pp. 146-147.

9. Sangat Singh. The Sikhs In History. New Delhi: Uncommon Books, 4th edition, 2001, pp. 139-140, 146, 155, 160.

10. Hazara Singh. Lala Lajpat Rai: An Appraisal. Ludhiana: Hazara Singh, 2003, inserts of photographs.

11. Gurbakhash Singh Kala Afghana. Bipran Ki Reet Ton Sach Da Marg. Vol. 4 (Punjabi). Amritsar: Sri Akal Sahai Society, 1998, pp. 259-94.

12. Doris R. Jakobsh. Relocating Gender In Sikh History: Transformation, Meaning and Identity. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2003, p. 67.

13. T. S. Dupalpur. “Chum Dia Jutian Chlaun vale (Punjabi).” Sikh Virsa, 2006, 11(121), pp. 44-46.

14. Doris R. Jakobsh. Relocating Gender In Sikh History: Transformation, Meaning and Identity. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2003, p. 63.

15. Ibid., p, 63.

16. Ibid., p. 103.

17. Ibid., pp. 127-128.

18. Sangat Singh. The Sikhs In History. New Delhi: Uncommon Books, 4th edition, 2001, p. 162.

19. Ibid., pp. 153-154.

20. Doris R. Jakobsh. Relocating Gender In Sikh History: Transformation, Meaning and Identity. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2003, p. 58.

21. Ibid., p. 73.

22. Ibid., p. 60.

23. Ibid., p. 59.

24. Ibid., p. 166.

25. Ibid., p. 79.

26. Ibid., p. 110.

27. J. S. Grewal. The Sikh Of The Punjab. New Delhi: Cambridge University Press, 1994, pp. 140-141.

28. Ibid., p. 141.

29. Sangat Singh. The Sikhs In History. New Delhi: Uncommon Books, 4th edition, 2001, pp. 574-575.

30. Ibid., pp. 135-136.

31. J. S. Grewal. The Sikh Of The Punjab. New Delhi: Cambridge University Press, 1994, pp. 141-144.

32. Doris R. Jakobsh. Relocating Gender In Sikh History: Transformation, Meaning and Identity. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2003, p. 87.

33. Ibid., pp. 115-116.

34. Ibid., p. 90.

35. Sangat Singh. The Sikhs In History. New Delhi: Uncommon Books, 4th edition, 2001, pp. 384-385.

36. Doris R. Jakobsh. Relocating Gender In Sikh History: Transformation, Meaning and Identity. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2003, p. 163.

37. Kapur Singh. Sachi Sakhi (Punjabi). Amritsar: Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC), 1993, pp. 69-70.

38. Sangat Singh. The Sikhs In History. New Delhi: Uncommon Books, 4th edition, 2001, pp. 66-80.

39. Ibid., pp. 26-27.

40. Ibid., p. 76.

41. Gokul C. Narang. Transformation Of Sikhism. New Delhi: New Book Society of India, 5th edition, 1960, pp. 124-125.

42. Sangat Singh. The Sikhs In History. New Delhi: Uncommon Books, 4th edition, 2001, pp. 93-101.

43. Ibid., p. 94.

44. J. S. Grewal. The Sikh Of The Punjab. New Delhi: Cambridge University Press, 1994, p. 146.

45. Doris R. Jakobsh. Relocating Gender In Sikh History: Transformation, Meaning and Identity. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2003, p. 85.

46. The author heard this story from Sikh farmers of Sri Ganganagar and author’s own wife’s grandfather who was one of the earliest settlers there.

47. The author heard these stories from Sikh farmers who settled in Haryana and U.P. after 1947.

48. Doris R. Jakobsh. Relocating Gender In Sikh History: Transformation, Meaning and Identity. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2003, pp. 139-140.

49. Ibid., p. 139.

50. Ibid., p. 139.

51. Ibid., p. 177.

52. Ibid., p. 139.

53. Ibid., p. 153.

54. Ibid., p. 98.

55. Harjot Oberoi. The Construction of Religious Boundaries: Culture, Identity and Diversity in the Sikh Tradition. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1994, p. 386.

56. Doris R. Jakobsh. Relocating Gender In Sikh History: Transformation, Meaning and Identity. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2003, p. 112.

57. Sangat Singh. The Sikhs In History. New Delhi: Uncommon Books, 4th edition, 2001, pp. 166-169.

58. Doris R. Jakobsh. Relocating Gender In Sikh History: Transformation, Meaning and Identity. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2003, pp. 180, 188.

59. Ibid., p. 176.

60. J. S. Grewal. The Sikh Of The Punjab. New Delhi: Cambridge University Press, 1994, p. 151.

61. Ruchi R. Sahni. Struggle For Reform In Sikh Shrines (Ganda Singh Ed.) Amritsar: Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC), pp. 26-27.

62. Doris R. Jakobsh. Relocating Gender In Sikh History: Transformation, Meaning and Identity. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2003, p. 92.

63. Ruchi R. Sahni. Struggle For Reform In Sikh Shrines (Ganda Singh Ed.). Amritsar: Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC), p. 90.

64. Doris R. Jakobsh. Relocating Gender In Sikh History: Transformation, Meaning and Identity. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2003, pp. 230-231.

65. Ibid., pp. 94-95, 119-122, 247-248.

66. Ibid., p. 98.

67. Ibid., pp. 122, 147, 239.

Previous Chapter | Table of Contents | Next Chapter

Print this Article Email this Article Comment on this Article