Hindu-Sikh Relationship
By Shri Ram Swarup
Voice of India
Sikhs have always been honoured members of Hindu society.
Hindus at large have always cherished the legacy left by
the Gurus and venerated Sikh Gurudwaras no less than the
shrines of any other Hindu sect. There has never been any
bar on inter-marriage, inter-dining and many other modes
of inter-mingling between the parent Hindu society on the
one hand and the Sikh community on the other. Hindus and
Sikhs share a common cultural heritage and a common
historical consciousness of persecutions suffered and
freedom struggles fought.
The Sikh sect was founded by Guru Nanak Dev ( 1469-1538
A.D.) and promoted further by nine other Gurus, the last
of whom, Govind Singh (b. 1675), died in 1708 A.D.
GuruNanak came from a Vaishnava family in that part of
the Punjab which went to pakistan after the partition in
1947. He was born at a time when the sword of Islamic
invaders had already swept over the length and breadth of
India and done immeasurable damage not only to the
shrines and symbols of Hinduism but also to the self-
confidence of Hindus. The Punjab alongwith North-West
Frontier and Sindh had suffered more heavily than
elsewhere. Many Hindus in these provinces had been
converted to Islam by force. The rest had been reduced to
second class citizens who could not practise their
religion publicly without inviting persecution at the
hands of Muslim theologians and tyrants.
It was in this atmosphere that Guru Nank asserted the
superiority of his ancestral spirituality as against
Islamic monotheism which had divided mankind into hostile
camps and set children of the same Divinity at each
other's throats. This was an act of great courage because
Islam prescribed the penalty of death for anyone who said
that Hinduism was a religion as good as Islam, not to
speak of saying that Hinduism was superior. Many Hindus
had been put to death for uttering such a "blasphemy.
What Guru Nanak had Proclaimed was, however, a part of
the Hindu response to the Islamic conslaught. The
response was two-pronged. While Hindu warriors fought
against Islamic invaders on many a battlefield all over
the country, Hindu saints and sages created a country-
wide spiritual upsurge which came to be known as the
Bhakti Movement. The message of this Movement was the
same everywhere, based as it was on the Vedas, the
Ithihasa Purana and the Dharma-Shastras. The only
variation on the central theme was that while most
schools of Bhakti deepened the spirit behind outer forms
of worship, some others laid greater emphasis on advaitic
mysticism as expounded in the Upanishads and the various
traditions of Yoga. The latter schools alone could
flourish in the Punjab and the rest of the North-West
which had been denuded of Hindu temples and where ritual
Practices were forbidden by the Muslim rulers. It was
natural for Guru Nanak to be drawn towards this school in
the course of his spiritual seeking and sing its typical
strains in his own local language.
The Bhakti Movement produced many saints in different
parts of the country, North and South, East and West.
They spoke and sang in several languages and idioms
suited to several regions. It was inevitable that their
message should go forth from as many seats and centres.
Guru Nanak established one such seat in the Punjab. Those
who responded to his call became known as Sikhs (Sk.
Shisyas, desciples ). The fourth Guru, Ram Das (1574-1581
A.D. ), excavated a tank which subsequently became known
as Amritsar (pool of nectar) and gave its name to the
city that grew around it. In due course, a splendid
edifice, Hari-mandir (temple of Hari), rose in the middle
of this tank and became the supreme centre of the Sikh
sect. Its sanctum sanctorum came to house the Adi Granth
confining compositions of Sikh Gurus and a score of other
Hindu saints from different parts of the country. The
songs of a few Muslim sufis who had been influenced by
advaita were also included in it. The compilation of the
Adi Granth was started by the fifth Guru, Arjun Dev(1581
- 1606 A.D.), and completed by the tenth Guru, Govind
Singh.
There is not a single line in the Adi Granth which sounds
discordant with the spirituality of Hinduism. All strands
of Hinduism may not be reflected in Sikhism. But there is
nothing in Sikhism, its diction, its imagery, its idiom,
its cosmogony, its mythology, its stories of saints and
sages and heroes, its metaphysics, its ethics, its
methods of meditation, its rituals -- which is not
derived from the scriptures of Hinduism. Ragas to which
the hymns and songs of the Adi Granth were set by the
Gurus are based on classical Hindu music. Parikrama (
Peram-bulation ) performed by Sikhs round every
Gurudwara, the dhoop(incense), deep(lamp),
naivaidya(offerings) presented by the devotees inside
every Sikh shrine, and the prasadam (sanctified food)
distributed by Sikh priests resemble similar rites in
every other Hindu place of worship. A dip in the tank
attached to the Harimandir is regarded as holy by Hindus
and Sikhs in particular as a dip in the Ganga.
It is this sharing of a common spirituality which has led
many Hindus to worship at Sikh Gurudwaras as if they were
their own temples. Hindus in the Punjab regard the Adi
Granth as the sixth Veda, in direct succession to the
Rik, the Sama, the Yajus, the Atharva and the
Mahabharata. A Hindu does not have to be a Sikh in order
to do homage to the Adi Granth and participate in Sikh
religious rites. Similarly, till recently Sikhs visited
temples of various other Hindu sects, went to Hindu
places of Pilgrimage and cherished the cow together with
many other symbols of Hinduism. Religion has never been a
cause of conflict between Sikh and non-Sikh Hindus.
Sikh History Guru Nanak's message came like a breath of
fresh breeze to Hindus in the Punjab who had been lying
prostrate under Muslim oppression for well over five
centuries. They flocked to the feet of the Sikh Gurus and
many of them became initiated in the Sikh sect. The sect
continued to grow till it spread to several parts of the
Punjab, Sindh and the North-West Frontier. Gurudwaras
sprang up in many places. The non-Sikh Hindus whose
temples had been destroyed by the Muslims installed the
images of their own gods and goddesses in many Sikh
Gurudwaras. The Hindu temples which had survived welcomed
the Adi Granth in their precincts. In due course, these
places became community centers for Hindu society as a
whole.
This resurgenee of India's indigenous spirituality could
not but disturb Muslim theologians who saw in it a menace
to the further spread of Islam. The menace looked all the
more serious because Sikhism was drawing back to the
Hindu fold some converts on who Islam had sat lightly.
The theologians raised a hue and cry which caught the
ears of the fourth Mughal emperor, Jahangir (1605-1627
A.D.), who had ascended the throne with the assistance of
a fanatic Islamic faction. He martyred the fifth Sikh
Guru, Arjun Dev, for "spreading falsehood and tempting
Muslims to apostay." Hindus everywhere mourned over the
foul deed, while Muslim theologians thanked Allah for his
"mercy." Guru Arjun Dev was the first martyr in Sikh
history. Muslim rulers continued to shed Sikh blood till
Muslim power was destroyed by resurgent Hindu heroism in
the second half of the 18th Century.
The sixth Sikh Guru Har Govind (1606-1644 A.D.), took up
arms and trained a small army to resist Muslim bigotry.
He was successful and Sikhs escaped persecution till the
time of the sixth Mughal emperor. Aurangzeb ( 1658-1707
A.D. ), who was a veritable fiend in a human form so far
as Hindus were concerned. He summoned the ninth Sikh
Guru, Tegh Bahadur (1664-1675 A.D.), to the imperial seat
at Delhi and marryred him in cold blood on his refusal to
embrace Islam. Some followers of the Guru who had
accompained him were subjected to inhuman torture and
torn to pieces. This was as it were a final signal that
there was something very hard at the heart of Islam -- a
heart which the Gurus had tried to soften with their
teachings of humanism and universalism. Sikhism had to
accept the challenge and pick up the sword in defence of
its very existence.
This transformation of Sikhism had been started already,
though in a small way, by Guru Har Govind. The tenth
Guru, Govind Singh, completed the process when he founded
the Khalsa (Party of the Pure) in 1699 A.D. He was a
versatile scholar who knew several languages, kept the
company of learned Brahmins and composed excellent poetry
on varied themes. He had been had been fascinated by the
Puranic story of Goddess Durga, particularly in her
incarnation as Mahisasuramardini. He performed an
elaborate Yajna presided over by pandits of the ancient
lore and invoked the Devi for the protection of dharma.
The Devi came to him in the shape of the sword which he
now asked some of his followers to pick up and ply
against bigotry and oppression. Those who could muster
the courage and dedication to die in defence of dharma
were invited by him to become members of the Khalsa by
wearing the five emblems of this heroic order -- Kesh
(unshorn hair) Kangha (comb), Kada (steel bracelet),
Kachha (shorts) and Kirpan (sword). A new style of
initiation termed pahul was ordained for this new class
of Sikh warriors -- sipping a palmful of water sweetened
with sugar and stirred by a double-edged sword. Every
member of the Khalsa had to add the honorofic Singh
(lion) to his name so that he may be distinguished from
the non-Khalsa Sikhs who could continue with their normal
attire and nomenclature. No distinction of caste or
social status was to be recognised in the ranks of the
Khalsa.
The Khalsa was not a new religious sect. It was only a
martial formation within the larger Sikh fraternity,, as
the Sikhs themselves were only a sect within the larger
Hindu society. It was started with the specific mission
of fighting against Muslim iryranny and restoring freedom
for the Hindus in their ancestral homeland. Soon it
became a hallowed tradition in many Hindu families, Sikh
as well non-Sikh, to dedicate their eldest sons to the
Khalsa which rightly came 'to be regarded as the sword-
arm of Hindu society.'
Guru Govind Singh was forced to fight against a whole
Musiim army before they could consolidate the Khalsa. His
two teen-aged sons courted matyrdom along with many other
members of the Khalsa in a running battle with a fully
equipped force in hot pursuit. His two other sons who
were mere boys were captured and walled up alive by the
orders of a Muslim governor after they refused to embrace
Islam. The Guru himself had to go into hiding and wander
from place to place till he reached Nanded town in far-
off Maharashtra. He was murdered by a Muslim fanatic to
whom he had granted an interview inside his own tent. But
the mighty seed he had planted in the shape of the Khalsa
was soon to sprout, grow speedily and attain to the full
stature of a strong and well-spread-out tree.
Before he died, Guru Govind Singh had commissioned Banda
Bairagi, a Rajput from Jammu to go to the Punjab and
punish the wrongdoers. Banda more than fulfiled his
mission. He was joined by fresh formations of the Khalsa
and the Hindus at large gave him succour and support. He
roamed all over the Punjab, defeating one Muslim army
after another in frontal fights as well as in guerilla
warfare. Sirhind, where Guru Govind Singh's younger sons
had been walled up, was stormed and sacked. The bullies
of Islam who had walked with immense swagger till only
the other day had to run for cover. Large parts of the
Punjab were liberated from Muslim depotism after a spell
of nearly seven centuries.
The Mughal empire, however, was still a mighty edifice
which could mobilize a military force far beyond Banda's
capacity to match. Gradually, he had to yield ground and
accept defeat as his own following thinned down in battle
after battle. He was captured, carried to Delhi in an
iron cage and tortured to death in 1716 A.D. Many other
members of the Khalsa met the same fate in Delhi and
elsewhere. The Muslim governor of the Punjab had placed a
prize on every Khalsa head. The ranks of the Khalsa had
perforce to suffer a steep decline and go into hiding.
The next upsurge of the Khalsa came in the second half of
the Century. The Marathas had meanwhile broken the back
of Mughal power all over India and the Mughal
administration in the Punjab had distintegrated speedily.
A new Muslim invader, Ahmad Shah Abdali, who tried to
salvage the Muslim rule, had to give up after several
attempts from 1748 to 1767 A.D. His only satisfaction was
that he demolished the Harimandir and desecrated the
sacred tank with the blood of slaughtered cows, two times
in a row. But the Sikh and non-Sikh Hindus rallied round
the Khalsa again and again and rebuilt the temple every
time.
The Khalsa had a field day when Abdali departed finally
from the scene. By the end of the century, Muslim power
evaporated all over the Punjab and several Sikh
principalities came up in different parts of the
province. The strongest of them was that of Maharaja
Ranjit Singh (1783-1839 A.D ) who wiped out the Muslim
rule from Kashmir and the North West Frontier as well. He
would have conquered Sindh and Afghanistan also but for
the steam-roller of British imperialism which took over
his farflung kingdom as well, soon after his death.
The British had conquered India through their superiority
in the art of warfare. They could not hope to hold such a
big country by means of military might alone. They had to
devise policies of devide any rule. The residues of
Islamic imperialism had become their allies quite early
in course of the conquest. Now they had to contend with
the national society constituted by Hindus. It became the
main plank of their policy, therefore, to fragment Hindu
society and pit the pieces against each other. At the
same time, they tried to create pockets of solid support
for their regime in India. One such pocket was provided
by Sikhs.
The British planned and put into operation a move to
separate and seal off the Sikh community from its parent
Hindu society by converting it into a distinct religious
minority like the Muslims and the Christians. Tutored
Sikh theolgians and scholars were patronised to make them
pronounce that Sikhism was a decisive departure from
Hinduism, the same as Christianity was from Judaism. The
labours of Christian missionaries and the timings of
Western Indology were mobilized in order to achieve this
end.
Christian missionaries had discovered quite early in
their evangelical endeavours that the strength of Hindu
society and culture lay ultimately in the mainstream of
Hindu spirituality as expounded in the Vedas, the Puranas
and the Dharmashastras. It was this spirituality which
had served Hindu society in meeting and defeating several
foreign invaders. The missionaries had, therefore,
subjected this spirituality to a sustained attack by
misnaming it as Brahminism and misrepresenting it as a
system of Polytheistie and idolatorous Paganism leading
to sin in this world and perdition in the next.
At a later stage, Western Indologists had joined forces
with Christian missionaries, sometimes inadvertently due
to their ignorance of Indian culture and sometimes
deliberately due to mischievous political motives.
According to the "scientific studies" carried out by the
Indologists,'Brahmanism was an alien imposition on India
brought in by "Aryan invaders" who had driven the "native
Dravidians" to the South around 1500 B.C. Their "higher
criticism" had "revealed" that the core Brahminism
consisted of "primitive animism, puerile priestcraft and
caste oppression of the enslaved aborigines. They
Presented Buddhism and Jainism as "revolts" against the
social system created by Brahminism. The "revolt" was
stated to have been continued and carried forward by some
schools of the medieval Bhakti Movement of which Sikhism
was supposed to be the foremost.
It was now relatively easy for some Sikh theologians and
scholars to prove that Sikhism was closer to Christianily
and Islam than to Hinduism. They forced Sikhisim into the
moulds of Semitic theologies. Sikhism, they pronounced,
was monotheistic while Hinduism was Polytheistic. Sikhism
had a Book in the Adi Granth like the Bible and the
Quran, while Hinduism had no Book. Sikhisim, like
Christianity and Islam, had an apostolic tradition in its
ten Gurus, while Hinduisim knew no Prophets. Sikhism
frowned upon idolatory while Hinduism was full of it.
Sikhism had no use for the Vedas, the Puranas and the
social system of the Dharmashastras which formed
cornerstones of Hinduism. And so on, this exercise in
alienating Sikhism from its parent Hinduism has been
painstaking as well as perisitent.
No wonder that this perverted version of Sikhism should
start showing signs of fanaticism and bigotry which have
all along characterised monotheistic creeds like Islam
and Christianity. Monotheism is the mother of all closed
societies and closed cultures. It always divides mankind
into believers and non-believers, momims and kafirs, and
sets the one against the other. Sikh Gurus had struggled
indefatiguably to rid this country of this ideological
barbarism brought in by Islamic invaders. They had stood
squarely for humanism, universalism and pluralism which
have always been the hallmarks of Hindu spiri-tuality. By
forcing Sikhism into monotheistic moulds Sikh scholars
have betrayed the Gurus. Sooner this scholarship is
disowned by the Sikh society at large, the better it will
be for its spiritual and cultural welfare.
There is no dearth of Sikh scholars who continue to see
Sikh spirituality in the larger and older spiritual
tradition of the Upanishads and the Puranas. But the
dominant Sikh politicians who control the SGPC purse have
progressively extended their patronage to the
misinterpreters of Sikh scriptures. Let us hope that it
is a passing phase and that truth will triumph in the
long run. The Sikh scholars who cherish the spirituality
bequeathed by the Gurus should come forward and make
themselves heard more and more. Their voice is bound to
ring true in the heart of the Sikh masses--a heart which
is still tuned to Sabad-Kirtan, singing the ancient
strains of Sanatana Dharma.
To fulfil a certain need of the hour, Guru Govind,Singh -
preached the gospel of the Khalsa, the pure or the elect.
Those wo joined his group passed through a ceremony known
as pahul, and to emphasize the martial nature of 'their
new voca-tion, they were given the title of Singh or
"lion". Thus began a sect not based on birth but which
drew its recruits from those who were not Khalsa by
birth. It was wholly manned by the Hindus.
Military organisation has taken different forms in
different countries at different times. The Khalsa was
one such form thrown up by a tyrannized people, weak in
arms but strong in determination. This form worked and
the people of the Punjab threw away the Mughal tyranny.
But fortunes change; in 1849, the British took over the
Punjab. The old-style Khalsa was no longer possible and
the recruitment to it almost ceased. The Punjab Ad-
ministration Report of 1851-52 observes: "The sacred tank
at Am-ritsur is less thronged than formerly, and the
attendance at the annual festival is diminishing yearly.
The initiatory ceremony for adult is now rarely
performed." Not only did the fresh re-cruitment stop, but
also a new exodus began. The same Report says that people
leave the Khalsa and "join the ranks of Hinduism whence
they originally came, and bring up their children as
Hindus."
The phenomenon continued unabted. The Administration
Report of 1854-55 and 1855-56 finds that "now that the
Sikh commonwealth is broken up, people cease to be
initiated into Sikhism and re-vert to Hinduism." At about
this time, a census was taken. It revealed that the
Lahore division which included Manjha, the ori-ginal home
of the Sikhs, had only 200,000 Sikhs in a population of
three million. This exodus may account at least partly
for this small number.
The development raised no question. To those who were
involved, this was perfectly in order and natural. Nobody
was conscious of violation of any code. Hindus were Sikhs
and Sikhs were Hindus. The distinction between. them was
functional, not fundamental. A Sikh was a Hindu in a
particular role. When under the changed circumstances, he
could not play that role, he reverted to his original
status. The Government of the day ad-mitted that "modern
Sikhism was little more than a political as-sociation,
formed exclusively from among Hindus, which men would
join or quit according to the circumstances of the day."
This development, perfectly in accord with Indian
reality, was not liked by the British. They considered it
as something "to be deeply deplored, as destroying a
bulwark of our rule."
Imperialism thrives on divisions and it sows them even
where they do not exist. The British Government invited
one Dr. E. Trumpp, a German Indologist and missionary, to
look at Sikh scriptures and prove that their theology and
cosmology were dif-fernt from those of the Vedas and the
Upanishads. But he found nothing in them to support this
view. He found Nanak a "thorough Hindu," his religion "a
pantheism, derived directly from Hindu sources." In fact,
the influence of Islam on subsequent Sikhism was,
according to him, negative. "It is not improbable that
the Islam had a great share in working silently these
changes, which are directly opposed to the teachings of
the Gurus," he says. However, to please his clients,
he,said that the external marks of the Sikhs separated
them from the Hindus and once these were lost, they
relapsed into Hinduism. Hence, Hinduism was a danger to
Sikhism and the external marks must be preserved by the
Sikhs at all costs. Precisely because there was a fun-
damental unity, the accidental difference had to be
pushed to the utmost and made much of. From then onwards,
"Sikhism in danger" became the cry of many British
scholar-administrators
Lepel Henry Griffen postulated that Hinduism had always
been hostile to Sikhism and even socially the two had
been anta-gonistic. One Max Arthur Macauliffe, a highly
placed Brit-ish administrator, became the loudest
spokesman of this thesis. He told the Sikhs that Hinduism
was like a "boa con-strictor of the Indian forests,"
which "winds its opponent and finally causes it to
disappear in its capacious interior." The Sikhs "may go
that way," he warned. He was pained to see that the Sikhs
regarded themselves as Hindus which was, "in direct
opposition to the teachings of the Gurus." He put words
into the mouth of the Gurus and invented prophecies by
them which anticipated the advent of the white race to
whom the Sikhs would be loyal. He described "the
pernicious effects of the up-bringing of Sikh youths in a
Hindu atmosphere." These youths, he said, "are ignorant
of the Sikh religion and of itsprophecies in favour of
the English and contract exclusive customs and prejudices
to the extent of calling us Malechhas or persons of
impure desires, and inspire disgust for the customs and
habits of Christians."
It was a concerted effort in which the officials, the
scho-lars and the missionaries all joined. In order to
separate the Sikhs, they were even made into a sect of
Islam. For example, one Thomas Patrick Hughes, who had
worked as missionary for twen-ty years in Peshawar,
edited the Dictionary of Islam. The work itself is
scholarly but, like most European scholarship, it had a
colonial inspiration. The third biggest article in this
work, after Muhammad and the Quran, is on Sikhism. It
devotes one-fourth of a page to the Sunnis and, somewhat
more justly, seven pages to the Shias, but devotes eleven
and a half pages to the Sikhs! Probably, the editor
himself thought it rather exces-sive; for he offers an
explanation to the Orientalists who "may, perhaps be
suprised to find that Sikhism has been treated as a sect
of Islam." Indded, it is surprising to the non-
Orientalists too. For it must be a strange sect of Islam
where the word 'Muhammad' does not occur even once in the
writings of its found-er, Nanak. But the inclusion of
such an article "in the present work seemd to be most
desirable." It was apolicy matter.
Macauliffe and others provided categories which became
the thought equipment of subsequent Sikh intellectuals.
But the British Government did not neglect the quicker
administra-tive and political measures. They developed a
special Army Policy which gave results even in the short
run. While they disarmed the nattion as whole, they
created privileged enclaves of what they called martial
races.
The British had conquered the Punjab with the help of
Poora-biya soldiers, many of them Brahmins, but they
played a rebellious role in 1857. So the British dropped
them and sought other elements. The Sikhs were chosen. In
1855, there were only 1500 Sikh soldiers, mostly
Mazhabis. In 1910, there were 33 thousands out of a total
of 174 thousands, this time mostly Jats -- just a little
less than one-fifth of the total army strength. Their
very recruitment was calculated to give them a sense of
separateness and exclusiveness. Only such Sikhs were re-
cruited who observed the marks of the Khalsa. They were
sent to receive baptism according to the rites prescribed
by Guru Govind Singh. Each regiment had its own granthis.
The greetings exchanged between the British officers and
the Sikh soldiers were Wahguruji ka Khalsa ! Wahguruji ki
Fateh. A secret C I.D. Memorandum, prepared by D. Patfie,
Assistant Director, Criminal Intellegence, Government of
India (1911), says that "every endeavour has been made to
preserve them (Sikh soldiers) from the contagion of
idolatory," a name the colonial-missionaries gave to
Hinduism. Thanks to these measures, the "Sikhs in the
Indian Army have been studiously nationalized,"
Macaulille observed. About the meaning of this
"nationalization", we are left in no doubt. Petrie
explains that it means that the Sikhs were "encouraged to
regard themselves as a totally distinct and separate
nation." No wonder, the British congratulated themselves
and held that the "preservation of Sikhism as a separate
religion was largely due to the action of the British
officers," as a British administrator put it.
The British also worked on a more political level. Singh
Sabhas were started, manned mostly by ex-soldiers. These
worked under Khalsa Diwans established at Lahore and
Amritsar. Later on, in 1902, the two Diwans were
amalgamated into one body -- the Chief Khalsa Diwan,
providing political leadership to the Sikhs. They all
wore the badge of loyalty to the British. As early as
1872, the loyal Sikhs supported the cruel suppression of
the Namdhari Sikhs who had started a Swadeshi movement.
They were described as a "wicked and misguided sect." The
same forces described the Ghadarites in 1914 as "rebels"
who should be dealt with mercilessly.
These organisations also spearheaded the movement for the
de-Hinduization of the Sikhs and preached that the Sikhs
were distinct from the Hindus. Anticipating the Muslims,
they represented to the British Government as far back as
1888 that they be recognized as a separate community.
They expelled the Brahmins from the Har Mandir, where the
latter had worked as priests. They also threw out the
idols of "Hindu" Gods from this temple which were
installed there. We do not know what these Gods were and
how "Hindu" they were, but most of them are adoringly
mentioned in the poems of Guru Nanak. At any rate, more
often than not, iconoclasm has hardly much spiritual
content; on the other hand, it is a misanthropic idea and
is meant to show one's hatred for one's neighbour. In
this particular case, it was also meant to impress the
British with one's loyalty. Hitherto, the Brahmins had
presided over different Sikh ceremonies which were the
same as those of the Hindus. There was now a tendency to
have separate rituals. In 1909, the Ananda Marriage Act
was passed.
Thus the seed sown by the British began to bear fruit. In
1898, Kahan Singh, the Chief Minister of Nabha and a
pacca loyalist wrote a pamplet: Hum Hindu Nahin Hain (We
are not Hindus). This note, first struck by the British
and then picked up by the collaboratonists, has not
lacked a place in subsequent Sikh writings and politics,
leading eventually in our own time to an intransigent
politics and terroristic activities. But that the Sikhs
learn their history from the British is not peculiar to
them. We all do it. With the British, we all believe that
India is merely a land where successive invaders made
good, and that this country is only a miscellany of ideas
and peoples -- in short, a nation withour a nomos or
personality or vision of its own.
The British played their game as best as they could, but
they did not possess all the cards. The Hindu-Sikh ties
were too intimate and numerous and these continued
without much strain at the grass-root level. Only a small
section maintained that there was a "distinct line of
cleavage between Hinduism and Sikhism"; but a large
section, as the British found, "favours, or at any rate
views with indifference the re-absorption of the Sikhs
into Hinduism." They found it sad to think that very
important classes of Sikhs like Nanak Panthis or
Sahajdahris did not even think it "incumbent on them to
adopt the ceremonial and social observances of Govind
Singh," and did not "even in theory, reject the authority
of the Brahmins."
The glorification of the Sikhs was welcome to the British
to the extent it separated them from the Hindus, but it
had its disadvantages too. Mr. Petrie found it a
"constant source of danger," something which tended to
give the Sikhs a "wind in the head." Sikh nationalism
once stimulated refused British guidance and developed
its own ambitions. The neo-nationalist Sikhs thought of a
glorious past and had dreams of a glorious future, but
neither in his past nor in his future' "was there a place
for the British Officer," as a British administrator
complained. Any worthwhile Sikh nationalism was
incompatible with loyalty to the British. When neo-
nationalists like Labh Singh spoke of the past
"sufferings of the Sikhs at the hands of the
Muhammadans," the British found in the statement a covert
reference to themselves. When they admired the Gurus for
"their devotion to religion and their disregard for
life," the British heard in it a call to sedition.
Sikh nationalism was meant to hurt the Hindus, but in
fact it hurt the British. For what nourished Sikh
nationalism also nourished Hindu nationalism. The glories
of Sikh Gurus are part of the glories of the Hindus, and
these have been sung by poets like Tagore and others. On
the other hand, as Christians and as rulers, the British
could not go very far in this direction. In fact, in
their more private consultations, they spoke
contemptuously of the Gurus. Mr. Petrie considered Guru
Arjun Dev as "essentially a mercenary," who was "prepared
to fight for or against the Mughul as convenience or
profit dictated;" he tells us how "Tegh Bahadur, as an
infidel, a robber and a rebel, was executed at Delhi by
the Moghul authorities." As imperialists, they naturally
sympathised with the Moghuls and shared their view-point.
While the British were devotedly busy consolidating the
Empire, other forces detrimental to their labour were
also at work. Indians were an ancient people and they
could not be kept in subjugation for long. The Time-
Spirit was also against the British. Even during the
heydays of Sikh loyalty to the British, there were many
rebellious voices. One Baba Nihal Singh wrote (1885) a
book entitled Khurshid-i-Khalsa, which "dealt in an
objectionable manner with the British occupation of the
Punjab." When Gokhale visited the Punjab in 1907, he was
received with great enthusiasm by the students of the
Khalsa College, an institution started in 1892
specifically to instil loyalty in the Sikh youth.The
horses of his carriage were taken out and it was pulled
by the students.He spoke from the college Dharamsala from
which the Granth Sahib was specially removed to make room
for him. It was here that the famous poem, Pagri
Sainbhal, Jatta, was first recited by Banke Dayal, editor
of Jhang Sayal; it became the battle-song of the Punjab
revolutionaries,
There was a general awakening which could not but affect
the Sikh youth, too, Mr. Petrie observes that the "Sikhs
have not been, and are not, immune from the disloyal
influences which have been at work among other sections
of the populace."
A most powerful voice of revolt came from America where
many Punjabis, mostly Sikh Jat ex-soldiers, had settled.
Many of them had been ln Hong Kong and other places as
soldiers in the British regiments. There they heard of a
far-away country where people were free and prosperous.
Their imagination was fired. The desire to emigrate was
reinforced by very bad conditions at home. The drought of
1905-1907 and the epidemic in its wake had killed two
million people in the Punjab. In the first decade of this
century, the region suffered a net decrease in
population. Due to new fiscal and monetary policies and
new economic arrangements, there was a large-scaie
alienation of land from the cultivators and hundreds of
thousands of the poor and middle peasants were wiped out
or fell into debt: Many of them emigrated and settled in
British Columbia, particularly Vancouver. Here they were
treated with contempt. They realized for the first time
that their sorry status abroad was due to their colonial
status at home. They also began to see the link between
India's poverty and British imperialism. Thus many of
them, once loyal soldiers who took pride in this fact,
turned rebels. They raised the banner of Indian
nationalism and spoke against the Singh Sabhas, the Chief
Khalsa Diwan and the Sardar Bahadurs at home. They spoke
of Bharat-Mata; their heroes were patriots and
revolutionaries from Bengal and Maharashtra, and not
their co-religionists in the Punjab whom they called the
"traffikers of the country."
The earlier trends, some of them mutually opposed, became
important components of subsequent Sikh politics. The
pre-war politics continued under new labels at an
accelerated pace. During this period, social
fraternization with the Hindus continued as before, but
politically the Sikh community became more sharply
defined and acquired a greater group-consciousness.
In the pre-war period, an attempt had been made to de-
Hinduize Sikhism; now it was also Khalsa-ized. Hitherto,
the Sikh temples were managed by non-Khalsa Sikhs, mostly
the Udasis, now these were seized and taken out of their
hands. Khalsa activists, named Akalis, "belonging to the
Immortal," moved from place to place and occupied
different Gurudwaras. These eventually came under control
of the Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee in 1925.
From this point onwards. Sikh religion was heavily
politicalised. Those who controlled resources of the
temples controlled Sikh politics. The SGPC Act of 1925
defined Sikhs in a manner which excluded the Sahaja
dharis and included only the Khalsa. SGPC, Akalis, Jathas
became important in the life of the Sikh community. Non-
Khalsa Sikhs became second-grade members of the
community. The Akalis representing the Khalsa, acquired a
new self-importance. In their new temper, they even came
into conflict with the British on several occasions. The
Government was less sure now of their unquestioning
loyalty. As a result, their share in the Army fell from
19.2 percent in 1914 to 13.58 percent in 1930; while the
Muslim share rose from 11 to 22 percent during the same
period.
The pericd of the freedom struggle was not all idealism
and warm-hearted sacrifice. There were many divisive
forces, black sheep, and tutored roles. But the role of
the Akalis was not always negative. They provided a
necessary counterweight to the Muslim League politics. On
the eve of independence, the League leaders tried to woo
the Akalis. But, by and large, they were spurned. For a
time, some Akali leaders played with the idea of a
separate Khalistan, and the British encouraged them to
present their case. But they found that they were in a
majority only in two Tehsils and the idea of a separate
state was not viable.
Independence came accompanied by division of the country
and large displacement of population. The country faced
big problems but she managed to keep above water. We were
also able to retain democracy. But just when we thought
we had come out of the woods, divisive forces which lay
low for a time reappeared. The old drama with a new cast
began to be enacted again. Muslim separative politics,
helped by huge Arab funds, has become active again.
Christian missions have their own ambitions. They both
are looking at the politics of extremist Sikhs with great
hope and interest and they find it fits well with their
own plans.
When the British showed solicitude for the minorities,
national India resented it and called it a British game.
But surprisingly enough, the game continues to be played
even after the British left. The minorities are
encouraged to feel insecure and aggrieved. The minority
stick is found handy to beat the majority. Hindu-baiting
is politically profitable and intellectually fashionable.
Constantly under attack, a Hindu tries to save himself by
self-accusation; he behaves as if he is making amends for
being a Hindu.
The atmosphere provided hot-house conditions for the
growth of divisive politics. Our Sikh brethren too
remembered the old lesson (never really forgotten),
taught to them by the British, that they were different.
Macauliffe's works published in the first decade of the
century were reissued in the sixties. More recent Sikh
scholars wrote histories of the Sikhs which were
variations of the same theme. In no case, they provided a
different vision and perspective.
In the last two decades, another separating factor too
has been silently at work. Thanks to the Green Revolution
and varioaus other factors, the Sikhs have become
relatively more rich and prosperous. No wonder, they have
begun to find that the Hindu bond is not good enough for
them and they seek a new identity readily available to
them in their names and outer symbols. This is an
understanble human frailty.
"You have been our defenders," Hindus tell the Sikhs. But
in the present psychology, the compliment wins only
contempt -- and I believe rightly. For self-despisement
is the surest way of losing a friend or even a brother.
It also gives the Sikhs an exaggerated self-assessment.
Under the pressure of this psychology, grievences were
manufactured; extreme slogans were put forward with which
even moderate elements had to keep pace. In the last few
years, even the politics of murder was introduced.
Finding no check, it knew not where to stop; it became a
law unto itself; it began to dictate, to bully. Camps
came up in India as well as across the border, where
young men were taught killing, sabotage and guerilla
warfare. The temple at Amritsar became an arsenal, a
fort, a sanctuary for criminals. This grave situation
called for necessary action which caused some unavoidable
damage to the building. When this happened, the same
people who looked at the previous drama, either
helplessly or with an indulgent eye, felt outraged. There
were protest meetings, resolutions, desertions from the
army, aid committees for the suspvects apprehended, and
even calls and vows to take revenge. The extremists were
forgotten. There were two standards at work; there was a
complete lack of self-reflection even among the more
moderate and responsible Sikh leaders.
The whole thing created wide-spread resentment all over
India which burst into a most unwholesome violence when
Mrs. Indira Gandhi was assassinated. The befoggers have
again got busy and they explain the whole tragedy in
terms of collusion between the politicians and the
police. But this conspiracy A growing resentment at the
arrogant Akali politics is the main cause of this fearful
heppening.
However, all is not dark. The way the common Hindus and
Sikhs stood for each other in the recent happenings in
the Punjab and Delhi show how much in common they have.
In spite of many recent provocations, lapses and
misunderstandings, they have shown that they are one in
blood, history, aspiration and interest. In a time so
full of danger and mischief, this agelong unity proved
the most solid support. But seeing what can happen, we
should not take this unity for granted. We should cherish
it, cultivate it, re-emphasize it. We can grow great
together; in separation, we can only hurt each other