|
|
|
|
|
||
Chapter 3
Who is Interpreting Aad Guru Granth Sahib?
Generally,
scholars are very cautious and careful in using information that is beyond
the pale of their expertise. However, Jakobsh solves this problem by making a
terse disclaimer: “Let me point out that I am not a scripture scholar. I have
heavily relied on the contribution of scripture scholars from the discipline of
Sikh studies.”1 She uses unreliable second and third hand
information to suit her preconceived notion that Sikh theology is anti-women.
From G.S. Talib’s2 Brahmanical and “literal and incorrect” English translation,
she has gleaned less than two dozens verses out of a total of 5,894 verses of
AGGS.3
Without
checking the veracity of meaning/interpretation of these verses with experts,
she argues that bias against women started with Guru Nanak and it became stronger with his successors until it
reached its climax with the emergence of “hypermasculine Khalsa.” It is not
surprising that she has either distorted or misinterpreted or used the literal
translation or interpreted the verses out of context to suit her preconceived
notion that Sikh Gurus were biased against women. One wonders at the identity
of those “scripture scholars from the discipline of Sikh studies” whom she had
consulted! The quality and integrity of Talib’s translation is demonstrated by
the following two examples, one literal and the other Brahmanical:
“In that sphere abide numberless heroines
like Sita of surpassing praise and beauty indescribable.”
AGGS,
Jap 37, p. 8.
“sito sita” means stitched together (one with God), not Sita the wife of Rama Chandra, son of King Dasratha.
Jakobsh
has utilized this type of translation to accuse Sikh Gurus of harboring
anti-woman feelings, as illustrated by the following examples:
1. Criticizing Nikki-Guninder Singh’s (professor of religion at Colby College, Maine) The Feminine Principle in the Sikh Vision of the Transcendent, Jakobsh asserts, “The Ultimate in Sikh scripture was most often conceived in masculine terms, as Akal Purkh, Karta Purkh.”4
Here Jakobsh exhibits gross ignorance of the Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat) by making this ludicrous statement. The Sikh Gurus did not assign any gender or name to God, Who is described as “One and Only,” represented by a “special symbol” in Gurmukhi script in the very beginning of AGGS (numeral one and open Ura with an extended curved arm). Akal Purkh and Karta Purkh are attributes of God described in the “Commencing Verse” as well as throughout the AGGS: Akal (Timeless), Purkh (Transcendent, the One who pervades everywhere) and Karta (Creator). Besides, God described in the AGGS is gender neutral, both man and woman:
God
is both man and woman.
AGGS, M 1, p. 1020.
You are my
father, You are my mother, You are my relative and You are my brother.
AGGS, M 5, p. 103.
Further in the AGGS, the creative aspect of God is portrayed as that of
a mother:
God takes care of Its
creation (world of life) the way mother nurtures her children.
AGGS, M 5, p. 105.
It is God who created the
world from within Itself, not anyone else.
AGGS, M 1, p. 905.
Furthermore, it is remarkable that in the bani (sacred hymns) of the AGGS there are roughly 100 verses
starting with the word “mother” whereas the hymns starting with the word
“father” number about nineteen. This is quite amazing considering the corrosive
patriarchal culture millieu of Guru’s time when the mention of women was absent
in public discourse and she was looked down upon as an impediment in the path
of spiritual growth of man.
2. Continuing, Jakobsh says: ”Yet numerous passages in the scripture
associate woman with maya, that which
is sensual as opposed to spiritual.”5
Both Jakobsh and McLeod have used Hindu concept of Maya in their
interpretations, not the way Sikh Gurus used it in the AGGS. The word Maya occurs so frequently in the AGGS that there are
about 215 verses that begin with this word. Maya in the AGGS does not mean
illusion or the unreality of the physical world. According to Guru Nanak, world
is real, as it is the creation of the True One:
This world is the abode of the True One, Who resides in it.
AGGS,
M 1, p. 463.
It is for the gurmukh (God-centered being) that the True One has fashioned this Earth.
AGGS,
M 1, p. 941.
AGGS,
M 1, p. 1033.
Liberation (mukti) from ignorance and falsehood is
possible while performing worldly duties, fulfilling worldly needs and enjoying
worldly pleasures:
When one understands the True Guru (God),
the objective of life is fulfilled. One is liberated (becomes a sachiara/gurmukh, one with God) while
laughing, playing, eating good food and wearing good clothes.
AGGS, M 5, p. 522.
That is why
Guru Nanak denounced ascetic life and celibacy and proclaimed householder life as
the “proper way” for the realization of God. Moreover, in the AGGS, the
relationship between God and human beings is depicted in the imagery of family
life, God as husband and human being as wife. Unlike other religions, God,
according to Guru Nanak, is the center of family life with the attributes of
father, mother, husband, relative, sibling and friend.
According
to Nanakian philosophy, Maya is the corrupting influence of the world that
alienates humankind from God: “Whosoever is afflicted by duality is the slave
of Maya. Intoxicated with Maya one is vain and mean, thereby getting away from
God. Maya is that which causes humans to forget God through attachment.”7
Maya
is that which makes a human being forget God and creates attachment resulting
in a sense of duality.
AGGS,
M 3, p. 921.
Maya is Haumai and its progeny of five: Kam (lust, sexual drive),
Kroadh (anger), Lobh (covetousness, economic drive), Moh (attachment) and Ahankar (pride with arrogance). The five drives/instincts are responsible for the corruption of morals and the development of criminal behavior. Behind all human problems from individual suffering to bloody international conflicts is the invisible fire of Haumai fueled by these five elements. That is why in the AGGS the Gurus warn us again and again not to yield to the pressure/temptations of - Kam, Kroadh, Lobh, Moh and Ahankar, and to live a life of restraint and modesty:
The whole world is deceived by the “five drives/instincts,” but the ignorant
self-centered person (manmukh) does not understand this fact. AGGS,
M 3, p. 113.
O yogi! Make your Aee Panth (a sect of yogis) universal brotherhood, and subdue your mind to conquer the worldly temptations.
AGGS, Jap 28, p. 6.
Nanak surrenders to God and prays for guidance to overcome the deleterious effects of lust, anger, greed, attachment and “pride with arrogance.”
AGGS, M 5, p. 269. It needs to be pointed out
here that the renowned psychoanalyst, Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) proposed his
dual theory to account for the instinctual aspects of our mental lives, by the
existence of two drives: sexual and aggressive.8 One drive gives rise to the erotic component of
mental activities, while the other gives rise to the purely destructive
component. Freud further assumes that the two drives are regularly “fused”
though not in equal amounts. Thus even the most callous act of intentional
cruelty that seems on the surface to satisfy nothing but some aspect of the
aggressive drive, still has some unconscious sexual gratification. In the same
way there is no act of lovemaking, however tender, which does not
simultaneously provide an unconscious means of discharge to the aggressive
drive. On the other hand, Guru Nanak (1469-1539)
proposed Haumai and five drives/instincts
-- Kam (lust, sexual drive), Kroadh (anger), Lobh (covetousness, economic drive), Moh (attachment) and
Ahankar (pride with arrogance) that
control human behavior. Then what is Haumai?
It has been translated as pride, ego, egotism, I-ness and self-centeredness,
but these words are inadequate to describe it fully. Guru Nanak says that all
human activity from birth to death is under the control of Haumai unless one submits to God’s Hukam (Divine Law, Cosmic Law):
One comes in Haumai and goes in Haumai. One is born in Haumai and one dies in Haumai. … Haumai is Maya and its influence. The whole world of life is created with innate Haumai.
AGGS, M 1, p. 466.
Holy one, how is the world of life created and how could its suffering be eliminated? Holy one, the world of life is created with innate Haumai and alienation from God causes suffering.
AGGS, M 1, p. 946.
According to Guru Nanak, all forms of life have innate
capability (capacity/driving force/instinct) to survive in the environment in
which they evolve and he calls it Haumai.
So Haumai is an innate capability,
which is essential for the survival of life. However, unlike other forms of
life, human beings are also endowed with innate superior intellect and power of
reasoning. Whereas other forms of life live in harmony with Hukam (Divine Law, Cosmic Law) according
to predetermined instincts (Haumai),
human beings due to superior intellect and power of reasoning, get alienated
from God, thus making them “self-centered (manmukhs)”
under the control of Haumai. And it
is Haumai that produces the five
drives/instincts: Kam, Kroadh, Lobh, Moh and Ahankar:
Other living beings are at your (human being) service and you are their leader in this world.
AGGS, M 5, p. 374.
The Creator creates mankind and lets it free to do as it wills. But how it is accomplished, only the Creator knows.
AGGS, M 1, p. 932.
The Creator fashions human body from the earthly elements and by some method endows it with life, wisdom and discerning intellect.
AGGS, M 5, p. 913. With this crucial understanding of Maya and Haumai described
above, let us now look at the verses cited and misinterpreted by Jakobsh: It is absurd for Jakobsh to suggest: ”Yet numerous passages
in the scripture associate woman with Maya, that which is sensual as opposed to
spiritual”5 when God Itself is
described as “mother” repeatedly and both as progenitrix and progenitor in the
AGGS. Jakobsh has cited the following verses from pages 41 and 796 of AGGS and
their true meaning is altogether different from what she has quoted above from
Talib’s “literal and incorrect” translation:
Hey brother, my real friend and companion is God. Attachment to son and wife (family) poisons my relationship with God. In the end none is of any help except God.
AGGS, M 4, p. 41. Attachment to family or any other material thing makes us
forget God. Being one with God is the objective of human life in Nanakian
philosophy. In the couplet cited above, Guru Ram Das advises against family
attachment. How often people commit crimes and break laws for the sake of their
families? It is a warning against that type of attachment when people misplace
sense of right and wrong in the interest of their family. A Sikh as a
householder is obligated to take care of his/her family and fulfill family
needs within the constraint of an ethical life. Jakobsh needs to ask herself
how she construed this verse being a put-down of woman when son is mentioned
before wife in the same verse. There are other verses by Guru Ram Das wherein
the same message is imparted about father and brother. Moreover, AGGS is
composed in poetry, not all the expected thoughts could be included in a single
verse due to the constraints of rhyme and rhythm:
Mother, father, son, brother and friend are of no avail in the end except God.
AGGS, M 4, p. 1318. Now let us examine the other two verses from page 796 of
AGGS, misinterpreted by her:
The attachment to Maya is like the love of a sexually loose woman, a bad woman given to casting spells.
AGGS, M 1, p. 796. How could any reasonable person interpret this couplet as a
slur on womankind? In every civilized society, sexual immorality of man or
woman is condemned. Additionally, the debauchery and other immoral acts of men
are condemned again and again in the AGGS. 3. “Further, women are exalted when obedient and subservient
as wives to their divine husbands and men are ridiculed when they are not
dominant.”9
Men
obedient to their womenfolk,
This is grotesquely “literal and incorrect” translation of
the following three verses, as it does not make any sense.
Manmukhs (self-centered men) controlled by Haumai (jora) commit bad deeds daily to satisfy their Haumai.
Such men who follow the command of Haumai are depraved, stupid and devoid of wisdom. Lustful (womanizer) and dishonest men follow
the dictates of Haumai.
AGGS, M 4, p. 304. The above three verses are from a stanza of five verses and
all of them are about manmukhs, men
whose actions are controlled by Haumai.
A manmukh is the opposite of gurmukh (God-centered being). Here,
there is no reference to exalted wives or divine husbands. Jakobsh has further twisted the “literal and incorrect”
translation by Talib to malign Guru Ram Das. 4. Continuing with the criticism of Nikki-Guninder Kaur Singh,
she says:
Nikki-Guninder Kaur Singh is also very much in line with this principle of accommodation in her analysis of goddess Durga in the writings of Guru Gobind Singh. She critiques the way many Sikh historians and writers have attempted to distance the Guru from passages celebrating Durga, striving to show that they were not actually written by Gobind Singh but by Hindu elements in his entourage.
She describes this distancing as a ‘not fully conscious fear of “female power”’(Singh, N. K. 1993:123). Instead she insists that Guru Gobind Singh’s incorporation of the deity is indicative of the positive Sikh attitude towards the feminine, though these instances cannot be understood as goddess worship. Accentuating the continuity of the gurus within the Sikh tradition, Singh attempts to accommodate the writings of tenth guru and the clear rejection by the earlier gurus of goddess within Sikh sacred scripture, particularly with regard to the following verse:
Whoever worships the Great Mother
First of all, the passages celebrating goddess Durga are
from Dasam Granth. I have pointed out in chapter 6 of this manuscript that the mahants (priests in-charge of a shrine) of Takhat Patna prepared the Dasam Granth at the behest of the East India Company. Secondly, Nikki-Guninder Kaur Singh’s idea that Guru Gobind
Singh wrote these passages (Chandi Di Var)
celebrating Durga is a reflection of the deplorable health of Sikh scholarship
in general and academia in particular. Thirdly, the Gurus are not the authors
of the verses cited above. They are from the following stanza of Bhagat Namdev:
If one worships Bhairo (dreadful incarnation of Shiva), one becomes bhoot (evil spirit). If one worships the goddess of small pox, one rides a donkey like her covered with a cloud of dust. I meditate only on the Beautiful One, God. I will exchange all your gods for God. Pause. Anyone, who worships Shiva, rides a bull, beating a tambourine. A man who worships Parvati (great mother) shall be born as a woman. You say Bhawani (goddess Durga) is the source of all power, but where does she hide when her devotees ask for deliverance? My dear friend, Namdev appeals to you to seek shelter in God, that is the right way to praise God.
AGGS, Namdev, p. 874.
In this stanza Bhagat Namdev advises a Brahman/priest in a satirical
humour that the maximum reward one can achieve by worshipping gods and
goddesses is to become like them (one could become what one worships is a Hindu
belief). So a man who worships the great mother (goddess) could expect to be
incarnated as a woman. Again let me emphasize the point: Bhagat Namdev is
speaking to his audience who understand the context of Hindu worship and
imagery of which Jakobsh has no idea or clue! 5. Jakobsh asks: “Why did monotheism attempt to get rid of the goddess?
Could it have anything to do with androcentrism and patriarchy?”11 Here Jakobsh shows-off her ignorance of Indian history and religions.
Even today many millions of Hindus worship the great “goddess.” Goddess is and
was the favourite deity among the Rajputs (Kshatriyas). These same men were
once supposed to defend India and the Hindu Dharma. Instead, during the Muslim
onslaught, they submitted without putting much resistance and, during the Mughal
rule they offered their daughters en-masse to Mughals whom they regarded as malesha (unclean, polluted). 6. Continuing with her criticism of Nikki-Guninder Kaur Singh, Jakobsh
says: In the Durga mythology of the Dasam
Granth, Sikhs have the goddess in their midst. To draw an unrealistically
rigid line between the recognition of Durga’s literary merit and actual homage
to the goddess is to miss an opportunity to explore how and why a system did
away with the feminine which was so obviously and critically integrated into
early Sikh tradition.12
First of all, here Jakobsh is contradicting what she said
earlier: “clear rejection by the earlier gurus of goddess within Sikh sacred
scripture.”10 Second, she has
raised this question without even studying AGGS or Dasam Granth. She is unaware
of the fact that the writings of Dasam Granth contradict the fundamental
principles of Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat) as enshrined in the AGGS. She does
not know that AGGS does not assign any gender to God. She is also unaware of
the fact that Guru Nanak rejected all earlier religious traditions including
the worship of gods and goddesses.
The concept of “one God” was known before Guru Nanak but that “one God” is nothing more than a tribal god, an exclusive god, which has caused balkanization and disintegration of mankind. In addition to the millions of gods, Hindus also believe in a God who communicates only through the Brahmans and then there is a God for the chosen people, the Jews. Christian God is approachable only through his only son Jesus Christ. For the Muslim, Mohammed is the last and final in a long line of Prophets of Allah (God) and they claim that theirs is the only true prophetic religion. For Guru Nanak the Creator is “One and Only” and Its creation, mankind is also one: Attachment
to progeny, wife is poison,
None
of these at the end is of any avail. (Adi Granth, p. 41)
Maya
attachment is like a loose woman,
A bad
woman, given to casting spells. (AG, p. 796)
Are impure, filthy, stupid,
Man lustful, impure, their womenfolk counsel follow.(AG, p. 304)9
Shall though man, be incarnate as woman.(AG, p. 874)10
My Master is One. It is One, hey brother! It is One.
AGGS, M 1, p. 350.
“The One is in
all and all are in One” that is what the True Guru (God) has made me
understand.
AGGS, M 1, p. 907.
It is God’s light that is in all. Its brightness enlightens all.
AGGS, M 1, p. 663.
Nanak understands that the True Guru (God) brings all together.
AGGS, M 1, p. 72.
The
compatible thoughts of many Indian sages of diverse background with
Nanakian philosophy are incorporated in the AGGS. However, there are no direct
quotes from the texts of Semitic and Hindu religions, as these religions are
based on the concept of an “exclusive God”:
Neither the Vedas (four Hindu texts) nor the four Katebs [Semitic texts: the Torah, the Zabur (Psalms), the Injil (Gospel), and the Quran] know the mystery of the Creator.
AGGS, M 1, p. 1021.
It is the teachings of
Vedas, which has created the myths of sin and virtue, hell and heaven, and
karma and transmigration. One reaps the reward in the next life for the deeds
performed in this life¾goes to hell or
heaven according to the deeds. The Vedas have also created the fallacy of
inequality of caste and gender for the world.
The Merciful One is the only Emancipator (Maula), not the holy men (pir and sheikh), or Prophet. The Master of every heart, Who delivers justice, is beyond the description of the Quran and other Semitic texts.
AGGS, M 5, p. 897.
A gurmukh (God-centered being) learns through knowledge of Word (Divine knowledge, Truth) that the Almighty, Who is omnipresent, is not Shiva or Gorakh or Brahma or Parvati (the wife of Shiva).
AGGS, Jap 5, p. 2.
Ram
bewailed in exile when he was separated from Sita and Lachman. Even the Pandvas
who lived in the company their master (Lord Krishna) cried when they were
forced to do hard labor in destitution.
AGGS,
M 1, p. 953.
Brahma,
Vishnu and Shiva are afflicted with self-centeredness (Haumai) as the rest of the world. Only those are free from this
affliction who realize God through the Word (Truth).
AGGS,
M 1, p. 1153.
I
have searched many Shastars and Simrtis, they do not show the way to
God, but contemplation on God is invaluable.
AGGS,
M 5, p. 265.
Many
a Brahma got tired of studying Vedas, but they could not estimate even an iota
of God’s greatness. Ten incarnations of Vishnu and the famous ascetic Shiva,
who got tired of smearing his body with ashes, could not fathom God’s extent.
AGGS,
M 5, p. 747.
Hey brother, why worship idols of gods and goddesses, what can you ask of them and what can they give to you? What is the use of washing stones (statues of gods/goddesses), which themselves drown in water?
AGGS, M 1, p. 637.
7. Jakobsh
talks about “Sikh tradition” without even mentioning once, what does it mean?
And what is the source of Sikh tradition? She says: “How and why a system did
away with the feminine which was so obviously and critically integrated into
early Sikh tradition.”12
She is saying
that Sikhs used to worship Durga during the time of Gurus without providing any
evidence. She is not aware of the sacred hymns of the Gurus against the worship
of gods and goddesses. Nor she knows anything about the tradition of writing
hymns by the Gurus. It is preposterous on her part to assume that Guru Gobind
Singh authored the celebrated passages adoring Durga due to the following
reasons.
First, all of Guru Nanak’s successors (second to fifth and the ninth) whose banis (sacred hymns) constitute the bulk of the AGGS, wrote their banis under the name of “Nanak” whereas the banis attributed to Guru Gobind Singh are under his name which is against the tradition of his predecessors. Why would Guru Gobind Singh break the tradition?
Second, when Guru Arjan compiled the Adi Granth in 1604, he also incorporated his own bani in it. Similarly, the ninth Guru Teg Bahadur, father of Guru Gobind Singh added his bani to a copy of the Adi Granth. Why didn’t Guru Gobind Singh do the same?
Third, if
Guru Gobind Singh wrote Dasam Granth, then what did he do with it
afterwards? What did he want the Sikhs
to do with Dasam Granth? We know for sure that before his death, Guru
Gobind Singh in his infinite wisdom invested Guruship jointly on the Damdami Bir (final version of Adi
Granth) and the corporate body of the
Sikh community. This is how the Sikh scripture came to be known as “Guru
Granth.” If Dasam Granth had any importance for the Sikhs, why did not Guru
Gobind Singh issue any instructions to the Sikhs? As already pointed out, Dasam Granth was prepared under the influence of
British imperialists to subvert Sikh theology by creating dichotomy between
Guru Gobind Singh and his predecessors. Jakobsh should know that.
8. Here is
Jakobsh’s grotesque interpretation of Grewal’s translation of Guru Nanak’s
celebrated passage extolling womankind:
However, procreation, the
procreation of sons, specifically, was central to Nanak’s vision of the ideal
woman. An oft-quoted verse, supposedly indicative of Guru Nanak’s positive
evaluation of womanhood, points to an appreciation of woman only vis-à-vis the
procreative process.13
We are conceived in the woman’s womb and we
grow in it. We are engaged to women and we wed them. Through the woman’s
cooperation new generations are born. If one woman dies, we seek another;
without the woman there can be no bond. Why call her bad who gives birth to
rajas. The woman herself is born of woman, and none comes into this world
without woman; Nanak, the true one alone is independent of the woman (Adi
Granth, quoted in Grewal, 1993:5).14
What seems to be a rather straightforward
positive comment, Jakobsh interprets this as:
Guru Nanak’s stance towards women as
mentioned in this passage was strikingly similar to that of the writer of Brhaspatismrti, written in the fourth
century CE, albeit from within a different context. The earlier writer
questioned the inconsistencies in the inheritance rights of daughters and sons.
These two were based upon the same notion later advocated by Nanak: ‘A daughter
is born from the [the same] human bodies as does a son. Why then should the
father’s wealth be taken by another person’ (Aiyanger 1941, cited in Bose
1996:3).
While Guru Nanak’s words have been lauded as
slogan of female emancipation for women in the Sikh tradition, they had more to
do with the rejection of prevailing notions of ritual purity and support of the
social hierarchy of the time. For women gave birth to sons, especially those of noble birth; how
then could they be considered ritually impure? The birthing of sons was the
most elevated of aspirations; sons were avenues to fulfillment and the fervent
wish of any woman during Indo-Islamic times. Thus, Guru Nanak’s challenge, in
referring to the contemporary hierarchical order, one which placed rajahs at
the top of that order, also indicated his support of the dominant social and
political order of his time.15
May I ask: What has gone wrong with Jakobsh?
Here her interpretation is a flagrant distortion of Guru Nanak’s hymn extolling
womankind. I guess not if Grewal shares her views, as I have no access to
Grewal’s Guru Nanak and Patriarchy.
Jakobsh’s citing of Brhaspatismrti (one of the Hindu law books) imparts an impression
as if “Brihaspati” stood on an equal footing with Guru Nanak as a true humanist
in his revolutionary ideas. Nothing could be further from truth. With her two
secondary or even tertiary references to Brhaspatismrti,
and recognizing Jakobsh as an untrustworthy scholar, I thought it was time to
check Brhaspatismrti. Little was I
surprised at the contents and I share some of those with the readers.16 Even though I dispute what Jakobsh has
written, I myself wouldn’t mind accepting it at face value if indeed the author
of Brhaspatismrti questioned the
unfairness in the inheritance rights of daughters and sons. It is great and
admirable if someone raised a voice about the property rights of daughters long
before Nanak’s time. After all, Guru Nanak’s fifth successor, Guru Arjan
honored sages of diverse backgrounds from different regions of the sub-continent,
who stood for justice and equality for all, by incorporating their views in the
Sikh scripture. But the point of discussion here is: What was the status of
woman in the Indian society during Guru Nanak’s time? Both Hindu and Muslim religious texts and
Indian history of that period indicate that women were at the lowest totem pole
of the social hierarchy. Moreover, women were persecuted and despised, as
Jakobsh herself acknowledges “Kabir’s attitude
towards women was similar to that of yogis in that he too viewed women as
seductive, as tempting men away from their true calling.”17
So much so that woman was relegated to a worn-out shoe of man. And this
expression is still in usage in the Indian languages and movies. It was this pathetic condition of women to
which Guru Nanak responded in this hymn under discussion. Guru Nanak poured out
his concern and sympathy and declared his solidarity with women:
Women have lost their vitality and become submissive and men have become brutal. Politeness, soberness (self-control) and sincerity have banished and dishonest living has become the way of life. The sense of shame and honor has disappeared from the society. Nanak, only the One is True, do not look for another one.
AGGS, M 1, p. 1243. In the passage distorted by Jakobsh, Guru
Nanak declares that woman is the hub of humanity¾the lifeline of humanity. It
is she who conceives, it is she who nurtures humanity from birth to death. Both
Hinduism and Islam sanction the inferior and subservient role of woman and, in
both religions it is the ruler who is the protector of religion. Guru Nanak
reprimands the rajas (rulers) for the ill treatment of woman because as the
defender of faith, they were the enforcers of religious rules and regulations
that discriminate against women. That is why in a rhetorical way Guru Nanak
asks, “How could those who give birth to such rulers (rajas) be considered
inferior?” Moreover, Nanak placed woman at the apex of “human evolution” by
declaring that only God is independent of woman. To bring home Guru Nanak’s
message to the rigid, oppressive and corrosive patriarchal society, Guru Amar
Das declared gender equality in a forceful way:
In this world there is one “Man,” the rest are women.
AGGS, M 3, p. 591. As discussed earlier, Guru Nanak neither
assigned any specific name, or gender to God, nor he passed on the leadership
of the Sikh community to either of his two sons. Besides, according to Guru
Nanak, the process of procreation is subject to Hukam (Cosmic Law) of the Creator, not controlled by woman as
implied by Jakobsh: The infinite Creator has fashioned
human body with beautiful countenance from father's semen and mother’s blood
(eggs). AGGS, M 1, p. 1022.
Mother and father create a child through sexual union according to the Hukam (Cosmic Law) of the Creator.
AGGS, M 1, p. 989. Therefore, it is preposterous for anyone to suggest: “Procreation, the
procreation of sons, specifically, was central to Nanak’s vision of the ideal
woman. An oft-quoted verse, supposedly indicative of Guru Nanak’ positive
evaluation of womanhood, points to an appreciation of woman only vis-à-vis the
procreative process.” Further, to suggest that Guru Nanak “supported the contemporary
hierarchical order, one which placed rajas at the top of that order” is equally
absurd and scurrilous. While the custodians of
Christianity were investing despots with “divine rights” and the Hindu elite
was prostrating and singing paeans to bigoted and tyrant Muslim rulers, Ishwaro va Dillishwaro va (the king of
Delhi is as great as God), Guru Nanak denounced them, their
administrators and their allies in no uncertain terms. He called for the
establishment of a just rule:
The rulers are like hungry lions and their officials as wild dogs, who harass and persecute the innocent subjects.
AGGS, M 1, p. 1288.
Even if I were to live under blood-sucking rulers, I will love and glorify God and would continuously do so tirelessly. In other words, I will not waver from the path of righteousness.
AGGS, M 1, p. 142.
There is no other king, except the Almighty.
AGGS, M 1, p. 936.
There is one Throne and one King.
AGGS, M 1, p. 1188.
Only a gurmukh (God-centered being) deserves to occupy the throne, who has control over -- lust, anger, greed, attachment and pride with arrogance.
AGGS, M 1, p. 1039.
Commenting on
the atrocities committed on the Hindu masses by the bigoted Muslim rulers, Guru
Nanak exposed the nexus between Muslim rulers and the Khatris along with
Brahmans in a biting political satire. It was the Muslim ruler, who was
responsible for the persecution of Hindu masses, but it was the Khatri
officials who executed the orders of their master, and the Brahman priests
approved of the actions of the Khatris:
The man-eater performs Namaz (Muslim prayer). The one who carves out the flesh for him
wears the sacred thread around his neck (Khatri). The Brahman blows the conch
in the Khatri’s house to sanctify his doings. The Brahman shares the ill-gotten
bread of the Khatri.
AGGS, M 1, p. 471. For Jakobsh
to suggest that Guru Nanak’s words, which are dictum of women emancipation in
the Sikh tradition, “had more to do with the rejection of prevailing notions of
ritual purity and support of the social hierarchy of the time” is insane. As
already pointed out, Guru Nanak rejected all earlier religious traditions.
Moreover, he denounced the oppression and bigotry of Muslim rulers, cowardice
and hypocrisy of Khatris and Rajputs and the tyranny of the caste system. He
condemned the discrimination against women and the religious exploitation of
masses by Brahmans, mullahs, qazis, yogis and other religious orders: The
people of the world say that Nanak--the image of Controller (Nath) of the world
has promulgated a philosophy of the highest order that has changed the course
of Ganges*. * It means that Guru Nanak’s
rejected old religious beliefs, and the social, political and economic order of
his time. AGGS, Balvand and Satta, p.
967. From early on, Guru Nanak rebelled against the Hindu
beliefs. To the embarrassment of family and relatives, he refused to wear the
sacred thread (janaeu) at the
ceremony by raising questions about its benefit:
Let compassion be the cotton,
contentment yarn, continence knot and truth as the twist thereof. O pundit
(priest), a thread of this type awakens the inner-self (conscience). If you
have such a janaeu, then put it on
me?
AGGS, M 1, p. 471.
Breaking caste taboos and social injunction against
socializing with Muslims, he fraternized with Muslims and low caste Hindus.
This may sound trivial to a modern Western mind but during Guru Nanak’s time
the Muslims were regarded as malesh (unclean,
polluted). They were considered so much outside the pale of Hindu society that
Hindus once converted to Islam could never be taken back in the parent fold
even though converted forcibly.18
The mere shadow or touching the utensils or food of high caste people by an
untouchable was an act of pollution deterred by severe punishment. Guru Nanak
accepted the invitation of a poor low caste carpenter, Bahi Lalo and, spurned
the invitation of a rich landlord, Malik Bhago, demonstrating that hard work
and honest living is divine whereas ill-gotten wealth is evil:
Wealth cannot be amassed without illegal means and it does not go with the dead.
AGGS, M 1, p. 417.
Amassing riches leads to
moral degradation.
AGGS, M 1, p. 222.
Guru Nanak condemned the bigotry of Muslims while he
denounced the cowardice of Hindus:
Dear baba (Sir), Allah (God) is Unreachable
and Infinite¾ beyond human
comprehension in totality. No one can even describe the power of Its Hukam (Cosmic Law). Allah does not consult any one when It makes or unmakes, or when
It gives or takes away. Allah alone knows Its qudrat (nature, cosmos), It alone is the Doer.
AGGS, M 1, p. 53.
To violate or usurp
someone’s right is like eating pork for a Muslim and beef for a Hindu. The
Guru/Prophet would support only if the follower does not make unlawful living.
Mere talk does not lead to paradise; salvation lies in right conduct. If you
add spice to unlawfully earned food, it does not become Halal (lawful). Nanak, falsehood begets only falsehood.
AGGS, M 1, p. 141.
If one accepts dishonourable
life then all efforts to subsist are inconsequential.
AGGS, M 1, p. 142.
He held the disunity of Hindus caused by the atrocious caste system
responsible for their subjugation and humiliation by Muslim conquerors. In a
poetic interpretation of the problem, he said, “Only a whole grain germinates
to bear fruit, not a split one”:
Truth has vanished and
falsehood prevails everywhere, as the society has gone astray due to immorality
of the age. The Hindus have lost their honour due to their own actions. Now how
can disunity restore their honour?
AGGS, M 1, p. 468.
Stung by Guru Nanak’s actions, the proponents of the caste
ideology called him karahiya (gone astray):
Some say that Nanak is an evil spirit, others say that he has gone astray, still others say that he is a helpless poor man. But I (Nanak) am intoxicated, as I am madly in love with the Lord/King (God). I do not care about anyone except God.
AGGS, M 1, p. 991.
He rebuked the Khatris for abdicating their responsibility
for not protecting the Hindu masses against the tyranny of bigoted Muslim
rulers:
The Khatris have abdicated their duties. Instead they have adopted the language and manners of their masters (Muslims), whom they consider as malesh (unclean/polluted). The whole society has degenerated abdicating moral obligations.
AGGS, M 1, p. 663.
He denounced the Khatri officials and exposed their hypocrisy:
You are taxing the cow and Brahman
whom you worship; you are mistaken if you think that cow-dung-coating of your
kitchen would absolve you of your sins. You wear a mark on your forehead, a dhoti (cloth worn around the waist) and
tell beads, but you are dependent on the malesh
(Muslim ruler) to make a living. You perform Hindu worship secretly but you
behave like Muslims and read Quran with them. Give up this hypocrisy! Salvation
lies in practicing Truth/Nam.
AGGS, M 1, p. 471.
Nanak denounced the religious establishment
for misleading and exploiting the masses:
Qazi (Muslim magistrate) tells lies and accepts bribe. The Brahman priest bathes ceremoniously, but practices cruelty and deceit. The blind yogi has lost his way in search of “tranquility.” The three are spiritually barren.
AGGS, M 1, p. 662.
Never touch the feet of those who claim to be spiritual guides, but live on charity.
AGGS, M 1, p. 1245.
To
break the caste barriers and the stigma of fraternizing with Muslims, Guru Nanak started the
institution of Sangat (congregation)
and Pangat (commensality, eating together sitting in a row). Sangat was made up
of people without regard to religion, caste and gender. Food prepared in the
Langar (public kitchen) by volunteers
was served to the Sangat sitting in a
row without regard to any basis of discrimination. Not only that, Nanak also
advised his followers to address each other as bhai (brother) and mai
(mother, elder sister) and touch each other’s feet while greeting. These were
daring and effective attacks on the pillars on which the superstructure of the caste system rested. These
practices drew sharp and relentless condemnation from both the Brahmans and
Khatris.
9. Continuing her hateful
propaganda against Guru Nanak, Jakobsh pronounces:
Yet, more, often than not, one senses Guru
Nanak’s apprehension of female. Women are often associated with maya, the
feminine principle that deludes the seeker; she acts as a barrier to the
attainment of emancipation. According to Adi Granth, ‘[t]here is pleasure in
gold, pleasure in silver, pleasure in woman, pleasure in scents, pleasure in
horses, pleasure in conjugal bed, pleasure in sweets, pleasure in the flesh¾there are so many pleasures of the body that
there is no room for the name’ (Adi Granth: 3). While woman is only one of the
various attachments specified, she is mentioned time and again; as an
attraction to the male, woman thus becomes part of maya.19
This hymn she has quoted is from page 15, and
not page 3 of AGGS. Why Jakobsh seems so desperate in distorting this hymn? Is
it because she can’t read AGGS and thus falsely making a case out of sheer
ignorance to fit her agenda? Besides, in her desperation to malign Guru Nanak,
she has become impervious to her own set of contradictions. For example, here
she accuses Guru Nanak of regarding woman as a “barrier to the attainment of
emancipation” while earlier on the previous page she says: “Guru Nanak, on the
other hand, criticized yogis for their solitary, acetic, spiritual search.
Contrary to the yogic apprehension of sexuality, Guru Nanak furthered the ideal
of householder.”20
The only thing she understood correctly about
this hymn is that it is about attachment, which cause separation from God. This
hymn is about a rich man and the worldly pleasures that make him forget God.
In this hymn there is mention of sexual
pleasures twice: pleasure in woman and pleasure in conjugal bed. “Pleasure in
woman” refers to adultery of man and “pleasure in conjugal bed” refers to sex
within marriage. Most often, in the AGGS, when there
is reference to woman in sexual sense, it is about male adultery, not that
woman is Maya as Jakobsh implies. Besides, there are other hymns where
family and family members are mentioned as attachment. In an oppressive and
corrosive patriarchal milieu where men dominated every aspect of life, Gurus
ideas were revolutionary. Most often, their criticism is targeted at the
rulers, their administrators, leaders of religious establishment and the rich.
10. Continuing in the same vein she complains
that negative images of women were frequently compounded by ambivalent messages
towards outcastes of the time:
“Evil mindedness is a low woman, cruelty a
butchers wife, a slanderous heart a sweeper woman, wrath which ruineth the
world a pariah woman (Adi Granth, Macauliffe 1990, Vol. 1:52).”21
First of all, Jakobsh has totally
misinterpreted what Guru Nanak says in this couplet. Second, there are only
few, not frequent metaphoric references to women of low castes in the sense
described by Macauliffe. Third, there is metaphoric usage of men of low caste
in the same sense, also. Now let us examine Macauliffe’s interpretation of the
verses quoted by her:
“Evil mindedness is a low woman, cruelty a butchers wife, a slanderous heart a sweeper woman, wrath which ruineth the world a pariah woman. What availeth thee to have drawn the lines of thy cooking place when these four are seated with thee?”
AGGS, M 1, p. 91.
Amazingly, M.A. Macauliffe understood the
meaning of the above couplet accurately at the
time when proper understanding of AGGS was limited; whereas Jakobsh has
misinterpreted it so badly almost a century later when there is so much new
information/knowledge about Guru Nanak and his message. Why? Macauliffe was a retired
British government officer in India whose objective was to interpret Sikhism
properly according to the information available to him. On the other hand
Jakobsh’s agenda is the opposite: to distort the hymns of AGGS as much as
possible. That is why she has concealed the meaning of the second verse, which
is so essential to understand the meaning of the first:
“What availeth thee to have drawn the lines of thy cooking place when these four are
seated with thee?”22
She has also concealed Macauliffe’s explanation of the
context in which Guru Nanak used this hymn:
“The Guru, requiring fire to
cook his food, went into a Brahman’s cooking-square for it. The Brahman charged
him with having defiled his viands.”23
In this hymn Guru Nanak condemns the Brahmanical
Order, the caste system and the concept of ritual purity. He uses the most
despised section of the Indian society, low caste and untouchable women as
metaphors. He says that the caste label does not make one dumni (a woman of low caste of minstrels) or ksain (a woman from butcher caste) or chuhri (a sweeper woman) or chandalni (an untouchable woman), rather
it is evil mind that is dumni,
cruelty that is ksain, slander that
is chuhri and anger that is chandalni. “O Brahman! Evil mind,
cruelty, slander and anger, the four are within you, how by marking of your
cooking-square with a line around it, will keep your food pure, when the cook
(Brahman) is already defiled.”
Jakobsh has also concealed part of the hymn from page 15 of AGGS
wherein Guru Nanak has used low caste men19
as metaphors to condemn the caste system. It is bad habits, bad actions and
wickedness, which makes one low not the caste label imposed by the Brahman:
Greed is astray dog,
falsehood is a scavenger/sweeper and thugee is eating carrion. Slander is like
putting other’s filth in mouth and the fire of anger is wicked
person/untouchable.
AGGS, M 1, p. 15.
11. Further on she says: “While Guru Nanak grieved the rape of the
woman during the time of Babur, he did not censure the social order on the
whole. Moreover, he firmly believed in God’s omnipotence and the will of God
behind such events (Grewal 1979: 162, 176).”24
This is a malicious lie as Guru Nanak denounced Babur’s invasion as
well as the failure of the Indian rulers to defend the country and their
subjects. Besides, Guru Nanak couldn’t have been clearer in his composition, Babur-bani: that it was not God who commissioned Babur to invade India. God
does not take sides in a war, as It is the protector of all. Guru Nanak holds
the Indian rulers responsible for failing to
protect the country. He was an eyewitness to the atrocities committed by
Babur’s army on the civilian population. Did God send Babur to punish the
people of India? Did not God hear heartrending cries of the people? Guru Nanak
answered such questions in the Babur-bani:
O Lalo, he [Babur] has
attacked with an army of sin (vicious and powerful army) to marry the bride
with force (want to rule over India by force). O Lalo, sense of shame and
righteousness has disappeared and falsehood prevails everywhere.
AGGS, M 1, p. 722.
After conquering Khurasan
(Afghansitan) Babur has threatened India with an invasion, but the Creator is
blameless as It did not commission Babur, the angel of death, to do so. You
(Creator) do not feel pity after hearing such heartrending cries? The Creator
is the protector of all. (The implication is that God does not take sides in a
war or human conflicts). One may not feel indignation if the conflict is
between two equally strong forces. On the other hand, if one side is like a
lion and the other like a herd of cows then it is the duty of the herdsman to
protect the herd. (Here Guru Nanak is talking about the overwhelming
superiority of Babur’s army and he is holding the Lodhis responsible for failing
to protect their subjects). No body will mourn the death of these dogs
(Lodhis), who have wasted this jewel (India and its people). (Here Guru Nanak
blames the Indian rulers, Lodhis for their failure to protect the country and
its people).
AGGS, M 1, p. 360.
In his composition, Guru Nanak emphasises again and again that behind all the human problems from individual suffering to bloody international conflicts is the invisible hand of Haumai and its progeny of five: Kam (lust, sexual drive), Kroadh (anger), Lobh (covetousness, economic drive), Moh (attachment) and Ahankar (pride with arrogance). That is why the Gurus warn us not to yield to the pressure of Haumai and the five temptations. Haumai driven men/women cause bloody conflicts; not God. Both Babur and the Lodhis were Haumai driven and were responsible to what transpired.
Besides, Guru Nanak digs at the
ignorant and superstitious minds of the Lodhi rulers and hollow claims of the
supernatural powers of the pirs. The
desperate Indian rulers engaged Pirs (holy
men) to perform miracles and sorcery to defeat the Mughals. The hollowness of
the claims of the supernatural powers of the Pirs was exposed, as they could not blind a single Mughal solider.
It was the superior weaponry and determination of Babur’s army, which defeated
the Indians:
When they heard
of the invasion of Babur, the Indian rulers engaged many Pirs for their protection. The Mughals overran Indian posts and
burnt down fortresses to the ground and cut down the princes to pieces. The supernatural
power of the Pirs could not blind a
single Mughal soldier.
AGGS, M 1, p.
418.
12. After exhausting Talib’s Brahmanical and “incorrect and literal”
translation of AGGS for the denigration of Gurus, Jakobsh found a passage in
Prof. Surjit Hans’ A Construction Of Sikh
History From Sikh Literature. She has distorted this passage on Guru Ram
Das’ composition beyond recognition, the way she has distorted Grewal’s
exposition of Guru Nanak’s tribute to women:
While earlier gurus had
indeed addressed the divine in the female voice as a symbol of their
submission, with Guru Ram Das the symbol takes on a more palpable reality;
indeed, love of the divine came to be expressed in utterly profane language.
Further, the female perspective towards the body of the Guru is conspicuously
emphasized; corporeality of Ram Das is central in these writings: ‘Looking
again and again at the body of the Guru has filled me with intense joy’
(ibid.). And, ‘How can I meet my handsome Man? God accepts even wayward and
squat women.’ According to Hans (1988:95), the ‘increased presence of women in
the sangat and their greater participation in the Sikh panth is very much in
evidence in the composition of Guru Ram Das.’25
Before commenting on the above passage, it is important to understand
what the words “Guru, Satguru and
personal Guru” mean in AGGS. Most often the words--Guru and Satguru--stand for God or Word (Truth, Sabad,
Bani, Guru’s teaching) and when used
for a “personal Guru,” they represent his
spiritual attributes, and not his physical body/appearance:
Guru is Enlightener, Formless/Invisible and Mysterious (incomprehensible in totality). One, who understands the Guru (God), comprehends the nature of the universe.
AGGS, M 1, p. 1125.
Nanak
met the Guru, Who is Sovereign/Self-Sufficing, Formless/Invisible (beyond the
material world) and Almighty.
AGGS,
M 1, p. 599.
In his discussion with the yogis, Guru Nanak affirms that his Guru is Sabad. Sabad means “Word, sound, and voice” but in Nanakian philosophy it also means the sacred hymns enshrined in AGGS--hence the voice of God¾Divine knowledge (Word). Sabad is synonymous with bani and gurbani:
“Who is your Guru or whose disciple are you of?” “Sabad is my Guru and my mind which is focused on the Sabad and comprehends it, is the disciple,” replied Guru Nanak.
AGGS, M 1, p. 942.
Here Guru Nanak makes it abundantly clear that Guru is the Sabad (Divine knowledge), not a Guru in person. Personal Guru is the medium for transmitting the Divine knowledge. Guru Nanak’s successors affirmed the same that Guru is God or Sabad or bani:
Marvelous is bani, as it is the voice of the Formless One and nothing equals it.
AGGS, M 3, p. 515.
Bani is the Guru and Guru is the bani as it contains the elixir of spiritual life. Guru utters the bani; the Sikh who accepts it certainly obtains salvation.
AGGS, M 4, p. 982.
The One, Who created the whole world, uttered this Word.
AGGS, M 4, p. 306.
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. 308.
I don’t know what to say, I speak what God orders me to say.
AGGS, M 5, p. 763.
The True Guru (God) is Niranjan (without material content/invisible/formless); do not
believe that God is in the form of a man.
AGGS, M 5, p. 895.
May that mouth
burn, which says that God incarnates.
AGGS, M 5, p.
1136.
And Guru Amar Das
warns that mere glimpse of the Guru person is of no avail until one imbibes
Guru’s teachings:
Mere glimpse of
the personal Guru is of no avail unless the devotee deliberates on the Sabad.
AGGS, M 3, p.
594.
From the
above discussion it is abundantly clear that Guru is God or Sabad/Guru’s
teaching, not Guru’s body. So when Jakobsh says: “Looking again and again at
the body of the Guru has filled me with intense joy,” it only highlights the
fact she doesn’t know what she is talking about and, for that she walked away
with a Ph.D. degree from UBC. Furthermore, she had ignored what Hans says about
the relationship between the Guru and Sikhs in the first paragraph on page 94
from which she has quoted the above line:
The
Guru is father, mother, relation and friend to them.26
Now let us
examine the hymns under discussion in some detail:
Great
is the Guru, applaud him as he brings the message of God’s love. I am immensely
pleased to see the Guru again and again because he is the embodiment of God’s
excellences.
AGGS,
M 4, p. 726.
Hans has only
highlighted the literal meaning of the second line of the couplet to suit his
purpose and Jakobsh had no qualms in using it. Hans has also failed to quote
any hymn attributed to his statement: “Divine love is being expressed almost in
profane idiom.”
Incidentally,
it should come as no surprise that Jakobsh changed Hans’ statement “Divine love is being expressed almost in profane
idiom” to “utterly profane language.” Even more interesting is to read Hans’
full quote:
No
doubt, the Sikh Gurus before Ram Das had addressed God as if they were women as
a symbol of their submission. But with Guru Ram Das the symbol begins to assume
a palpable reality. Consequently, the ‘physicality’ of Guru begins to enter the
picture. ‘Looking again and again at the body of the Guru has filled me with
intense joy.’ There is an emphasis on his ‘friendly and loving’ aspect. He is
‘handsome and winning.’ ‘God shoots arrows of love through him.’ Divine love is
being expressed almost in profane idiom. ‘I am utterly forlorn without the
Guru.’ ‘God is my friend, love and King. I wish someone could bring the giver
of life to me. I cannot help seeing Him and tears well up in my eyes. The Guru
is a childhood friend, I cannot help seeing him, O mother.’26
The “references (21-24)” cited in the above quote do not
record what is being purported as “profane idiom.” On the pages of AGGS from
which Hans has cited the references, there is not a single
verse, which can be characterised as “profane idiom.”
Further, “How can I meet my handsome Man? God accepts even wayward and
squat women”27 is a literal
translation of the hymns wherein “handsome Man” means God and “wayward and
squat women” means devotees. The Gurus called themselves as low, lowly and
wretched. These are expressions of humility. Only a poet can do justice in
explaining the passages cited by Hans on page 94-95. These are intense
feelings/longings of a devotee for God expressed in the language of lovers:
husband and wife. These feelings perhaps are hard to appreciate for some
including Jakobsh.
In the beginning of chapter 4, Hans talks about the musical genius of
Guru Ram Das. “The art of musical verse reaches its acme in Guru Ram Das, with
an unchallenged record down to modern times. The achievement of Guru Ram Das in
musicality has both theological and sociological significance, which is likely
to be missed for want of analytical attention. Guru
Ram Das introduced a number of musical modes, or rags, not used by the earlier
Gurus.”28
References
1. Doris R. Jakobsh. Relocating
Gender In Sikh History: Transformation,
Meaning and Identity. New Delhi: Oxford University
Press, 2003, p. 4.
2. Ibid., p.
21.
3. H. Lal. “Guru Granth as Guide, Friend & Philosopher.” The Sikh Review, 2006, 54(1), pp. 12-13.
4. Doris R. Jakobsh. Relocating
Gender In Sikh History: Transformation,
Meaning and Identity. New Delhi: Oxford
University Press, 2003, p. 11.
5. Ibid., p.
11.
6. W. H. McLeod. Guru Nanak and the Sikh Religion. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1996, p. 243.
7. Daljeet Singh. Sikhism: A Comparative Study of its Theology and Mysticism. Amritsar: Singh Brothers, 1994, pp. 205-210.
8. Charles Brenner. An Elementary Textbook of Psychoanalysis. New York: Doubleday, 1973, pp. 20-21.
9. Doris R. Jakobsh. Relocating
Gender In Sikh History: Transformation,
Meaning and Identity. New Delhi: Oxford
University Press, 2003, p. 12.
10. Ibid., p. 15.
11. Ibid., p. 16.
12. Ibid., p. 16.
13. Ibid., p.
24.
14. Ibid., pp. 24-25.
15. Ibid., p. 25.
16. English translation of Brihaspatismrti (or using Jakobsh’s spelling, Brhaspatismrti) is located in the Sacred Books of the East (Vol.33), a series of books edited by F. Max Muller. Even though this translation is not exhaustive, one can understand the profundity of the literature from reading the 27 chapters incorporated. It is quite clear to “Brihaspati” that any simrti text opposed to the teachings of Manu has no validity (XXVII, 3). Therefore viewing and approximating the teachings of Guru Nanak with that of “Brihaspati” runs into serious trouble. Here are some more glimpses:
* A Sudra
teaching the precepts of religion, or uttering the words of the Veda, or
insulting a Brahman, shall be punished by cutting out his tongue (XX, 12).
* Female slaves can never be acquired by possession, without a written title; nor (does possession create ownership) in the case of property belonging to a king, or to a learned Brahman, or to an idiot, or infant (IX, 21). In other words, you can possess female slaves provided you have the proper title.
a. Houses and landed property inherited from an ancestor shall be shared equally by the father and sons; but the sons cannot claim a share of their father’s own property without the consent of the father (XXV, 2).
b. Those (sons) for whom their shares have been arranged by the father, whether equal, less, or greater, must be compelled to abide by such arrangement. Otherwise (if they try to alter the arrangement), they shall be punished (XXV, 4).
c. All sons of the twice-born [Brahman, Kshatriya or Vaisya], begotten on women equal in caste (to their husbands), shall take equal shares, after giving a professional share to the eldest (XXV, 8).
d. He may make a gift out of that property, or even consume it, at his will. But in his default, his sons are pronounced to be equal sharers (XXV, 13).
e. Whatever has been acquired by all together, in that property they all have equal shares. Their sons, whether unequal or equal (in number), are declared (to be) heirs of the shares of their (respective) fathers (XXV, 14).
f. Should there be younger brothers, whose initiation has not been performed, they must be initiated by the other brothers (the expense being defrayed) out of the family property (inherited) from the father (XXV, 21).
g. Let Brahmans, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, and Sudras, begotten in order by a Brahman, take four, three, two shares, and one share, in succession. Let those begotten by a Kshatriya (take) three shares, two shares, and one share (respectively). Let those begotten by a Vaisya take two shares and one share (XXV, 27-28).
h. A son begotten with a Sudra woman by a twice-born man is not entitled to a share of the landed property; one begotten with a woman of equal caste shall take all. Thus has the law been settled (XXV, 32).
i. No one but a legitimate son of the body is declared to be heir of his father’s wealth. An appointed daughter is said to be equal to him. All the others are stated to have a claim to maintenance (only) (XXV, 35).
j. A daughter, like a son, springs from each member of a man; how then should any other mortal inherit the father’s property while she lives? (XXV, 56)
k. Equal in caste (to her father) and married to a man of the same caste as her own, virtuous, habitually submissive, she shall inherit her father’s property, whether she may have been (expressively) appointed or not (XXV, 57).
l. As her father’s wealth becomes her wealth, though kinsmen be in existence, even so her son becomes the owner of his mother’s and grandfather’s wealth (XXV, 58).
It is clear
that the above laws are applicable to a caste-ordained society. Moreover, these
inheritance laws applied only to property owners who were Brahmans, Kshatriyas
and Vaisyas, the overwhelming majority of the people who were Sudras and
Antyajas (outcasts/untouchables) had very little property to speak of. These
laws have nothing in common with the teachings of Guru Nanak. Even though there
might be some un-clarity with a possible contradiction, it is safe to say that
woman’s role is subservient to that of a male in the inheritance laws. This should
not surprise us. After all, we are dealing with the Hindu laws. Who is
Brihaspati? Is he a person as historical as was Guru Nanak? Judge for yourself.
According to Rig Veda: “Brihaspati”
was born in the sky with seven faces and seven rays. He has seven horns, etc.
Some features of him resemble that of Jesus Christ as depicted in the Book of
Revelation. “Brihaspati” is also known by other names such as: the
priestly-lord (Brahmanas-pati), the lord-of-assemblies (Sdasas-pati),
the-king-of-elders (Jyestha-raja), and the lord-of-heavenly-hosts (Gana-pati).
Jakobsh should seriously consider the possibility of this individual as purely
mythological.
17. Doris R. Jakobsh. Relocating
Gender In Sikh History: Transformation,
Meaning and Identity. New Delhi: Oxford
University Press, 2003, p. 24.
18. Jagjit Singh. The Sikh Revolution: A Perspective View. New Delhi: Bahri Publications, 4th reprint, 1998, p. 50.
19. Doris R. Jakobsh. Relocating
Gender In Sikh History: Transformation,
Meaning and Identity. New Delhi: Oxford
University Press, 2003, p. 24.
20. Ibid., p. 24.
21. Ibid., pp. 25-26.
22. Max A. Macauliffe. The Sikh Religion (Vols. I & II). Delhi: Low Price Publications, reprint, 1993, Vol. I, p. 52.
23. Ibid., Vol. I, pp. 51-52.
24. Doris R. Jakobsh. Relocating
Gender In Sikh History: Transformation,
Meaning and Identity. New Delhi: Oxford
University Press, 2003, p. 24.
25. Ibid.,
pp. 31-32.
26. Surjit
Hans. A Reconstruction Of Sikh History
From Sikh Literature. Jalandhar: ABS Publications, 1988, p. 94.
27. Ibid., p.
95.
28. Ibid., p.
91.