Reading the editorial entitled ‘Bani and Bana’ in Sikh Bulletin of February 2005 was a personal disappointment for me. There is a little bit of history behind it. About three years ago when I was looking for a contact to buy books by S Gurbaksh Singh, a friend directed me towards Hardev Singh Shergill. I bought the books and along with the books he also sent me some free literature including audio tapes by Veer Bhupinder Singh. He also started sending me the monthly Sikh Bulletin. I was impressed by all this and really felt that this organization was doing a very good job for Sikhism.
I wrote a small article entitled SSI: a Step in the Right Direction which was published in the Sikh Bulletin of November 2003. The central idea of my write up was the absence of communication between the Sikhs and the World. During the times of our Gurus there was a constant dialogue with the world at large. But now a days the Sikhs talk and preach to their fellow Sikhs only. The need of the day is to listen to the world as Sikhs and speak Sikhism to the world. I felt as if this organization was going to fill this gap. That is why this editorial was a sort of personal disappointment for me.
Coming back to the editorial, let us try to capture the “logic” running through its lines. The learned editor starts with an attempt to find out the meanings of Punjabi words Bani and Bana. After perusing the pages of English – Punjabi dictionary for meanings of these words, the author discards all the meanings given in the dictionary, and discovers with his magic band that Bana means 5 Ks[1]. Because this is the only meaning that fits in the theory he has in his mind. However only a couple of lines later he contradicts himself when he says that in fact Bana means only hair covered with turban and not the 5 Ks. Some of the statements or judgments made by the learned editor are also worth noting. He says that “to such a person that in fact is the only definition of a Sikh” What is the definition of a Sikh? He is silent about it. And the word “only” prompts me to ask; are there more than one definitions of a Sikh? He has avoided finding an answer to these questions, as a logical answer will for sure contradict his thesis.
The learned editor further avers that Bana gives license to religious and political leaders of Sikhs to be corrupt. No doubt majority of Sikh leaders (and scholars as well, why to pick leaders only) are corrupt, but to say that Bana (which according to him means 5 Ks) gives them a license to be corrupt is stooping even below the level of yellow journalism. There are heaps of corrupt people who call themselves Sikhs but do not adorn 5 Ks. There are heaps of non-Sikh political and religious leaders who are corrupt from head to toe. Who or what gives them the license? Or would he classify them as unlicensed corrupt people?
Every corrupt person tries to conceal himself. But that does not mean that the cover he hides under is a cause of his/her corruption. It is even more disappointing when this thesis comes from the editor of a journal discussing serious philosophical issues. In fact the 5 Ks gives the world a license and a right to question a person who adorns them as to why he does not follow the tenets of Sikhism. This right has been exercised in the pages of Sikh Bulletin on hundreds of occasions. Using this license many people have criticized Mr. Badal for performing rituals like Havan.
The learned editor now turns his microscope on to the word Patit or apostate. Once again his logic is weird. He finds that an apostate means a person who has forsaken his religion. However he is upset that for Sikhs a person is apostate if he cuts his hair. Obviously in his opinion, for Sikhs, cutting of hair should not amount to forsaking of religion. He does not bother to justify his stand with any logic and closes the thread by saying that character has been reduced to insignificance. In what way is keeping of hair and character related? Are they mutually exclusive or inclusive? Or are these two separate things altogether? He conveniently shifts his focus in order to avoid finding an answer to these questions. This technique is often used by many kathakars in our Gurdwaras. Instead of discussing a subject in detail, they shift the focus of their talk to a popular theme to win their point. No one in this world will deny the significance of character. Both character and appearance have their own separate roles to play in the life of an individual. Emphasis on one does not necessarily mean abandoning the other.
The learned editor now comes to his point. He starts with a reference to WSC held in Sydney in September 2004. I had the opportunity to attend this conference on its opening day. There were about 50-60 people present on that day including the organizers, government officials and invitees from other religions. I would like to mention one thing about this conference before we go further into the discussion about the editorial. S Hardev Singh Shergill said in his answer to one of the questions that in Sikhism there is no place for priests. But before the start of the proceedings for the day, a priest from a local Gurudwara was specially called to perform Ardaas or prayer. And he left immediately after the prayer.
Non-Sikh attendees must have gone with the impression that in Sikhism they need a priest to say their prayer. It would have been better if S Hardev Singh or any one from the attendees would have come forward to say the prayer. In short we are sending conflicting signals to the world. This is the crux of the problem. This is also one of the main reasons behind this confusion about five Ks. We are giving conflicting gestures to our kids and to the world at large. This editorial is doing exactly the same thing. In Sikhism there is no place for priests because every Sikh is supposed to be a priest. How many of us are ready to perform the duties of a priest if need be?
Coming back to the topic, S Hardev Singh Shergill refers to the questions about the definition of a Sikh put to him by some attendees during this conference. He refers to the definition given in the Sikh Rehat Maryada. Astonishingly he interprets this definition as being silent about the uncut hair. The definition as quoted by him reads like this: “Any human being who faithfully believes in one immortal being; the ten Gurus, form Guru Nanak to Guru Gobind Singh; the Guru Granth Sahib; the utterances and teachings of the ten Gurus and the baptism bequeathed by the tenth Guru, and who does not owe allegiance to any other religion is a Sikh”. What S Hardev Singh is saying here is that teachings of our all the Gurus and the baptism bequeathed by the tenth Guru, does not mean keeping unshorn hair.
I can only say that this is not only deliberate distortion but also a mischievous remark to confuse the readers. It will be pertinent here to share with you one question put to me in one of the discussions on the Internet regarding unshorn hair. I was asked to show a single line from Jap Ji Sahib wherein Guru Nanak has asked his followers to keep unshorn hair. I was told that since Jap Ji is the quintessence of Guru Granth Sahib we must find these instructions in it. My answer to this question was very simple. Every line of Jap Ji asks us to follow the teachings of the Guru in total. This is exactly what S Hardev Singh is refusing to do here. If he has a mind to follow the Guru’s teachings in totality, he will definitely find a mention of uncut hair.
Now S Hardev Singh starts listing his reasons for liberating Diaspora Sikhe from the clutches of Bana (which should be read as 5 Ks as per his definition). To summarize his points:
. S Bawa Singh from Australia had given some literature about Sikhism to a student. The student and her brother were impressed by the philosophy of Sikhism but are scared to adorn the 5 Ks especially the hair and the sword.
. Claudia G S Martin from Brazil says that her country is ripe for conversion to Sikhism. But the traditional Sikhism with saffronised Amritdharis carrying long kirpans have no chance to succeed there.
. Garon Lee, a young student corresponds about Sikhism with Mr Hardev Singh Shergill. He has done enough study of the faith and ‘discovers’ that the Rehat Maryada is full of rituals.
It is apparent that all these points are baseless. I know Bawa Singh here in Australia. In one of the meetings he said that he is a Sikh of Guru Nanak and has nothing to do with Guru Gobind Singh. How can you expect a person with this opinion to be able to convince a student about the significance of unshorn hair? S Hardev Singh has picked up a line that suits him from the article by Ms Claudia. Ms Claudia in her article has repeatedly emphasized the need for gatka training. At the very outset of her article she admits that she was “drawn to Sikhism by the fascinating code of conduct marked by indelible symbols- the so called 5 kakkars”. Obviously she did not mean discarding of 5 Ks in the quote picked by the editor. Similarly the queries arising in the mind of Mr Garon Lee do not substantiate the point that S Hardev Singh is making. His query about Anand Karaj is due to his lack of understanding of Punjabi culture. Anand Karaj has nothing to do with the marriage being arranged or consensual. Also the Rehat does not ask us to remember the physical existence of our Gurus. Instead it requires us to follow their utterances and teachings.
S Hardev Singh Shergill puts forward his thesis that Sikhism should evolve out of the restrictions of five Ks especially the hair. In his opinion this is a need of the diaspora Sikhs. In his opinion it is very hard for the children born and bred overseas to keep their hair unshorn. He quotes Bhagat Kabeer to support his thesis.
Kabeer preet ik sio kiye aan dubida jaye.
Bhanvein lambe kes kar bhave gharrar mudaey. (SGGS Page 1365)
(Kabeer, the duality vanishes, when you are in love with one supreme God. It does not matter whether you have long hair or clean shaven.)
We often read in the pages of Sikh Bulletin that the so called Kathakars are misquoting and misinterpreting Gurubani. This is exactly what S. Hardev Singh has done here. The long hair mentioned here refer to the Jattas (tangled locks) kept by some sects in India. Similarly some sects were shaving their heads. Bhagat Kabeer is telling both of them that neither the unkempt hair nor the shaving of hair is of any help at the end of the day. What matters is the your firm belief and love for the one immortal being. This is what will lead to riddance from duality.
To use this verse from Bhagat Kabeer as something that negates the importance of 5 Ks is absolutely wrong and amounts to deliberate distortion of the meaning of Gurbani. Both the sects were running away from the ordinary life style. Remember Guru has not only given us uncut hair but also a comb to keep them neat and tidy. As a friend has said in these lines Bhagat Kabeer hammers home the “futility of renunciation as a means of achieving eternal bliss. Sikhism is a life affirming philosophy and the uncut hair symbolize this positive view towards life. The uncut hair (as opposed to the shaven head) and the comb (as opposed to unkempt hair) symbolize the 'permanent renunciation of renunciation'.”
Moreover none of our Gurus have said that by keeping long hair you can attain spiritual progress. It was none other than Guru Gobind Singh, who institutionalized the concept of five Ks, who had stated that merely by keeping long hair one does not become spiritually elevated.
Kes dhare na mile har pyare ( Swaya no 10, Akaal Ustat)
If you use fuel meant for airplanes to drive a car, it won’t work. Would you conclude that that fuel is useless? This is what S Hardev Singh is doing here. Unshorn hair are not meant to help you gather signals of spirituality. This is what Bhagat Kabeer is saying. He forgets that Kabeer has also said that
Kabeer man mundia nahee kes mundaye kaye.
Jo kis kia man kia munda mund ajaye. (SGGS Page 1369)
(Kabeer when you have not shaved the mind why do you shave your head. It is the mind that matters, and it is useless to shave your head)
And Kabeer has also given his verdict that only those who are committed to a code fight to win; all others run away from the battlefield.
Daghe hoe so ran meh jujhe bin daghe bhag jai (SGGS Page 970)
This has been true throughout the history of mankind. And it will remain true for all times to come.
I agree with S Hardev Singh Shergill that it will be hard for the parents to make their kids keep unshorn hair. But it has always been hard to be a Sikh. And it will always be hard to be a Sikh. I take it that way. However he is wrong when he is equating five Ks with dress or Bana. Five Ks fit in dresses from all cultures. The first five persons (the five beloved ones) to adorn these Ks were all from different cultures. They came from Sialkot, Dwarka, Bidar, Jagannath Puri, and Hastinapur. All these places are miles apart from each other and have their own unique culture. So the argument that five Ks are only suitable for Punjabi dress and culture is baseless.
Another argument given by S Hardev Singh Shergill is that if a person is exposed to Bani, the desire for Bana or five Ks will come by itself. This is a totally wrong preposition and he himself has contradicted it by giving the example of Macauliffe. It is interesting to note the way he has used this example. In his opinion Mr Macauliffe gave up his promising career to pursue his study of Sikhism. Even though he studied Sikhism for such a long time he did not convert to Sikhism. Similarly many others who studied and praised Sikh Scriptures did not convert to Sikhism. What are the reasons? He does not bother to investigate. Instead he concludes that the Sikhs have denied them the experience of Gurbani. How and when, he does not bother to find. But at the same time he hopes that if a person is exposed to Gurubani he might have the desire for five Ks as well. In fact he is working on a flawed thesis. There is no cause and affect relationship between the appearance of a Sikh and the experience of Gurbani. Both have their own separate roles to play in the spiritual progress of a Sikh.
In the end, S Hardev Singh Shergill concludes that it is time that Sikhs residing outside India should liberate themselves from the restrictions of 5 Ks. He perceives this as something immediately required to take Sikhism on to the twenty first century. We have seen above that this perception is based on illogical thinking and misunderstanding of basic concepts of Sikhism. It is extremely unfortunate that this comes from an organization established for spread of Sikhism and is named after the glorious Singh Sabha movement.
This organization accepts donation in the name of Khalsa Tricentennial Foundation. One can safely assume that it was established on the occasion of three hundred years of the advent of Khalsa. That is the day when Guru Gobind Singh blessed his Sikhs with five Ks. This comes from an organization that has one of its objectives to “promote Sikh way of life in accordance with the teachings given in Gurbani incorporated into the Aad Guru Granth Sahib and by Sikh Rehat Maryada (code of conduct) laid down by Sri Akal Takhat Sahib as an institution.”
It is not time to disassociate or delink Sikhi from five Ks. Sikhism will not remain Sikhism then. Five Ks are the face of Sikhism as conceived and authorised by our great Gurus. It is also surprising that this advice is given to the Diaspora Sikhs only. Why not this advice to Sikhs in Punjab? Are we having different brand of Sikhism in different countries?
A Sikh is a Sikh only if he/she is a Sikh. And a Sikh is not a Sikh if he/she discriminates between a Sikh and a non-Sikh. That in a nutshell is what the five Ks stand for. I know there are people roaming about in this world looking like Sikhs but doing all sorts of things which do not behoove a Sikh. This in fact is the real problem. This is what we should disassociate ourselves from. This is what we should expose. Sikhism is virtually under seizure of these people. Many of our Gurudwaras are being controlled by them. We can not fight and win these people by abandoning the five Ks. If we do so the ordinary Sikh has no choice but to go to these people. The ordinary Sikh believes (and rightly so) that the instructions of his/her Guru are immutable. Guru never makes an error.
NOTE
[1] The five articles of faith in Sikhism starting with Punjabi letter “K”. Kesh (hair), Kanga (comb), Kara (iron wrist bracelet), Kachh (underwear) and Kirpaan (the sword)
