The Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee has redefined its definition of Sehajdhari Sikhs for submission in the Punjab and Haryana High Court following criticism in some quarters. The Court asked for a definition in the wake of certain students having challenged the denial of admission in SGPC run institutions in the “Sikh category”. However, even the redefined definition falls short of the reality that pervades the Sikh community. The previous definition that courted controversy, defined Sehajdhari Sikh as a person from another religious faith, who was in the process of adopting Sikhism. As per the new definition, a Sehajdhari is the one who believes only in 10 Gurus and the Guru Granth Sahib, performs ceremonies as per Sikh traditions, does not consume tobacco or anything else which is specifically forbidden by the Sikh religion and avoids trimming hair, beard or eyebrows.
The new definition means that all those who believe in the Sikh Gurus and the Guru Granth Sahib and perform ceremonies as per Sikh traditions but are not baptized and also who trim hair, beard or eyebrows, are “patits”. This inter alia creates only two categories of Sikhs – baptized Sikhs (Khalsa) and Sehajdhari Sikhs. Though, this may not have been the intention, but by its definition, which has been endorsed by various Sikh religious bodies and institutions, the SGPC has with one stroke, excluded from the Panth nearly 70 per cent of its cadre.
Even though this writer falls terribly short of adopting the rigours of baptism, one does understand the rigorism of the SGPC in the matter; unless religious norms are enforced strictly, there is a risk of these being dissipated further. But in so doing at this stage when the community in its form and identity is facing a crisis of acceptance in different parts of the world, the SGPC risks alienating many believers. It must also be pointed out that the present state of affairs is partially due to SGPC’s own failure to ensure faithful application of the religious norms among its cadres, forceful and correct projection of its form and values, and change with the times. This is despite its political associate, the Shiromani Akali Dal, having been in power for several stints and in spite of the examples set by the British. For example, though all forms of Sikhs can enlist in the Indian armed forces, only those who strictly follow the Sikh Rehat Maryada (a guide to the Sikh way of life) can enlist in the Sikh Regiment. This practice, which started during the Sikh rule and followed by the British, continued after Partition. Ironically, there is no such stipulation in any wing of Punjab’s own police!
The new definition appears to be oblivious of the harsh reality that prevails today. Why not accept the four categories of Sikhs, as they are? In the first category come the Khalsa, the baptized Sikhs. This undeniably is the most revered category. The second category is that of a Gursikh, who follows the Sikh Rehat Maryada but has not partaken “amrit”. In the third category are those who are born in Sikh homes and who believe in the Guru Granth Sahib and perform all ceremonies as per Sikh rights but are either clean-shaven or clip their hair partially. Most NRIs and rural youth in Punjab would fall in this category. In the fourth category are those who are not born in the Sikh homes but are believers in the Guru Granth Sahib and also perform ceremonies as per Sikh traditions. Their number is on the wane, primarily because this category has been ignored. Since Sikhism as it is today has evolved from Guru Nanak world view, it may not be out of place to remind our religious heads engaged in nit picking on the form of Sikhism of the ideals of the founder who declared "na koi hindu na koi mussalman".
The new definition appears to go beyond the Rehat Maryada as approved by the SGPC in 1945. The Introduction to the Maryada gives the Definition of a Sikh as “any person whose faith is in one God, the Ten Gurus and their teaching and the Adi Granth. In addition he or she must believe in the necessity and importance of amrit (initiation) and must not adhere to any other religion.” Siginificantly, the definition does not set partaking of “amrit” as a pre-condition for being a Sikh. Besides, who can be dubbed a “patit” is debatable. “Patit” by definition is a “lapsed Sikh” – should it include those who are yet to partake “amrit” or those who have erred after partaking “amrit” or both?
Definition apart, by denying a person his or her belief – by birth or resolve - to be a Sikh, the loser would be the community. Already, a large number of people born in Sikh homes have co-opted into other sects and deras. In fact, ways should be devised to get them back into the fold. The new definition mixes up two forms – Sikh and Khalsa. Since the second has evolved from the first, the two are intrinsic. Yet, if one does not qualify to being the second (Khalsa), does one lose the inherent right to be the first (Sikh)? Instead of quibbling over form, the need is to address the two issues that have emerged – of voting in the SGPC and quota admissions to the Sikh institutions. This requires wider deliberation. One could throw the voting and admissions open to all Sikhs (with Singh or Kaur to their names, as mandated in the Maryada) or have quotas for different categories of Sikhs within the existing framework. Narrowing down the definition to accepting only a Khalsa as a Sikh, besides the Sehajdharis, is replete with the risk of at least some among the vast number of believers gradually walking into other faiths or simply losing faith. The choice is between exclusivity and universalism. Incidentally, all those religions which opted for the latter flourished while the ones which embraced exclusivity were gradually marginalised.
The new definition means that all those who believe in the Sikh Gurus and the Guru Granth Sahib and perform ceremonies as per Sikh traditions but are not baptized and also who trim hair, beard or eyebrows, are “patits”. This inter alia creates only two categories of Sikhs – baptized Sikhs (Khalsa) and Sehajdhari Sikhs. Though, this may not have been the intention, but by its definition, which has been endorsed by various Sikh religious bodies and institutions, the SGPC has with one stroke, excluded from the Panth nearly 70 per cent of its cadre.
Even though this writer falls terribly short of adopting the rigours of baptism, one does understand the rigorism of the SGPC in the matter; unless religious norms are enforced strictly, there is a risk of these being dissipated further. But in so doing at this stage when the community in its form and identity is facing a crisis of acceptance in different parts of the world, the SGPC risks alienating many believers. It must also be pointed out that the present state of affairs is partially due to SGPC’s own failure to ensure faithful application of the religious norms among its cadres, forceful and correct projection of its form and values, and change with the times. This is despite its political associate, the Shiromani Akali Dal, having been in power for several stints and in spite of the examples set by the British. For example, though all forms of Sikhs can enlist in the Indian armed forces, only those who strictly follow the Sikh Rehat Maryada (a guide to the Sikh way of life) can enlist in the Sikh Regiment. This practice, which started during the Sikh rule and followed by the British, continued after Partition. Ironically, there is no such stipulation in any wing of Punjab’s own police!
The new definition appears to be oblivious of the harsh reality that prevails today. Why not accept the four categories of Sikhs, as they are? In the first category come the Khalsa, the baptized Sikhs. This undeniably is the most revered category. The second category is that of a Gursikh, who follows the Sikh Rehat Maryada but has not partaken “amrit”. In the third category are those who are born in Sikh homes and who believe in the Guru Granth Sahib and perform all ceremonies as per Sikh rights but are either clean-shaven or clip their hair partially. Most NRIs and rural youth in Punjab would fall in this category. In the fourth category are those who are not born in the Sikh homes but are believers in the Guru Granth Sahib and also perform ceremonies as per Sikh traditions. Their number is on the wane, primarily because this category has been ignored. Since Sikhism as it is today has evolved from Guru Nanak world view, it may not be out of place to remind our religious heads engaged in nit picking on the form of Sikhism of the ideals of the founder who declared "na koi hindu na koi mussalman".
The new definition appears to go beyond the Rehat Maryada as approved by the SGPC in 1945. The Introduction to the Maryada gives the Definition of a Sikh as “any person whose faith is in one God, the Ten Gurus and their teaching and the Adi Granth. In addition he or she must believe in the necessity and importance of amrit (initiation) and must not adhere to any other religion.” Siginificantly, the definition does not set partaking of “amrit” as a pre-condition for being a Sikh. Besides, who can be dubbed a “patit” is debatable. “Patit” by definition is a “lapsed Sikh” – should it include those who are yet to partake “amrit” or those who have erred after partaking “amrit” or both?
Definition apart, by denying a person his or her belief – by birth or resolve - to be a Sikh, the loser would be the community. Already, a large number of people born in Sikh homes have co-opted into other sects and deras. In fact, ways should be devised to get them back into the fold. The new definition mixes up two forms – Sikh and Khalsa. Since the second has evolved from the first, the two are intrinsic. Yet, if one does not qualify to being the second (Khalsa), does one lose the inherent right to be the first (Sikh)? Instead of quibbling over form, the need is to address the two issues that have emerged – of voting in the SGPC and quota admissions to the Sikh institutions. This requires wider deliberation. One could throw the voting and admissions open to all Sikhs (with Singh or Kaur to their names, as mandated in the Maryada) or have quotas for different categories of Sikhs within the existing framework. Narrowing down the definition to accepting only a Khalsa as a Sikh, besides the Sehajdharis, is replete with the risk of at least some among the vast number of believers gradually walking into other faiths or simply losing faith. The choice is between exclusivity and universalism. Incidentally, all those religions which opted for the latter flourished while the ones which embraced exclusivity were gradually marginalised.
A valid point - a strong need to redefine a Sikh. A few words can't end the faith of millions.
ReplyDeleteThe SGPC has to rise above petty vote concerns and address contentious issues in the larger interest of the sikh community, otherwise given the present dispention, it would not be long, before it sees a major walkover from the faith towards more accomodating (booming) dera culture.
ReplyDelete