Ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased and honored to be here today, on the occasion of the first annual Guru Nanak Lecture at San Jose State University. I would like to thank University Provost Marshall Goodman, and Professor Dominique van Hoff, Chair, Department of Foreign Languages for inviting me to be the first speaker in this series. I would also like to thank the administration of San Jose State for its strong support of the offering of classes in the Punjabi language. I would also like to acknowledge the key role played by Professor Atamjit Singh in teaching these classes with exceptional enthusiasm, creativity and dedication. The benefits of educating a group of young Americans about their heritage, and ultimately disseminating knowledge of this heritage to American society at large, are immeasurable. Professor Atamjit Singh has been untiring in his efforts to expand what San Jose State can offer to its students and to the local community, including a summer class on the poetry of the Sikh scripture inaugurated this year, and now this lecture series as well.
So why is a professor of economics going to talk to you about Guru Nanak and the Sikh religion? Well, I was cheap to get. But I hope it was more than that. I stand before you as a student, as a learner, and it is in that spirit that I shall deliver my remarks. My academic training as a social scientist will come in handy, though, because it makes me used to reading what other academics write, comparing different interpretations, tracking the varying sources of conflicting statements, and trying to make sense of it all. One of my messages, beyond the content of my talk, is that this academic approach is necessary and important. It does have its limits. Nevertheless, it seems to me that Sikh Studies – covering not just religion, but also language, history, politics, society, culture, art, economics and more – must have a firm place in the universities of North America.
Despite the conflicts and disappointments that have arisen in the early attempts to create this place for Sikh Studies, the Sikh community must persevere, because Sikhs, by definition, are students and learners. The strong presence of Sikhs in North America means that the community will inevitably be an object of academic study, and it must participate as fully as possible. Religious belief and scholarship – even if the latter is inherently reflexive in the case of Sikh scholars studying their own community – are not incompatible. Belief, or faith, does not – and should not – rule out scholarship.
Our goal as a community should be to enhance our self-understanding, and the understanding of others, without any fear for our faith. This view of scholarship and faith, rejecting the idea that believers cannot be scholars, is what lies behind the title of my talk, the first part of which comes from the first book written by W. H. McLeod, the foremost Western interpreter of Sikhism, and one of its most controversial students. McLeod and some of his critics together have created a false dichotomy between scholarship and faith, and I challenge that. The second part of my title emphasizes that I am not claiming to offer any certainties. My reflections are based on my own knowledge and understanding, but also on a reading of many different scholars and historical sources.
Here is what I shall cover in my talk. First, for those in the audience who are not Sikhs, I summarize something of what we know of Guru Nanak, his life and his teachings. Since the nine successors of Guru Nanak were one in spirit with him, and since their teachings form an integrated whole, I will say something about them also, again briefly. Having provided this overview, I will address what are, for me, two major academic issues. The first is, how original was Guru Nanak, and was he the founder of Sikhism as a religion? The second is, how different is the Sikhism of today from that of the past, whether that past is the 17th century, the 18th, or the 19th? To the typical Sikh, these questions may seem pointless, since the answers are obvious: first, Guru Nanak had a divine revelation and consciously transmitted it to his successors and followers, and second, the essence of Sikhism has been preserved from the time of the Gurus, with the institution of the Khalsa by Guru Gobind Singh being the only truly significant addition. Yet university scholars of Sikhism in the West have had the following to say on these two issues.
On the origins of Sikhism:
On the nature of Sikh identity:
One might just dismiss such views as being contrary to tradition, or conventional wisdom, or to our beliefs, but that approach offers no refutation in the world of academia. My own view, based on studying the evidence that we have, and on the judgments of different scholars, is that both these views are mistaken, from a purely scholarly perspective. Tradition and conventional wisdom may oversimplify, and they may not stand up completely to the skeptical analysis of an historian or social scientist (whether empiricist or post-modernist) but they are actually closer to the truth than the fashionable revisionism illustrated by the above quotes. My conclusion emerges from a careful reading of historical sources, and a careful application of academic methods. Thus, I argue, scholarship and belief can reach similar conclusions.
Guru Nanak was born in Punjab, in northern India, in 1469. He learned to read and write (rare accomplishments at the time), engaged in normal boyhood pursuits, and went to work as he reached manhood. He married, had two sons, had a mystical experience, what he himself described as a divine revelation, and thereafter traveled very extensively for many years, spreading his spiritual message, composing hymns, and interacting with different spiritual traditions. He left traces of his travels and his teachings in many parts of India, and possibly beyond, though the historical record is often inconclusive. For about the last twenty years of his life, Guru Nanak settled in Kartarpur, on the banks of the Ravi, where he founded a new community of disciples. These were his Sikhs, his followers, his students.
There is strong evidence (Mann, 2001) that at least by the latter part of the Kartarpur period, and probably earlier, Guru Nanak had compiled a pothi, a book collecting his hymns. While the pothi itself was stolen in 1970, and its whereabouts are unknown, photographs taken earlier establish that its original first section contains Guru Nanak’s hymns, and only those, beginning with the Japji, which is the Sikhs’ morning prayer, and a fundamental statement of Sikh beliefs. Given Guru Nanak’s clearly stated sense of divine mission, in which his hymns were direct guidance from God, it makes eminent sense that these hymns would have been early on preserved in writing for the nascent Sikh community centered at Kartarpur (Mann, 2001, p. 10).
What is the essence of Guru Nanak’s message, as preserved in his own writings? Again, I provide a bare summary. (In doing so, I run the risk of oversimplification, or even neglect of important nuances – I ask for forgiveness in advance). Foremost is the unity of God. Furthermore, God is formless, timeless, beyond all attributes. However, this is not a monistic view of the divine, but something much more personal, a loving God, a God of all creation, but who has a special connection with humans. Humans have a special consciousness, which allows them to achieve union with the divine, but they are impeded in this by their haumai, their sense of ‘I-ness’. Yet the Hukam, the divine order, resides within all humans, and they can understand the Hukam, indeed the Nam (the divine Name) itself, through the Sabad (the divine Word), which is conveyed in the teachings of the Guru.
Yet Guru Nanak’s teachings are much more than a message of individual, interior devotion to God. While humanity as a whole has a special place in creation, Guru Nanak rejects the hierarchy of the caste system as having any significance for individual liberation. He also rejects the pessimistic view of life and the negative view of women that are characteristic of Kabir and many of the other Bhagats of the time (Vaudeville, 1987, p. 38): this is categorical and explicit in his teachings.
Also, Guru Nanak, while recognizing the snares of family attachments, "approves of the life of a householder who can cultivate detachment and devotion." (Grewal, 1969) While Guru Nanak’s ethical teaching may sometimes be subsidiary to his central religious message of how humans can connect with God, his work is filled with examples of positive ethical guidance. Grewal (1969) puts it thus:
Naturally Guru Nanak lays a good deal of stress upon the individual’s actions. He exhorts men to adopt good speech…he emphasizes the need of helping oneself…[but not] for one’s mundane activity…The thief, the gambler, and the slanderer shall inevitably receive punishment; so shall be punished those who indulge in illicit sexual intercourse…one must earn one’s livelihood honestly. One should cultivate true humility and be of service to others. (pp. 184-185)
Perhaps the best-known statement of Guru Nanak in this respect is his assertion that truth lies above all, but higher still is truthful living. There can be no clearer statement of ethical guidance.
It is worth elaborating on the role of community in Guru Nanak’s worldview and teachings, since this is less well understood by many scholars than is his basic theology. Gurinder Singh Mann, based on a close reading of Guru Nanak’s hymns (and specific lines and passages, which I shall not give), has provided a clear assessment, which I quote at length:
In Guru Nanak’s case, … meditation is one critical piece in an otherwise larger vision of life that constituted the basis of the community at Kartarpur. For Guru Nanak, three key virtues – meditation on the divine name (nam), charity (dan), and purity (ishnan) – are prerequisite to a successful search for liberation. …Guru Nanak’s commitment to hard work and service to humanity as the two enduring assets in pursuit of liberation … further emphasize the significance of social context in the attainment of spiritual goals.
In Guru Nanak’s view, the community does not simply provide a passive backdrop for an individual’s search for liberation; it is very much a part of that agenda. He believes in the individual’s obligation to work toward collective liberation. …A successful individual is one who attains liberation for himself or herself but who in addition assists in the liberation of everyone around. (Mann, 2001, pp. 6-7)
I summarize the overall situation at the time of Guru Nanak’s death by quoting another scholar:
… by the time Guru Nanak breathed his last the nucleus of a new social group had come into existence with an acknowledged Guru to guide its social and religious life according to a pattern set by the founder and in the light of ideas expounded by him. (Grewal, 1990, p. 41)
Let me also emphasize that, in addition to this core group described by Grewal, which was marked by physical and spiritual proximity to Guru Nanak and his teachings, Guru Nanak also left a widespread influence to varying degrees throughout India, a result of his extensive travels that had made him known far and wide in his lifetime. That wider influence has persisted to this day.
Guru Nanak died in 1539, after a remarkable life of seventy years. Before his death, he appointed his successor, Guru Angad, who became the second Nanak in spirit and in spiritual role. In this transition, the role of Guru and Sikh were interchanged, a theme that has persisted in Sikh history and tradition. It is recorded that Guru Nanak gave his successor the pothi that contained his hymns, and this was ‘a symbolic marker of the succession of authority.’ (Mann, 2001, p. 37)
We know that Guru Angad used the signature Nanak for his hymns, affirming the continuity of spirit. We know that Guru Angad, in his writings also maintained the continuity and consistency of their message for the followers of Nanak. We also know, from the songs of praise of the bards, Satta and Balvand, as recorded in what became the Sikh scripture, that Guru Angad maintained a langar, or community kitchen. Mann describes the langar as follows:
This institution established food sharing as a central feature of Sikh piety, an unequivocal emphasis on social and gender equality within the community, and a forum for service. The food was cooked in one place and all participated in its preparation, and then, irrespective of caste or gender, all partook of it together (Mann, 2001, p. 9)
Mann also suggests that, given Guru Angad’s role as a sustainer of the Sikh community, and the long development of Kartarpur, the langar was very likely an innovation of Guru Nanak himself. In any case, it stands out as a practical expression of egalitarianism, particularly striking in contrast to a Hindu society where food sharing across castes was considered one of the worst forms of pollution.
The period of the next three successors of Guru Nanak, Guru Amar Das, Guru Ram Das and Guru Arjan, saw a substantial expansion of the Sikh community. Guru Amar Das expanded the collection of Sikh hymns (partially extant in two volumes of what is known as the Goindval Pothis), organized it more systematically, and, in his own writings, made it clear that the teachings of Nanak and his successors constituted a particular belief system, to the rejection of kachi bani, or ‘spurious writings’ that involved belief in incarnations of God. (Mann, p. 36) Guru Amar Das’ hymns include words addressed to Hindu and Sufi religious elites, inviting them to avail of the shelter of the Guru’s teachings for liberation (Mann, 2001, p. 13). As is well known through Sikh historical accounts, Guru Amar Das also nominated twenty-two individuals to lead congregations that were far from his seat at Goindval, and to deal with local issues. This decentralization is an indicator of the institutional success of the community of Sikhs.
Institutional consolidation and expansion continued with Guru Ram Das, who founded the town that became known as Amritsar, one of the Sikhs’ most sacred places. Guru Ram Das and his successor, Guru Arjan, wielded temporal authority that encompassed ever more followers and a spreading geographical area. Guru Ram Das, in his hymns describes a community that is flourishing materially in concert with its spiritual advance. In fact, he emphasizes that, if one lives with devotion, as a Sikh of the Guru, material success is a positive aspect of life. Again, one sees a continuity with the life-affirming values of Guru Nanak.
The increasing influence of Sikhism under Guru Arjan, and a change in the attitude of the Mughal authority when Jahangir succeeded Akbar, led to a major blow to the Sikhs, when Guru Arjan was martyred, in 1606, at the orders of Jahangir. Thereafter, there followed almost two centuries of increasing chaos in the Punjab, and the near-extermination of the community at the hands of the Mughals and their vassals. While non-hereditary succession meant that the center of the Sikh community had moved from Kartarpur to Khadur to Goindval to Amritsar, each time this shift had been accompanied by increased influence and prosperity in a settled and relatively peaceful time for the Punjab. In contrast, the period of Guru Hargobind, Guru Har Rai, Guru Harkrishan, Guru Tegh Bahadur and Guru Gobind was marked by disorder, conflict and persecution.
In this situation of turmoil, the step taken by Guru Arjan, of compiling an authoritative Sikh scripture, proved to be critical. Guru Arjan took the writings of the first three Gurus, added those of Guru Ram Das and his own hymns, and included the bulk of the hymns of the Bhagats that had been included in the Goindval Pothis. He organized this collection, personally oversaw the scribal duties of Bhai Gurdas, and, when the volume, then called the Adi Granth, and now the Guru Granth Sahib of the Sikhs, was completed in 1604, had it ceremonially installed in the Darbar Sahib (known in the West as the Golden Temple) in Amritsar. The evidence of manuscript copies of the original volume (now known as the Kartarpur Pothi, see Mann, 2001) indicates that the Adi Granth began to be copied as soon as it was completed, and possibly even before, and that these copies were meant to carry the word of Guru Nanak and his successors to Sikh congregations all over Punjab, and beyond.
In 1606, at the time of Guru Arjan’s martyrdom, the Adi Granth was already the authoritative embodiment of the teachings of the Gurus, and it has remained so to this day. The hymns of Guru Tegh Bahadur were added to the Adi Granth (traditionally by Guru Gobind, but probably in Guru Tegh Bahadur’s own lifetime), and some minor variations in different copies were resolved during the period of Guru Gobind (see Mann, 2001). Its status was sealed when the line of human Gurus ended with Guru Gobind, and he made the Adi Granth the final and eternal Guru of the Sikhs, the Guru Granth Sahib, carrying the living word. In this context, core Sikh belief has been remarkably constant: the hymns of Guru Nanak and his successors have always conveyed the word of God, and this takes precedence over everything else.
In my view, Gurinder Singh Mann captures the essence of Sikh belief in the following statement, based on what is said in Guru Nanak’s own writings:
The heart of the matter is that Guru Nanak neither accepted, nor contested the authority of existing scriptural texts; but he perceived himself as having access to a higher and more complete truth, which was directly revealed to him and was manifested in his own hymns. And for Guru Nanak and the community of his followers, these hymns included everything that they needed to know and possess. (Mann, 2001, p. 11)
Mann is writing about Guru Nanak alone when he says this, but it is important to remember that all the Sikh Gurus use the signature of Nanak, that it is clearly stated in the Adi Granth (in the songs of the Sikh bards) that all of Nanak’s successors carried his spirit, and that there is a remarkable doctrinal consistency in the writings of the Sikh Gurus. In this context, we can note parenthetically that even the writings of the Bhagats (non-Sikh poet-saints) included in the Adi Granth were carefully selected to conform to Sikh doctrine, with commentaries added on occasion by the Gurus themselves (Mann, 2001; Pashaura Singh, 2003).
Obviously, I have not given, and cannot give in this short time, a complete history of the Sikhs in the centuries after Guru Nanak. However, I cannot neglect one of the most significant events in the evolution of Sikhism, the creation of the Khalsa, and of the Singhs (the last name of all who took the new baptism ceremony that Guru Gobind initiated). Because of the unsettled nature of the period, our historical records are incomplete. Despite the quibbles of some historians, it seems that Guru Gobind’s actions and intentions in creating the Khalsa at the end of the 17th century are clear (Grewal, 1990, Chapter 4). He wanted to end the intermediation of the masands, local representatives of the Guru’s authority for far-flung Sikh congregations. He wanted to reaffirm the close bond between the Guru and his disciples, and to emphasize the egalitarian aspects of that bond. And he wanted to create a physical identity that also emphasized equality and self-affirmation of the faith.
Despite the dramatic nature of the Guru’s actions, and the distinctiveness of the unshorn hair enjoined for the new Singhs, I want to instead point out some of the continuities in Guru Gobind Singh’s decisions. We can find in the writings of all the Sikh Gurus a close bond with their true Sikhs. This is explicit in many hymns, and, while the writings of the Sikh bards exalt the Gurus, the Gurus’ own writings display great humility, and high praise of the true Sikhs. This is echoed in Guru Gobind’s decision to be baptized by his own Sikhs, so the Guru became the disciple (aape gur chela). I have noted also the emphasis on social equality and justice in the writings of Guru Nanak and in the early practices of the Sikh community. Almost two hundred years later, and after a century in which the Sikhs were driven from their main settlements and repeatedly harassed by the imperial authorities, Guru Gobind Singh’s actions are, in many respects, reaffirmation rather than innovation. They are clearly reminiscent of the transition first performed by Guru Nanak with Guru Angad. In particular, with respect to continuity of doctrine, note that the Adi Granth, now as the Guru Granth Sahib, remained the central guide of the Sikhs, even after the Khalsa was created: this has been a core tenet of Sikh belief.
Therefore, while it has become standard to write of the ‘transformation’ of the Sikhs under Guru Gobind (Narang, 1960; Grewal, 1990), we can also view the historical record as marking much more of an evolution of Sikh society, in response to changing circumstances and to increasingly grave external threats, this evolution proceeding from the practical emphasis on social justice of Guru Nanak; through the community building and creation of distinctiveness undertaken by Guru Amar Das, Guru Ram Das and Guru Arjan; to the struggle for the community’s literal survival that followed for the next century, under the last five human Gurus. In all of this, moreover, the teachings of the Gurus, first expounded by Guru Nanak, remained a constant for their disciples, the Sikhs.
Niharranjan Ray (1975), an eminent historian, puts it thus:
What Guru Gobind Singh did was, to my mind, the logical culmination of the process that was started by Guru Nanak himself. (Ray, p. 69)Gurinder Singh Mann (2003), in his most recent work, makes the following observation about Guru Gobind’s creation of the Singhs of his Khalsa:
Guru Nanak’s conception of a life of honor and fearlessness thus found its embodiment in the Singhs. (Mann, 2003, p. 35)
The continuity of the Sikh tradition, as expressed in these and other ways, will be important for my later arguments.
I now turn to the first of my specific questions. Was Guru Nanak reworking a ‘Sant’ pattern or synthesis of thought? The quotes I gave earlier made precisely this claim. I have noted that Guru Nanak explicitly did not see himself in this light, but that observation is not a complete refutation for a skeptical scholar. We must examine the issue further. I have written a long academic paper on this (Singh, 2001), which prompted a comment from Professor McLeod, and a response from me (McLeod, 2002; Singh, 2002). Here I shall merely outline the argument.
First, we must define the category ‘Sant’ itself. Relying on the work of Pitamber Barthwal (1936), Western scholars have postulated a medieval Sant tradition that includes Kabir, Dadu, Ravidas and others. They have, following Barthwal and Chaturvedi (1952), put Guru Nanak in this category based on similarities in teachings. These similarities are the formlessness of God (nirguna), an interior path of spirituality, the necessity of a Guru, and the fellowship of satsang. McLeod describes the Sant tradition as follows:
The Sant tradition was essentially a synthesis of the three principal dissenting movements, a compound of elements drawn mainly from Vaisnava bhakti and the hatha-yoga of the Nath yogis, with a marginal contribution from Sufism. (McLeod, 1968, p. 152)
McLeod is also categorical in tracing a historical evolution of the Sant tradition, identifying Kabir as a seminal figure, and, as I noted in my introduction, placing Guru Nanak firmly within this tradition. Other Western scholars of medieval India, who are not specialists on Sikhism (and often know very little about it), follow McLeod in this last placement. However, they are much less categorical than McLeod about the tradition itself. In my paper, I quote extensively from these other scholars to argue that the so-called Sant tradition is actually quite fuzzy and imprecise. It has none of the clarity or precision that McLeod seeks to impose on it.
A further, revealing point that emerges from a survey of academic writing on this topic is that the term itself is a 19th century construct, at the earliest. In fact, the earliest quoted published reference to the term dates back to 1911, rather than the mid-nineteenth century. According to Juergensmeyer (1987), Tulsi Sahib uses the term in his Ghat Ramayana (1911), and the notion that he originated the term is implied by Chaturvedi (1952, p. 783). Furthermore, Juergensmeyer explicitly credits a specific group, the Radhasoamis, with ‘crystallizing’ and broadcasting the concept in the nineteenth century.
Note that, while the term ‘sant’ occurs in the hymns of the Sikh gurus, nowhere can it be taken to imply an organized or recognized tradition. The Guru Granth Sahib uses the term ‘Bhagat’, and, as I have pointed out earlier, the inclusion of the Bhagat bani was done very selectively. Also, while there are specific references in Kabir to Namdev, in Dhanna to Kabir, Ravidas and Namdev, and so on, and these suggest shared beliefs, there is no implication of any contemporary consciousness of a specific tradition that can be termed the ‘Sants’. Finally, note that Guru Nanak himself makes no references to Kabir, allegedly the seminal figure in this tradition.
To summarize the argument so far, there is no clear Sant tradition that fits the historical facts. The term itself is a 19th century construct, applied by emergent religious groups and by Hindu scholars of the 20th century as an attempt to create a lineage that increased the perceived legitimacy of their own traditions. In this light, the following statements of McLeod, made almost 30 years after his initial claims that I quoted earlier, are startling. I quote:
Must we conclude that Nanak was a Sant?
For devout Sikhs the answer must be a firm no. For them Nanak received direct enlightenment from Akal Purakh and, as the direct mediator of the divine message of liberation, there can be no possibility of antecedents….
Others, however, do not share that commitment and are required to give a different answer….If it is a strictly neutral question of antecedents and influences, the answer must be in the affirmative. Because he represents the essential concerns of the Sants, it follows that Guru Nanak must be located within the Sant tradition. (McLeod, 1997, pp. 101-102)
This is what I would call the creation of a false opposition between scholarship and belief. As I have argued above, it is a legitimate, and plausible scholarly position that Guru Nanak cannot be located within the Sant tradition, because to do so is totally ahistorical, and because the tradition itself is not well defined.
My argument does not end here. Earlier, I took some time to detail the social aspects of Guru Nanak’s teachings, relying on Gurinder Singh Mann’s careful reading of the evidence given by Guru Nanak’s own hymns. Guru Nanak’s view on ethical matters is very different from the ‘Sant’ and Vaishnava positions: "They share a pessimistic view of mundane life and of family ties…They cordially despise and fear women…" (Vaudeville, 1987, p. 38) This is quite different from Guru Nanak’s views on women, as McLeod also admits:
Guru Nanak’s words carry us well beyond the conventional view of his time, or, for that matter, the present time as well. Without a woman, man is nothing, so why should she be called weak and why should she ever be regarded as unclean? (McLeod, 1997, p. 242)
To summarize, Guru Nanak’s teachings imply a clear moral code, far beyond, and different in temper than, anything one can find in anything that is labeled the ‘Sant tradition’. Grewal (1969) puts it thus:
Guru Nanak’s compositions may not ‘prove’ a radical departure from the existing [social] order, but a radical departure would be justified by his compositions. (p. 196)
Lest I leave you with the impression that the differences in Guru Nanak’s teachings are merely on the plane of social practice, and, no matter how important that is, it is subsidiary to the individual’s liberation, let me conclude by noting that there are more basic theological differences as well. In particular, Guru Nanak’s concept of Hukam is an important example. McLeod says, in this regard:
…it is in Guru Nanak’s use of this word [Hukam] that his development beyond the thought of Kabir and other bhagats is most obvious…(McLeod, 1968, p. 191)
McLeod is unable to situate Guru Nanak’s concept of Hukam within Islamic thought either. Faced with total originality in the writings of Guru Nanak, McLeod is reduced to appealing to unknown, anonymous ‘Sants’ who must have had the same ideas before, since he is unwilling to accept that anything can be wholly original (McLeod, 1968, p. 189). This kind of appeal simply flies in the face of scholarship. Note that one does not have to accept the literal claim of divine revelation to acknowledge originality, though even scientists speak of inspiration with respect to new theories in divine terms. Furthermore, rejecting total originality is semantic hairsplitting, since the issue is really one of degree.
In any case, the claim that those who do not share the commitment of devout Sikhs must accept that Guru Nanak was a ‘Sant’ must itself be totally rejected, on purely scholarly grounds. I think I have clearly established this point on a scholarly basis alone – not on the basis of faith or devotion.
In my introductory remarks, I quoted Harjot Oberoi, whose book has been favorably reviewed by Western scholars, and even won an academic prize. Let me recapitulate his views with another quote from his book:
There appears equally to be a failure to recognize the differences between the ideology of a period and a historical explanation. It was Sikh reformers in the nineteenth century who, for the first time, labeled many current practices and certain forms of Sikh identity as unacceptable. Historians are at fault when they simply reproduce these value judgements and employ categories invented by a section of the Sikh elites to discredit specific beliefs and rituals (Oberoi, 1994, p. 32)
Here Oberoi is referring to the so-called ‘Tat Khalsa’ branch of the Singh Sabha movement. He labels them ‘Sikh elites’ and credits them with inventing a new, ‘standardized Sikh identity’ (p. 382). Scholars who disagree with Oberoi’s perspective are explicitly discredited as reproducing value judgments rather than providing historical explanations. I will argue that the situation is just the opposite.
What exactly did the Tat Khalsa replace? Oberoi describes it as ‘the polytheism, idol worship, caste distinctions and diversity espoused by Sanatan Sikhism.’ The term ‘Sanatan Sikhism’ will be unfamiliar to most, if not all, contemporary Sikhs. Oberoi places the term as itself originating in the late nineteenth century, though I could not find a clear reference in his book, beyond the assertion that the term was current in mid 19th century Punjab, and became common from the 1880s. In fact, the term, much like what happened with the term ‘Sant’ that I discussed earlier, appears to have been appropriated by Oberoi and applied in a novel way. Oberoi traces the ‘Sanatan tradition’ to a compromise made between Khalsa and Sahajdhari Sikhs during the emergence of the Khalsa misls in latter half of the 18th century, and the rule of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, in the early 19th century.
Some key characteristics of Sanatan Sikhism according to Oberoi are as follows:
Sanatan Sikhs following older Khalsa conventions held the Adi Granth and the Dasam Granth, the two devotional texts, at par. (Oberoi, 1994, p. 93)
The Dasam Granth became paradigmatic for the entire religious culture of the Sanatan Sikhs. (Oberoi, 1994, p. 98)
Sanatan Sikhs … also began to accord an almost analogous status to the Puranas. (Oberoi, 1994, p. 99)
Avtar Singh Vahiria, the most articulate exponent of Sanatan thinking later in the century, counted Guru Nanak among a long line of avatars, including Ram and Krishna. (Oberoi, 1994, p. 103)
Many among the Sanatan Sikhs took to the worship of images, for it was a time-honoured Indian custom to so honour avatars. (Oberoi, 1994, p. 103)
Along with the worship of images it was considered legitimate to worship living gurus. For an average Sanatan Sikh there was hardly any difference between Sikh gurus and some of their charismatic descendants. (Oberoi, 1994, p. 104)
For Sanatan Sikhs the caste system and its taboos had undoubtedly become an integral part of the Sikh faith, and they did all they could to enforce it. (Oberoi, 1994, p. 107)
…though Sikh ascetic orders like the Udasis were clearly at odds with the world-affirming Khalsa episteme, Sanatan acceptance of the varnasramadharma theory gave them a logical place within the ambit of Sikh tradition. (Oberoi, 1994, p. 107)
If the above, astonishingly, sounds nothing like modern Sikhism, Oberoi’s answer is that our surprise reflects the complete victory of the Tat Khalsa. Interestingly, while Oberoi claims to provide a historical explanation, his rhetoric is itself full of value judgments. The Tat Khalsa reformers ‘aggressively usurped the fight to represent others’, and created a ‘monolithic, codified and closed culture,’ as opposed to the ‘older pluralist paradigm of Sikh faith.’ (Oberoi, 1994, p. 25) There are numerous examples of such rhetoric in his book, which suggest that Oberoi is mourning the extinction of what he calls Sanatan Sikhism.
Let me now examine Oberoi’s thesis critically, from an academic perspective. I have several points to make, and I shall just summarize them here. First, besides the problem of selectivity in language (Grewal, 1997, p. 68), Oberoi is also selective in his use of facts. He uses sources and incidents selectively without giving the larger context, or the background or biases of the sources. His neglect of historical context goes deeper. He neglects the events of the 17th and 18th centuries, which had led to the displacement of the Sikh Gurus from their traditional centers; the persecution which had made it impossible for Sikhs to control their own sacred places; and the general chaos that must surely have prevented the core of the Sikh community, the Khalsa of Guru Gobind Singh, from wielding any influence on social institutions as they struggled to avoid extermination. One cannot understand the patterns of the Sikh community in the 19th century without seeing it as an outcome of the preceding period, and Oberoi fails to do so beyond a simplified account of what he terms a Khalsa-Sahajdhari rapprochement in the latter part of the 18th century and its immediate aftermath.
I have alluded to various groups within Sikhism, in the context of quoting from Oberoi. What was this diversity? Throughout Sikh history, there have been conflicts over succession. I will not go over the details here, but what is clear is that dissident groups have either faded away, or come back into mainstream Sikhism, adopting the Singh identity in particular. Clearly, the institution of appointing a successor, and, after Guru Arjan, the existence of an authoritative Sikh scripture, played a role in defining the center versus offshoots.
Oberoi’s own list of traditions within the Sikh Panth is a hotchpotch of other categories, excluding dissident groups:
The religious diversity within the Sikh Panth [in the 19th century] made it possible for its adherents to belong to any one of the following traditions: Udasi, Nirmala, Nanak-panthi, Khalsa, Sahajdhari, Kuka, Nirankari and Sarvaria. (Oberoi, 1994, p. 24)
If one examines each of these groups, almost all of them depart from the core teachings of the Sikh Gurus in one or more fundamental ways. The terms ‘Sahajdhari’, and Nanak-Panthi, on the other hand, are generic, though in different contexts. However, Oberoi’s examples of Sahajdhari Sikhs are quite idiosyncratic, and Grewal (1997), analyzing Oberoi’s terminology and examples, states, ‘Oberoi’s Sahajdharis are virtually ‘Udasis’.’ However, the Udasis were an early offshoot from the Sikh faith, and departed radically from the teachings of Guru Nanak, as well as his successors.
Ultimately, Oberoi’s account of diversity in the Sikh tradition has no real logic. Grewal (1997) concludes, ‘His [Oberoi’s] hypothesis of Sanatan Sikhism in the early nineteenth century appears to be vague and vacuous.’ (p. 29) Furthermore, he says, ‘To talk of multiple identities among the early nineteenth century Sikhs is to resurrect non-entities.’ (p. 32) I would put it even more strongly. Oberoi’s characterization of Sanatan Sikhism is defined by groups and beliefs that violate the core teachings of Guru Nanak. This is why the modern Sikh is surprised by Oberoi’s arguments, because the Sikh Gurus would be, not because of the Singh Sabha! This is my second important point on this issue.
Finally I would argue that it is clear from the historical record that the Sikhs, from the time of Guru Nanak, recognized themselves as a distinct group. The hymns of several of the Gurus, as well as other early core Sikh sources (the bards and Bhai Gurdas) make it clear that there was this self-consciousness, as well as conceptual clarity in the distinctiveness. I have already argued that there is little basis for placing the early Sikh community within some larger so-called ‘Sant’ tradition. Doctrinally, as well as in core social practices, it was marked as distinct. The Adi Granth played a central, defining role in the Sikh community from 1604 onwards, as emerges very clearly from detailed historical analysis (e.g., Mann (2001). Oberoi fails to understand this, or the contents of the Guru Granth Sahib itself, and its internal evidence, as has been pointed out by Grewal (1997, p. 13) and Pashaura Singh (2003, p. 32). Oberoi also fails to weigh the evidence in the writings of Bhai Gurdas, preferring the less reliable Janamsakhi folk traditions. Grewal (1997), in analyzing the positions of McLeod (1989) and Oberoi, characterizes McLeod’s position as one that ‘the consciousness of distinct identity [during the period of the first Gurus] was quite clear among the intellectual elite, or at the center, but it was not equally clear among the mass of the Sikhs, or at the periphery. This was a difference of degree.’
Another aspect of identity that is stressed by Oberoi is life-cycle rituals, such as those for birth, marriage and death. He gives these great importance in the construction of religious identity. According to him, ‘Prior to the Khalsa transformation, Sikhs do not seem to have possessed a distinct set of life-cycle rituals.’ (p. 63) There is detailed evidence that contradicts this statement (Grewal, 1990, p. 53; Mann, 2003, pp. 54-55), including the hymns of the Sikh Gurus themselves. Even Khalsa ceremonies and markers predated the Singh Sabha movement, and, as documented by both Grewal (1997) and McLeod (1989), the Khalsa identity was the dominant Sikh identity from the late 18th century through the 19th, rather than being one of many equal contenders.
Thus, it is clear that Sikh identity, as defined by belief and by practice, was already distinct early in the period of the Gurus. It certainly evolved through the three centuries after Guru Nanak, but retained its essential character. If there is a scholarly debate, then it has to be conducted at the peripheries of identity. Because Sikhism is not an exclusive or exclusionary religion, because it does not reject other truths, it is easy to confuse this with the lack of a boundary. Diversity in practice, and tolerance of some diversity, do not imply the lack of a moral gradient. The writings of the Sikh Gurus, starting with Guru Nanak, are quite clear and consistent on such points – on what is good, and what is not. Yet they recognize humanity for what it is, with its diversity and its failings: no one is rejected outright. Oberoi neglects the core and focuses at the margins, and he treats these margins without using the moral lens of the Sikh Gurus.
The answer then, is clear: the Singh Sabha movement did not create Sikhism, as we know it today. There was a sharpening of identities and boundaries in that period, but there remains a clear continuity of the tradition from the time of Guru Nanak, through his nine successors, and thereafter. If anything, post-Singh Sabha Sikhism is closer to the Sikhism of Guru Nanak than anything that comes under Oberoi’s umbrella of Sanatan tradition.
In this lecture I have introduced some essentials of the Sikh religion as founded by Guru Nanak, and its subsequent evolution. One reason I also tackled two rather academic questions, one pertaining to origins, and the other to later development, was to show that there is a clear scholarly case for rejecting views that have become popular in Western academic circles. In doing so, I may have said nothing surprising for most Sikhs. However, while the two positions that I have critiqued are chiefly of academic concern, they both find their way into popular books (for example, McLeod’s 1997 paperback book, titled Sikhism). Another aspect to these debates is political, and has to do with the Hindutva movement now underway in India, and its ramifications in Punjab, the birthplace of the Sikh religion.
Let me conclude with the positive lessons of my talk. There is a clear scholarly case, in my view, for recognizing Guru Nanak as the founder of a new religion, one that was in no way a reworking of previous traditions. Even McLeod (1968) admits to Guru Nanak being ‘profoundly original’, his having created an ‘integrated and coherent system’, and to the ‘clarity’ and ‘beauty’ of his teachings. However, as several scholars (including myself) have shown, McLeod’s understanding of what Guru Nanak accomplished, both theologically and in social practice, is incomplete and partial.
Guru Nanak founded a religious tradition of tremendous power. It has withstood various challenges, including threats of dilution, assimilation and even extermination. In overcoming external challenges, the religion and its social framework have evolved. However, what I have also done today is to point out the essential continuity of Sikh belief and practice from the time of Guru Nanak. The existence of a clear, consistent scriptural text has played an important role in this continuity, establishing an unchanging center for the tradition. In emphasizing both distinctiveness and continuity, I do not downplay the diversity of practice that is bound to exist in a religious tradition with 20 million followers worldwide. However, diversity does not mean that anything goes: this is a key blind spot in Oberoi’s thinking. And, yet, Sikhism is pluralistic and non-exclusionary in ways that can lead to confusion such as Oberoi’s, as well as to subtle negotiations with other religious traditions.
Beginning in the 19th century, Sikhism began to migrate from its South Asian birthplace, and one can now find Sikhs spread all over the world. This obviously creates new challenges, as the Sikhs have not been very well understood by Western scholars and observers, or by Western societies engaged in other global battles. How Sikhism responds to its new situation will depend on the awareness and understanding of its followers. I hope I have contributed to that contemporary understanding. Ultimately, I am confident that both the Sikhs, and the existing societies of their new homes in places such as Britain, Canada and the United States, have much that is positive to share with each other. This sharing, too, will require mutual understanding. I think this lecture series will be an important contributor in that direction.
Thank you.
* This is the text of a talk delivered at San Jose State University on November 15, 2003. I am most grateful to Ardaman Singh, Atamjit Singh, and Gurinder Singh Mann for helpful suggestions. Remaining errors and shortcomings are my sole responsibility.