Who is A Sikh?
A Response to the 'Judgment'by I.J. SINGH
The following are some thoughts triggered by reading the 'Judgment' - see article and document titled "THE JUDGMENT - Gurleen Kaur v. The State of Punjab":
To me, it is heartening that sikhchic.com reported the Indian judiciary's judgment on the perennial question, "Who is a Sikh?" But it is not a judgment that heartens me.
I expect a more vigorous, even a heart-rending, debate will follow, but perhaps the night is young.
Suzy Kaur has raised some fundamental issues that must not escape us. They are too important to be left to the caretakers of our gurdwaras and institutions, just as war is too important to be left to the generals. They affect us all, and mine is a call to action - not arms.
Like the generals in war, our caretakers have a personal stake in the outcome but we, the common folk, will pay the price and live with the consequences.
In the rush to judgment, we are forgetting some fundamentals. There are two matters that I will present briefly.
History tells us that perhaps as many as 80,000 came to Anandpur when Guru Gobind Singh staged the drama of Vaisakhi 1699 and instituted the Khalsa along with its specific code and requirements of the faith.
History further tells us that perhaps 20,000 became Khalsa during those fateful days. The remaining 60,000 did not. Many may have become Amritdhari Khalsa over time, but certainly some never did, such as Bhai Nand Lal, who, nevertheless, remained a close associate of the Guru.
There is absolutely not a scintilla of evidence or even a suggestion that the Guru rejected or discouraged those who did not become Khalsa from remaining within the Sikh fold. He did not say to them, "Get out of my face - you are no Sikhs of mine."
From the time of Guru Nanak to the present, the fundamental message of Sikhi is clear and unchanged: It is a path and a way of life open to all. People with all their imperfections, flaws and virtues congregate to walk the path. As long as they consider themselves as Sikhs, they will stay on the path and "Sikh" is the label they shall wear. Though on the same path, not all will be at the same place on the path at any given time.
A Sikh, then, is one who claims to be one. No man and no organization may come between a human and his definition of self.
The one time it matters how a Sikh lives his or her life is when the personal lifestyle and persona have ramifications for the life of the community. This happens when, for example, a person represents the community in contentious matters that impact the community, somewhat in the position of a role model or a designated spokesperson.
The Sikh Code of Conduct (Rehat Maryada) is a document that codifies Sikh belief and practice.
It is not the minimum definition of a Sikh. It emphatically does not mean that any person who does not fulfill each and every clause of the code is not a Sikh.
Keep in mind that gurdwaras and Sikhi are not merely for "perfect" or "ideal" Sikhs. Sikhi exists for imperfect people striving mightily to walk the path of Sikhi and looking to it for ways to become more productive and honest people.
To me, the minimum definition is "anyone who calls himself or herself a Sikh."
So, let's absolutely not be sitting in judgment of others - busy banishing people out of Sikhi.
Thus, I read the Sikh Rehat Maryada to say that no one is excluded from the tent of Sikhi, which is larger than that made by any definition that we might make.
Yet, such questions as have arisen are not unique to us. A look at Judaism, Christianity and Islam brings us face to face with intractable divisions within each faith - internal disputes that could not be resolved and have produced permanent fissures within each.
The second issue is more intractable, but it needs our critical attention.
We all know that our (Sikh) administrative structure and institutions took root in the struggles of the 1920's. India was then ruled by the British. Sikhs won the struggle to win control of their own gurdwaras from the corrupt administrators appointed by the British after a titanic struggle that shook the British Empire to its core.
But India was not a free country then and Sikhs were not a free people. And when the control of their own gurdwaras passed to the Sikhs, it came in the shape of a law enacted by the British government. Thus was the SGPC (Shiromini Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee) born.
This was a historical necessity, but it made the government - of British India then and of free India after 1947 - the arbiters of how this government-mandated body was to come into existence and function.
Whether it was to be a definition of who is a Sikh, who could or could not be counted in the inevitable electoral process to form this body, or how the SGPC would respond to challenges to its structure or authority, the task finally came to rest with governmental institutions (Legislative Assembly or Parliament) and the country's judiciary.
This meant that the fundamentals of the faith were to be determined, in the final analysis, by organs of the Indian government, not by representatives of Sikhs themselves.
The results have been quite predictable and chaotic.
We Sikhs have entered the 21st century now, but have failed to explore and devise an ecclesiastical judiciary and a system of justice of our own.
Circumstances are now different.
The Gurus willed us a system of justice for internal conflict resolution, but to develop and refine it further according to the needs of the time is our responsibility, and that has fallen by the wayside.
Dear readers, can you name one other religion where its fundamentals are debated and decided by parliaments and by legislators who are not believers of that faith or have no particular training, skill or specialty in that religion?
We definitely DO NOT need an All India Gurdwaras Act. We don't need more from the government of any country. We need to develop our own mode.
Some courts, particularly in the U.S., have recognized the dilemma we are in.
You all know of the many gurdwaras in North America that have ended in civil courts over election disputes. Many of the judges have been most reluctant to step in what they see as an internal dispute on matters of religious practices. But they have been forced by our hard-headedness and the absence of a workable system of internal justice into matters that are technically not their bailiwick - and many judges have said so from the bench.
And this, to me, is the second fundamental question.
The two matters are inherent and intertwined in Suzy Kaur's very pertinent note. Engaging only one front promises endless heartache.
The judgment by the Indian court is not at all a matter of joy. It does not impact what we believe, but it can open a Pandora's Box.
ijsingh99@gmail.com
Attachments - Sikh Philosophy Network
More...
A Response to the 'Judgment'by I.J. SINGH
The following are some thoughts triggered by reading the 'Judgment' - see article and document titled "THE JUDGMENT - Gurleen Kaur v. The State of Punjab":
To me, it is heartening that sikhchic.com reported the Indian judiciary's judgment on the perennial question, "Who is a Sikh?" But it is not a judgment that heartens me.
I expect a more vigorous, even a heart-rending, debate will follow, but perhaps the night is young.
Suzy Kaur has raised some fundamental issues that must not escape us. They are too important to be left to the caretakers of our gurdwaras and institutions, just as war is too important to be left to the generals. They affect us all, and mine is a call to action - not arms.
Like the generals in war, our caretakers have a personal stake in the outcome but we, the common folk, will pay the price and live with the consequences.
In the rush to judgment, we are forgetting some fundamentals. There are two matters that I will present briefly.
History tells us that perhaps as many as 80,000 came to Anandpur when Guru Gobind Singh staged the drama of Vaisakhi 1699 and instituted the Khalsa along with its specific code and requirements of the faith.
History further tells us that perhaps 20,000 became Khalsa during those fateful days. The remaining 60,000 did not. Many may have become Amritdhari Khalsa over time, but certainly some never did, such as Bhai Nand Lal, who, nevertheless, remained a close associate of the Guru.
There is absolutely not a scintilla of evidence or even a suggestion that the Guru rejected or discouraged those who did not become Khalsa from remaining within the Sikh fold. He did not say to them, "Get out of my face - you are no Sikhs of mine."
From the time of Guru Nanak to the present, the fundamental message of Sikhi is clear and unchanged: It is a path and a way of life open to all. People with all their imperfections, flaws and virtues congregate to walk the path. As long as they consider themselves as Sikhs, they will stay on the path and "Sikh" is the label they shall wear. Though on the same path, not all will be at the same place on the path at any given time.
A Sikh, then, is one who claims to be one. No man and no organization may come between a human and his definition of self.
The one time it matters how a Sikh lives his or her life is when the personal lifestyle and persona have ramifications for the life of the community. This happens when, for example, a person represents the community in contentious matters that impact the community, somewhat in the position of a role model or a designated spokesperson.
The Sikh Code of Conduct (Rehat Maryada) is a document that codifies Sikh belief and practice.
It is not the minimum definition of a Sikh. It emphatically does not mean that any person who does not fulfill each and every clause of the code is not a Sikh.
Keep in mind that gurdwaras and Sikhi are not merely for "perfect" or "ideal" Sikhs. Sikhi exists for imperfect people striving mightily to walk the path of Sikhi and looking to it for ways to become more productive and honest people.
To me, the minimum definition is "anyone who calls himself or herself a Sikh."
So, let's absolutely not be sitting in judgment of others - busy banishing people out of Sikhi.
Thus, I read the Sikh Rehat Maryada to say that no one is excluded from the tent of Sikhi, which is larger than that made by any definition that we might make.
Yet, such questions as have arisen are not unique to us. A look at Judaism, Christianity and Islam brings us face to face with intractable divisions within each faith - internal disputes that could not be resolved and have produced permanent fissures within each.
The second issue is more intractable, but it needs our critical attention.
We all know that our (Sikh) administrative structure and institutions took root in the struggles of the 1920's. India was then ruled by the British. Sikhs won the struggle to win control of their own gurdwaras from the corrupt administrators appointed by the British after a titanic struggle that shook the British Empire to its core.
But India was not a free country then and Sikhs were not a free people. And when the control of their own gurdwaras passed to the Sikhs, it came in the shape of a law enacted by the British government. Thus was the SGPC (Shiromini Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee) born.
This was a historical necessity, but it made the government - of British India then and of free India after 1947 - the arbiters of how this government-mandated body was to come into existence and function.
Whether it was to be a definition of who is a Sikh, who could or could not be counted in the inevitable electoral process to form this body, or how the SGPC would respond to challenges to its structure or authority, the task finally came to rest with governmental institutions (Legislative Assembly or Parliament) and the country's judiciary.
This meant that the fundamentals of the faith were to be determined, in the final analysis, by organs of the Indian government, not by representatives of Sikhs themselves.
The results have been quite predictable and chaotic.
We Sikhs have entered the 21st century now, but have failed to explore and devise an ecclesiastical judiciary and a system of justice of our own.
Circumstances are now different.
The Gurus willed us a system of justice for internal conflict resolution, but to develop and refine it further according to the needs of the time is our responsibility, and that has fallen by the wayside.
Dear readers, can you name one other religion where its fundamentals are debated and decided by parliaments and by legislators who are not believers of that faith or have no particular training, skill or specialty in that religion?
We definitely DO NOT need an All India Gurdwaras Act. We don't need more from the government of any country. We need to develop our own mode.
Some courts, particularly in the U.S., have recognized the dilemma we are in.
You all know of the many gurdwaras in North America that have ended in civil courts over election disputes. Many of the judges have been most reluctant to step in what they see as an internal dispute on matters of religious practices. But they have been forced by our hard-headedness and the absence of a workable system of internal justice into matters that are technically not their bailiwick - and many judges have said so from the bench.
And this, to me, is the second fundamental question.
The two matters are inherent and intertwined in Suzy Kaur's very pertinent note. Engaging only one front promises endless heartache.
The judgment by the Indian court is not at all a matter of joy. It does not impact what we believe, but it can open a Pandora's Box.
ijsingh99@gmail.com
Attachments - Sikh Philosophy Network
More...