Manshaan Singh
September 18, 2024 | 50 min. read | Analysis

Summary

Are Sikhs Hindus? The question seems simple, yet the debate has raged on for more than a century.

On the one hand, the mainstream Sikh view is that the Sikhs are a distinct people, with an identity that cannot be collapsed under either the modern Indian or Hindu classifications.

On the other is the view adopted by some, including both Hindus and self-identified Sanatan Sikhs, that Sikhs are indeed Hindus, and that Sikhism is an expression of Hinduism in that its philosophy is an outgrowth of essentially Indic ideas. The latter thus allege that the mainstream Sikh view is mistaken, that it was only during the colonial period that Sikhism came to be seen as a distinct ideology and that an independent Sikh identity was constructed.

This piece argues that the mainstream Sikh view is essentially correct.

First, a working definition of Sanatan Dharma (Hinduism) and the Hindu identity is proposed. Following the lead of Savarkar, the father of Hindutva, the two concepts are separated. Sanatan Dharma is the collection of beliefs found in the Vedas and further developed by literature such as the Simriti lawbooks and Purana mythologies. But a Hindu need not believe in the Sanatan Dharma to be Hindu. Instead, the Hindu identity belongs to one who calls the land of Bharat their own, who traces their genetic heritage to the Indian subcontinent, and perhaps most importantly, takes part in the “common culture” of the land.

The question thus becomes twofold – does Sikhism fit into the Sanatan Dharma, and is the Sikh identity a subset of the Hindu?

Savarkar himself would answer the first question in the negative and affirm the second. He seemed to have understood that Sikhs do not accept the Vedas as authority and Sanatan practice as theirs. But to drive this point home, a review of the relevant Gurbani, particularly certain quotes that are often taken out of context, is undertaken to prove that Gurmat (the philosophy of the Sikh Gurus) is not beholden to the Vedas. In fact, where the Vedas and Sanatan texts are mentioned, it is most often simply in dismissal. History confirms that the Sanatan texts never held any authority in the Sikh community.

But Savarkar puts forward a stronger case that Sikhs are Hindus, even if not Sanatan. To him, they more than fulfill his three-prong test for Hindu identification, as he believes Sikhs trace their descent from Vedic lands, are almost direct descendants of the supposed ancient Vedic race, and share common practices with the Hindu public such as language, festivals, and historical experience.

However, it is here that Savarkar makes the mistake, common to Sikhs and Hindus alike, of mistaking historical circumstance for historical necessity.

Yes, Sikhism was largely practiced within the Indian subcontinent by Punjabis, and many Punjabis partake in the common Hindu “civilization” as defined by Savarkar. Yet from the beginning of Sikhism, both Gurbani and Sikh practice illustrate how Sikhism was never cabined to the Indian subcontinent. From the udasis of Guru Nanak to the universal nature of the Khalsa, Sikh identity was never contained to an Indian or Hindu identity. In fact, core Sikh belief is that such identities must be rejected. Not just regional and blood, but the personal identity is itself rejected as false by Sikh doctrine. The Sikh identity is premised on the falsity of the self, and Sikh practice centers on realizing this truth. To define the Sikh identity within the parameters offered by Savarkar would be directly opposed to Gurmat.

And so, the Sikh identity is not Hindu in theory, nor was it in practice. Rather, the Gurmat message of universality was implemented throughout Sikh history, albeit imperfectly, but to the best extent possible considering the historical circumstance.

But there is something more fundamentally amiss in these debates.

The question is always framed as one in which, if change at all occurred, then somehow the said change is per se wrong. As if Sikh identity is locked into one pristine historical moment, and the role of the Khalsa is to simply determine how it was practiced then, and forever stick to this regime.

But this severely mistakes what the Khalsa is.

According to precolonial literature, the Khalsa Panth was given the authority of the living Guru upon its creation by Guru Gobind Singh. Along with this comes the authority to innovate and construct the Sikh identity in line with Gurmat, just like the Sikh Gurus did. Thus the question is not has Sikh identity changed, because of course it has – change is inevitable. The question is whether the changes have remained faithful to Gurmat along the way. And by moving away from the modern Hindu identity, I argue Sikhs have not only remained faithful to Gurmat, but rather, this move is necessitated by Gurmat itself.

I. The Wig-Wearing Manager

• A cotton mill manager explaining why he wears wigs to a young Roald Dahl in the latter’s loosely autobiographical novel, Going Solo (1986).

I came across the above passage while reading in my elementary school library. I was seven, maybe eight. I enjoyed racking up points in the American “Accelerated Reader” program which could then be traded in for prizes. It was a fairly transactional relationship to books – I read as quickly as I could to pass the program’s quizzes.

But I couldn’t believe my eyes when I came across Dahl’s description of Sikhs. Here was the Sikh identity being discussed as if its existence was as plain as any other matter of everyday life. I had read some books by Sikh authors in which efforts were made to normalize the Sikh identity, spurred on by the racism and bullying faced by visible Sikhs in a post-9/11 America. But this felt different. By simply being a humorous aside in a popular novel, Dahl’s passage was an instance of the world implicitly accepting the Sikh identity as fact, rather than a Sikh having to proactively assert their identity.

The Sikh identity, as many readers may know, has increasingly become the subject of endless debate online. Questions swirl regarding whether Sikhs are simply a subset of Hindus, whether Sikhism is a part of the Sanatan Dharma (lit. Eternal Law, denoting Vedic belief), whether it is improper for a Sikh to disavow the Indian identity, and even whether the Sikh identity actually existed prior to its alleged construction during the colonial era.

During these debates, my mind often wanders back to Dahl’s manager. It is, of course, possible that Dahl never met a cotton mill manager trying to impress his Sikh employees by wearing wigs. But consider what the young Dahl supposedly knew about Sikh culture during his voyage to Africa in 1938. His rendition of what a Sikh is hits on many of the fundamental premises of modern Sikh identity – the keeping of hair, or kes, the wearing of turbans (dastaars), and the focal point the land of Amritsar and Punjab plays in the ordering of the Sikh’s consciousness. Even the way Sikhism is described feels kind of accurate – it is “a sort of religion,” reflecting the difficulty with categorizing the Sikh path.1 And there is a quintessentially Sikh touch of self-assured anakh (confidence) – a “Sikh doesn’t respect a bald man.”

What’s perhaps most interesting is that, in describing the Sikh identity, Dahl does not lump it in with other, broader identities. He does not state that Sikhs are a subgroup of Hindus or general Indian culture. Instead, Dahl presents the Sikh identity as independent of all others. Whether consciously or not, I believe Dahl was correct to present the Sikh identity in this way. Why he is correct is the subject of this writing.

II. The Luddite Objection

By 1938, the Sikh identity looked much more like it does today than it did at the beginning of the British Raj (British rule over India). Rules and practices were being standardized, outfit and wear had been refashioned for the 20th century.

But the Sikhism Dahl came into contact with was the result of an almost half-century of debate, polemic, and controversy that spanned generations, borne from the Singh Sabha reformers and culminating in the political action of the Akali Movement.

Many take the obvious fact that the Sikh identity changed in the century between the fall of the Sikh Empire and Indian Independence to then argue that such change was wrong. The change that is particularly criticized is the assertion and construction of a Sikh identity independent of religious and racial Hindu identities, first formally postulated by Sabhaite writers such as Bhai Kahn Singh and then percolating into the general Sikh culture.2 There are a series of charges in response to this assertion of an independent Sikh identity – that Sikhs have misunderstood Gurmat (the philosophy of the Sikh Gurus), that Sikhs have turned their back to the precolonial Khalsa culture, that Sikhs Christianized their beliefs to impress the ruling British, and that the modern Sikh identity is simply a mask through which chauvinistic Jatts exercise political power. These are generalizations of course – there are more specific complaints as well, but most seem to fall into one of these buckets.

To assess the merits of these complaints, the exact nature of the Sikh identity will have to be scrutinized to determine whether it is inaccurate to describe it as separate from Hinduism and the Hindu identity. But first, we must deal with a weak, but popular, version of the above arguments. There are some, both internal and external to the Sikh community who, in Luddite fashion, will contend that any change to Sikh practice is qualitatively “wrong,” that Sikhs must essentially live and identify exactly the way the Sikhs of old did. At the outset, there are several problems with such a view.3

First, it assumes that there existed one common understanding of Sikh life at some point in time. This could not be further from the truth. Relevant here is the dearth of primary literature on the subject – with a few notable exceptions,4 we simply do not have many examples of lay Sikhs (note: I am not talking here of the Gurus) explaining how they viewed the world. From the documents we do have – take, for example, eighteenth-century Khalsa literature – many differ on matters of practice and belief.5 From where was an authoritative standard to be derived, with which one can judge the faith that modern Sikh practice has kept to its original? Ironically, this very issue is what motivated the early 20th-century Sikh intelligentsia to analyze these literary traditions and standardize the modern Sikh Rehat Maryada (the Sikh “code of conduct”).6

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, is the fact that we know Sikh practice changed throughout the Guru era.7 Which time period should be the metric with which the modern Sikh identity is then measured, and why? The era of Guru Nanak? Guru Hargobind? Guru Gobind Singh? No one can answer this question without relying on certain priors, most notably whether one accepts the legitimacy of the Khalsa institution. But the fact remains that with each Guru came innovation and change, change that continued through the precolonial Misl and empire periods. Change is simply a consequence of the passage of time, one cannot avoid it any more than one can prevent the next hour.

So, I think it obvious that the standard with which to judge modern Sikh identity and practice cannot simply be whether it is exactly the way it was conceptualized before colonialism. Such a standard may be attractive, but is nonsensical. There is no authoritative document from the Guru’s hand that proclaims, “I here present you the way, and you shall heed this for all time.” The absence of such a document could itself be read as a delegation of authority to the future Sikh community, an idea which we shall return to later. But in its stead, we have a tradition of individual Sikhs presenting their own interpretations of Sikh practice (even if claimed to have roots in the Guru’s command) that then receives acceptance or implicit rejection by the Panth (community) at large.8

Thus, a more appropriate question to ask would be, “To the extent that the Sikh identity has changed over time, has it remained faithful to Gurmat?” Even this will require some explanation. As an initial matter, why would one want to remain faithful to Gurmat? Do we not have the autonomy to simply reform and rearrange as we like, no matter the views of the Gurus?

I think it almost axiomatic that Sikh belief must stem from the thought of the Gurus. Sikh identity at its most fundamental level is defined by relation to the Guru – to be a Sikh means to be a disciple of the Guru, to take on the Guru as guide.9

ਬਲਿਹਾਰੀ ਗੁਰ ਆਪਣੇ ਦਿਉਹਾੜੀ ਸਦ ਵਾਰ ॥

I am a sacrifice to my Guru, a hundred times over in one day,

ਜਿਨਿ ਮਾਣਸ ਤੇ ਦੇਵਤੇ ਕੀਏ ਕਰਤ ਨ ਲਾਗੀ ਵਾਰ ॥

Who has created gods from men without even the slightest delay.

• Guru Nanak in Raag Asa, Ang 462.

But what is the significance of such an act? Does one, by taking on the identity of Sikh, lose other identities, whether religious, racial, or social? There is some indication in the historical record that perhaps acknowledgement of the Sikh Gurus as one’s guide was not necessarily understood to confer an independent Sikh identity. That perhaps being a Sikh was akin to being a member of a “labor union” or “sports club.”10 The emperor Jahangir’s description of the nascent Sikh community during Guru Arjan’s time is of particular interest here:

“Pretending to be a spiritual guide, he had won over as devotees many simple-minded Indians and even some ignorant, stupid Muslims by broadcasting his claims to be a saint. They called him Guru. Many fools from all around had recourse to him and believed in him implicitly.”11

It would appear that, according to Jahangir, such devotees may have retained their identities of “Indian” (probably meant to refer to those who believed in Hindu traditions) and “Muslim” while simultaneously joining the spiritual community forming around the Sikh Gurus.

However, this is where many stop. The online literati, alighting on such finds, may deem this an “aha!” moment. “See,” they may clamor. “It was Indians who were Sikhs! The Sikh identity is one that is fundamentally Indian.”

The problem with this is that the view and practices of individual Sikhs and non-Sikhs is not dispositive on the question of what is Gurmat.

To understand what is Gurmat, in my view it makes more sense to turn first to Gurbani, the corpus of writings of the Sikh Gurus as well as others who are said to have been given the Guru’s stamp of approval for inclusion in the Adi Granth, the text which was then given the status of Guru by Guru Gobind Singh. There also exists the writings of Guru Gobind Singh himself, known colloquially as dasam bani (writings of the Tenth Guru).

Here, proponents of a subordinate Sikh identity will again claim victory. “Look through Guru Granth Sahib!” they will say. “Look through dasam bani! It is replete with references to Hindu deities and Hindu beliefs! Sikhism is but an arm of Hinduism. Sikhs may be Sikhs, but they are also Hindu!”

If only it were so simple. But first, we must make a short detour before returning to Gurbani.

III. The Construction of Conceptual Boundaries

What does it mean to be Hindu? A working definition will be necessary in order to compare Gurmat to Sanatan Dharma (the “eternal religion” of the Vedas) and the Hindu identity. Part of the issue with these debates, I must say, is the constant definition and redefinition of essential concepts that makes comparison utterly meaningless. If we are to truly decide what the proper conception of Sikhism and the Sikh identity is, we need to understand what Hinduism and the Hindu identity is.

“But,” many will start. “This is a colonial, empiricist method of reasoning. By forcing concepts into boundaries, you ignore the heterodoxical flow between identity and beliefs common to the Indian subcontinent since time immemorial.”

Yes, true. Unfortunately, we live in the 21st century, in a world where claims are proved through empirical reasoning. I wish we could have stayed in the Logical Garden of Eve, where the concept is simply a suggestion, and meaning is whatever the wry concept-user states it to be. But alas, we could not stay there long.

Even the father of modern Hindutva, Savarkar, sarcastically notes the difficulty of such thinking:

“’Who is a Hindu?’ — he who is subject to the tenets of Hinduism. Very well. ‘What is Hinduism?’ — those tenets to which the Hindus are subjected. This is very nearly arguing in a circle and can never lead to a satisfactory solution.”12

SOCRATES: Then, if propositions may be true and false, names may be true and false?

HERMOGENES: So we must infer.13

During the British Raj there was a concerted effort by educated Indians to give meaning to native concepts that were being cast as illogical by the British.14 These movements, in particular, the Brahmo Samaj and Arya Samaj, were movements of religious reform, not yet outwardly political (much in the same way the Singh Sabha masked itself as a religious organization without political character). Within these movements was an emphasis on a return of sorts to centering the Vedas as supreme, and shorning what was seen as the degeneracy and corruption of modern “Hindu” practice, influenced by British observations.15 From this standardization of Hinduism is thus received the principle that the Vedas possess the authority of being the tradition’s central text. Different Hindu sects give varying degrees of support to secondary texts such as the Simriti and Shastra lawbooks, the Puranic tales, and other interpretive treatises expounding upon the aforementioned. A new “Hinduism” evolved to take on the racist caricature the term had been painted with by the British.

But as the cries for Indian swaraj (self-rule) grew, so did the politicization of identity. Most importantly, Savarkar and others make the move of secularizing the definition of a Hindu. He finds it to be that “the first essential of Hindutva must necessarily be this geographical one. A Hindu … claims the land as his motherland.”16 But lest this definition be construed so as to allow for the calling of a “Mohammedan a Hindu because of his being a resident of India,”17 Savarkar also adds that to be a Hindu requires “the bonds of a common blood”18 (reportedly “the same ancient blood that coursed through the veins of Ram and Krishna”19), and “a common culture” based upon a “common law … feasts and festivals … [and] quaint customs and ceremonies and sacraments” that constitute the lifeblood of Hindu civilization.20

Savarkar interestingly admits that the concept of religious Hinduism may defy logical definition, and as such, the only way to accurately define the term would be “to say that it is a set of systems consistent with, or if you like, contradictory or even conflicting with, each other.”21 He notes specifically that people such as Sikhs and Jains may resent being made “party to those customs and beliefs which they had in their puritanic or progressive zeal rejected as superstitions,” and so, Savarkar advocates for a distinction to be made between “Snatan … or the Vaidik Dharma” and terms such as “Sikha Dharma or Arya Dharma or Jain Dharma or Buddha Dharma.”22 Only when one must define the whole sum of these different “dharmas” should the term “Hinduism” be used, at least in his view.23 But to Savarkar, Hindutva is distinct from Hinduism – the former is the quality of being Hindu on terms much closer to racial dimensions than religious.24

The consequences of his political thought aside, this is an intelligent move from Savarkar. It allows him to sweep in groups such as Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists under the general “Hindu” umbrella without necessarily making them a part of Hindu-ism, and definitely not part of the Sanatan Dharma. Indeed, Savarkar does not even attempt to argue that Sikhs are a part of Vedic religion, instead noting that “systems or sects which are the direct descendants and developments of the religious beliefs Vaidik and non-Vaidik … belong[] to and [are] an integral part of Hindudharma.”25

To drive his point home, Savarkar actually applies his framework to the Sikhs as a prime example of a group who “protest[s] … against their being classed as Hindus” because of Hinduism becoming “identical with Sanatanism.”26 Savarkar first offers a branch to the Sikhs. He states that Sikhs are free to “reject … the binding authority of the Vedas as a revelation.”27 However, in doing so, Sikhs “may cease to be Sanatanis, but cannot cease to be Hindus.”28 And why are they Hindus? Because to Savarkar, the Sikh more than fulfills his tripartite framework of geography, blood, and culture.

1. Geography: Savarkar takes it for granted that Punjab, or “Sindhustan” is the Sikh “fatherland” and is a definitionally Hindu land, for it is the birthplace of Vedic religion.29
2. Blood: Savarkar believes “the Sikhs are the almost direct descendants of those ancient Sindhus” who developed Vedic religion by the Indus,30 and the Khalsa was successful because “the race that produced … that band” was of such stock.31
3. Culture: Savarkar claims “the story of the Sikhs … must begin with the Vedas,” and that Sikhs share in the national story of “the fate of a conquered people.”32 What’s more is “the technical terms and the language that furnished expression, as well as the conceptions … controverted … and adopted” by seers such as “Nanak … have the indelible stamp of Hindu culture.”33

This is without a doubt, a buttressed argument for the belief that Sikhs are Hindus. Savarkar was a smart man, and perhaps he recognized that if the term “Hindu” is made to simply mean, “one who follows the Sanatan Dharma,” it could be read to leave out groups such as the Sikhs. What’s more, insofar as he has given the term a racialized meaning, I think this is actually much closer to how the term is used during the Guru period and the precolonial era.34

So, there are thus two separate but closely-related claims before us. The first is that Sikhism is religiously Sanatan. The second is that Sikhs are ethnically Hindu. If either claim is true, then the Sikh identity, if it even exists, would be subordinate to either the Sanatan or Hindu identities, or both.

But these claims are mistaken.

IV. Departures of Consideration

We shall begin with the claim that Sikhs are religiously Sanatan. This is the weaker claim. As mentioned before, the parameters of Gurmat are commonly understood to begin with Gurbani – the writings compiled in the Guru Granth Sahib and the extant collection of Guru Gobind Singh’s works. As stated, Sanatan Dharma, at least in its modern conception, requires acceptance of the supremacy of the Vedas.

In Raag Asa on Ang 470, Guru Nanak writes a much-quoted statement, that,

ਚਾਰੇ ਵੇਦ ਹੋਏ ਸਚਿਆਰ ॥

The Four Vedas each became true.

This is often thrown into debates without further context to prove that Vedic supremacy is an element of Sikh belief. But even keeping aside other Gurbani for now, the rest of this shabad (composition) itself shows this was not the intent. The shabad is reproduced below. Its meaning as a whole will be enlightening as to the nature of the Guru’s relationship with the Vedas.

ਮਃ ੧ ॥

Of Guru Nanak:

ਸਾਮ ਕਹੈ ਸੇਤੰਬਰੁ ਸੁਆਮੀ ਸਚ ਮਹਿ ਆਛੈ ਸਾਚਿ ਰਹੇ ॥

The Samaveda states that in the Satyug (Age of Truth), the swanlike Akal Purakh was immersed in truth,

ਸਭੁ ਕੋ ਸਚਿ ਸਮਾਵੈ ॥

And that all beings were immersed in truth.

ਰਿਗੁ ਕਹੈ ਰਹਿਆ ਭਰਪੂਰਿ ॥

The Rigveda states (in the Treta Yug) Akal Purakh permeated all creation,

ਰਾਮ ਨਾਮੁ ਦੇਵਾ ਮਹਿ ਸੂਰੁ ॥

And among the deities, the name of Ram was supreme.

ਨਾਇ ਲਇਐ ਪਰਾਛਤ ਜਾਹਿ ॥

In taking Ram’s Name, sins departed the person,

ਨਾਨਕ ਤਉ ਮੋਖੰਤਰੁ ਪਾਹਿ ॥

Nanak, thus was salvation obtained.

ਜੁਜ ਮਹਿ ਜੋਰਿ ਛਲੀ ਚੰਦ੍ਰਾਵਲਿ ਕਾਨ੍ਹ੍ਹ ਕ੍ਰਿਸਨੁ ਜਾਦਮੁ ਭਇਆ ॥

In the Yujarveda, he who forcefully seduced Chandravali–Kaan Krishna of the Yadav tribe–was ascendant (in the Duapar Yuga),

ਪਾਰਜਾਤੁ ਗੋਪੀ ਲੈ ਆਇਆ ਬਿੰਦ੍ਰਾਬਨ ਮਹਿ ਰੰਗੁ ਕੀਆ ॥

He uprooted the Elysian Tree of Indra and brought it for his Gopis, enjoying himself in the Vindravan forest.

ਕਲਿ ਮਹਿ ਬੇਦੁ ਅਥਰਬਣੁ ਹੂਆ ਨਾਉ ਖੁਦਾਈ ਅਲਹੁ ਭਇਆ ॥

In the dark Kalyug, the Veda now is the Atharva; and the Muslim name of Kudha and Allah became accepted.

ਨੀਲ ਬਸਤ੍ਰ ਲੇ ਕਪੜੇ ਪਹਿਰੇ ਤੁਰਕ ਪਠਾਣੀ ਅਮਲੁ ਕੀਆ ॥

Of blue cloth became the clothes and outfits; the Turks and Pathans became the sovereigns.

ਚਾਰੇ ਵੇਦ ਹੋਏ ਸਚਿਆਰ ॥

Thus, the four Vedas each became true,

ਪੜਹਿ ਗੁਣਹਿ ਤਿਨ੍ਹ ਚਾਰ ਵੀਚਾਰ ॥

In reading and studying them, one’s thoughts become pleasant.35

ਭਾਉ ਭਗਤਿ ਕਰਿ ਨੀਚੁ ਸਦਾਏ ॥

Through awe-inspred devotion, deeming one’s self lesser,

ਤਉ ਨਾਨਕ ਮੋਖੰਤਰੁ ਪਾਏ ॥

In this way, Nanak, liberation is attained.

One fact must be acknowledged here, and that is in this shabad, the principle of Vedic supremacy is at the very least not rejected. However, it is not obviously accepted either. What is stated is that each of the examples given from different Vedas are true in their own way – in the Satyug all are immersed in Truth, in Treta, Ram was ascendant followed by Krishna in Duapar,  and finally that Muslim rule supposedly predicted in the Atharva Veda is a current reality. The Vedas are even given a nice compliment – one’s outlook improves through their study.

However, what is said to actually result in liberation in this age? The last two lines instruct that liberation is attained through devotional contemplation, and the eradication of the ego. This idea, unlike others in the shabad, is not given any Vedic authority. Rather, it is treated as self-evident. The Vedas are shown to be useful in prior ages, where their commands may have rung true. However, what is the Veda for this age? It is said to be the Atharvaveda, which for the purposes of the shabad is implied to have itself ordained Muslim rule and the name of Allah as supreme! In a way, the final two lines thus provide an alternative to Vedic command – the path of bhakti as expounded by Guru Nanak offers a way to escape the destiny supposedly set out by the Atharva Veda.

Relevant here is the fact that (perhaps obviously to some) the Atharvaveda, written long before Christ, does not speak of Muslim rule. One may thus surmise that Guru Nanak was not concerned with the actual contents of the Vedas – they were useful to Sikh ideology as a schematic point of reference, but were in no way fundamental to the actual premises of Sikhism. And when referenced, the Vedas are, like in the shabad above, most often used to implicitly illustrate the departure of what is Sikh from the Sanatan.

Consider another shabad from Guru Nanak, this time in Raag Majh on Ang 139.

ਸਲੋਕੁ ਮਃ ੧ ॥

Saloks of Guru Nanak.

ਸੁਇਨੇ ਕੈ ਪਰਬਤਿ ਗੁਫਾ ਕਰੀ ਕੈ ਪਾਣੀ ਪਇਆਲਿ ॥

In a mountain of gold I may make my cave, or deep in in the water of the netherworlds,

ਕੈ ਵਿਚਿ ਧਰਤੀ ਕੈ ਆਕਾਸੀ ਉਰਧਿ ਰਹਾ ਸਿਰਿ ਭਾਰਿ ॥

Or within the earth, or within the sky, I may remain upside-down with great weight on my head,

ਪੁਰੁ ਕਰਿ ਕਾਇਆ ਕਪੜੁ ਪਹਿਰਾ ਧੋਵਾ ਸਦਾ ਕਾਰਿ ॥

I may totally cover my body with clothes, and forever wash them clean,

ਬਗਾ ਰਤਾ ਪੀਅਲਾ ਕਾਲਾ ਬੇਦਾ ਕਰੀ ਪੁਕਾਰ ॥

I may shout out loud, the white, red, yellow and black Vedas,

ਹੋਇ ਕੁਚੀਲੁ ਰਹਾ ਮਲੁ ਧਾਰੀ ਦੁਰਮਤਿ ਮਤਿ ਵਿਕਾਰ ॥

In dirt and filth I may reside – all these acts are simply a product of intellectual corruption!

ਨਾ ਹਉ ਨਾ ਮੈ ਨਾ ਹਉ ਹੋਵਾ ਨਾਨਕ ਸਬਦੁ ਵੀਚਾਰਿ ॥

The simple truth is there is no existence, no true personal identity, thus there can be no self-existence – Nanak simply contemplates the Shabad.

This more clearly outlines the irrelevance of the Vedas. Their reading is mentioned as one of many futile practices. This is typical – there is nowhere in Gurbani where one will find the Guru or another writer dedicating a shabad to pronouncing their departure from the authority of the Vedas. But this is because the content of the Vedas was simply no longer relevant to them. What the Vedas actually stated or did not state was simply not a matter of concern when the society and culture it seemed to have produced was one worthy of such critique. It was a departure from feeling one should consider what the Vedas may have to say on a matter.36

The historical record is also clear on this matter. Nowhere in recorded Sikh history were the Gurus ever said to have ordered the recitation and/or installation of the Vedas, or any Sanatan text for that matter. Instead, a new text was formed – the Adi Granth of Guru Arjan – and installed in a new city founded by the Gurus, Amritsar.37 The Vedic and Sanatan texts simply did not exercise authority within the Sikh daily life.

ਸਿਮ੍ਰਿਤਿ ਸਾਸਤ੍ਰ ਪੁੰਨ ਪਾਪ ਬੀਚਾਰਦੇ ਤਤੈ ਸਾਰ ਨ ਜਾਣੀ

The Simritis and Shastras expound on what is good and bad, but they do not know about fundamental truths.

• Guru Amar Das in Ramkali, Ang 920 (Anand Sahib).

There is no one definitive “break,” no line of Gurbani to point to and say “this is what proves Sikhs do/do not accept Sanatan supremacy!” because it’s not obvious why you would need to announce when you stopped caring about something.

But perhaps what Sikhs do care about can give us the final clue on the question of authority. Within the Siddh Gosht, a composition in the Guru Granth Sahib purporting to represent a dialogue between the Siddhas of Achal Batala in present-day Gurdaspur and Guru Nanak,38 the group is said to have asked of the Guru on Ang 942,

ਕਵਣ ਮੂਲੁ ਕਵਣ ਮਤਿ ਵੇਲਾ ॥

What, to you, is the root of all things? And what philosophy do you herald for the times?

ਤੇਰਾ ਕਵਣੁ ਗੁਰੂ ਜਿਸ ਕਾ ਤੂ ਚੇਲਾ ॥

Who is your Guru to whom you are a humble follower?

And the Guru is said to have replied,

ਪਵਨ ਅਰੰਭੁ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਮਤਿ ਵੇਲਾ ॥

The world began with air, and the time now is of the teachings of the Satguru.

ਸਬਦੁ ਗੁਰੂ ਸੁਰਤਿ ਧੁਨਿ ਚੇਲਾ ॥

The Shabad is my guru, and I, as a follower, attune my subconscious to it.

This is a complete turn from tradition, beginning anew with the Shabad as a fountain of ideology. No effort is made by Guru Nanak to root his beliefs in any Sanatan authority – instead, it is clear that authority lies in the shabad: dizzying insight translated into language, capable of being produced by any self-realized individual (hence the inclusion in the Guru Granth Sahib of not just the living Gurus, but others as well).

And to ensure that authority remains current, this institution of the Shabad as Guru was paired with the physical Guru, the latter’s authority continuing in the Khalsa Panth as per the dictates of Guru Gobind Singh during the first administration of khande ki pahul (the elixir of the double-edged sword) during the Khalsa’s creation:

ਵਹੀ ਵਰਤਾਰੋ ਭੁਜੰਗਨ ਵਰਤਾਯੋ । ਆਪਸ ਗੁਰ ਚੇਲਾ ਕਹਿਵਾਯੋ ।

The same procedure did the Bhujangis (the Panj Pyare) follow, they and the Guru termed each other “Gur-Chela” (Guru and Follower).

ਯਹੀ ਆਦ ਹੁਤ ਆਯੋ ਵਰਤਾਰਾ । ਜਿਮ ਨਾਨਰ ਗੁਰ ਅੰਗਦ ਧਾਰਾ ।

Such has been the procedure since the very beginning—it is in this fashion that Nanak established Guru Angad.39

These two phenomena – the “restart” in Guru Nanak and the progressive capabilities of the Living Guru and Khalsa Panth – are fundamentally opposed to the view of Sikhism as a conservative repository of Sanatan tradition or a nostalgic movement for ancient Vedic religion. Even if there is some overlap with either Sanatan tradition or Vedic religion, on the question of authority, both fail to even appear on the hierarchy of Sikh belief.

V. The Panth Past Identity

So, Sikhism departs from Sanatan and Vedic authority. The claim that they do not was, again, the weaker claim that even Savarkar understood would fail to keep Sikhs within the Hindu fold. We turn now to his argument, which is that Sikhs are ethnically Hindu – the term referring to a people tied by geography, blood, and culture.

It is a fact that the region of Punjab, considered by many to be the birthplace of Sikhism, is located within the Indian subcontinent. It is also true that almost all Sikhs today trace their family lineage to groups located within this region. And it is also true that Sikh culture, insofar as it found expression in the acts of Sikhs, was practiced largely within the subcontinent.

However, each of these facts can also be explained as a consequence of historical reality that need not necessarily be true to keep faith with the ways of the Gurus. In my view, containing Sikhism to the subcontinent and within the Hindu identity goes directly against Gurmat. Properly understood, the Sikh signifier must be the supreme identity for a practicing Sikh, leaving any tribal, regional, and racial identities as subordinate.

What will first need to be made clear is the Gurmat view on the personal identity, which is at the very least one of its foundational pillars, if not a first principle of sorts.

The Gurmat view on the personal identity, the “I,” is that it is false as a matter of fact. Consider again the last line of the shabad of Guru Nanak on Ang 139,

ਨਾ ਹਉ ਨਾ ਮੈ ਨਾ ਹਉ ਹੋਵਾ ਨਾਨਕ ਸਬਦੁ ਵੀਚਾਰਿ ॥

The simple truth is there is no existence, no true personal identity, thus there can be no self-existence – Nanak simply contemplates the Shabad.

The Guru Granth Sahib begins with ੴ. While the first symbol is definitely the numeral for one (“Ik”), what the second symbol, the letter with an open and continuous curve (“Ongkar”), means has eluded exact definition for centuries. However, within the Guru Granth Sahib, a composition by Guru Nanak known as the Dakhni Ongkar may help. The shabad begins as follows,

ਓਅੰਕਾਰਿ ਬ੍ਰਹਮਾ ਉਤਪਤਿ ॥

From Ongkar came Brahma,

ਓਅੰਕਾਰੁ ਕੀਆ ਜਿਨਿ ਚਿਤਿ ॥

Who himself meditated on Ongkar.

ਓਅੰਕਾਰਿ ਸੈਲ ਜੁਗ ਭਏ ॥

From Ongkar came mountains and the passage of the ages,

ਓਅੰਕਾਰਿ ਬੇਦ ਨਿਰਮਏ ॥

From Ongkar came the Vedas themselves.

ਓਅੰਕਾਰਿ ਸਬਦਿ ਉਧਰੇ ॥

From Ongkar comes the Shabad that saves,

ਓਅੰਕਾਰਿ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਤਰੇ ॥

Through Ongkar, the Gurmukh can cross the ocean of existence.

ਓਨਮ ਅਖਰ ਸੁਣਹੁ ਬੀਚਾਰੁ ॥

Listen here to the real message of the letter Onam,

ਓਨਮ ਅਖਰੁ ਤ੍ਰਿਭਵਣ ਸਾਰੁ ॥੧॥

Onam is the essence of all the three worlds.

ਸੁਣਿ ਪਾਡੇ ਕਿਆ ਲਿਖਹੁ ਜੰਜਾਲਾ ॥

Listen Pandit! Why do you go on writing about such false affairs?

ਲਿਖੁ ਰਾਮ ਨਾਮ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਗੋਪਾਲਾ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥

Write the name of Ram, and thus become a Gurmukh like Krishna, the cowherd. (Reflect.)

As elsewhere, there are references to the Vedas and Sanatan concepts such as Brahma and the Yugas, but here they are utilized to illustrate the supremacy of Ongkar – the source of all existence. What’s more, from this source comes the solution to the problem of the ego – the Shabad. And note who the Guru addresses. It is a pandit, a Brahmin priest, who is being told to listen as Guru Nanak explains the true nature of reality. Finally, consider the theological consequences of equating Krishna to a “Gurmukh” (lit. Guru-faced), a term for one properly practicing Sikhism. The result is to withdraw from Krishna the status of deity, and make his honor and prowess attainable to all who can realize this source through the practice of Naam (the Name), which shall be discussed shortly.

Ongkar as “source” thus informs the meaning of ੴ. But if we are all of “One Source,” from where then does the personal identity arise?

This is of course the problem of human consciousness (and perhaps other forms of consciousness that we are so far unaware of). States Guru Amar Das in Raag Asa on Ang 426,

ਹਉ ਹਉ ਕਰਦੀ ਸਭ ਫਿਰੈ ਬਿਨੁ ਸਬਦੈ ਹਉ ਨ ਜਾਇ ॥

Everyone just wanders proclaiming, “I exist, I exist!” – without the Shabad, this self-existence cannot be eradicated.

So far, this is nothing actually new to Indic philosophy. To revert back to Savarkar, he states the “[s]elf is known to be immutable and without a name or even without a form.”40 The Buddhists arrived at the conclusion that the personal identity was false centuries before the Gurus lived.

“Buddha has spoken thus: … There exists no Individual, it is only a conventional name given to a set of elements.”41

This is also why the concept of the Satnam, or “True Name,” plays a central role in Sikh philosophy. The act of naming, and indeed, having a name, involves “distinguishing natures”42 – instead of all being “One,” our consciousness finds that there are differences between things we perceive. By ascribing names to these different objects, and denying reality its “True Name,” we commit ourselves to this falsehood.

Of course, it is possible that this isn’t actually a problem. Perhaps we are happy to be differentiated from our “source” in this way. But another central premise of Sikhism is that this differentiation is the root of anguish, despair, and a host of mental issues. Guru Nanak states on Ang 1279,

ਮਨਮੁਖ ਦੂਜੀ ਤਰਫ ਹੈ ਵੇਖਹੁ ਨਦਰਿ ਨਿਹਾਲਿ ॥

The Manmukh (follower of one’s mind) is on the other side, this is evident from a glance.

ਫਾਹੀ ਫਾਥੇ ਮਿਰਗ ਜਿਉ ਸਿਰਿ ਦੀਸੈ ਜਮਕਾਲੁ ॥

He is caught in the trap like a deer, upon his head one can see Yama, the Bringer of Death.

ਖੁਧਿਆ ਤ੍ਰਿਸਨਾ ਨਿੰਦਾ ਬੁਰੀ ਕਾਮੁ ਕ੍ਰੋਧੁ ਵਿਕਰਾਲੁ ॥

Hunger, thirst, slander are damaging, lust and anger should be fear-inducing.

ਏਨੀ ਅਖੀ ਨਦਰਿ ਨ ਆਵਈ ਜਿਚਰੁ ਸਬਦਿ ਨ ਕਰੇ ਬੀਚਾਰੁ ॥

But such eyes cannot see this until they contemplate the Shabad.

Because we feel that this differentiation from our root is necessarily false, there is a desire in us to “rejoin” with this source, a desire that is unexplainable, but can manifest as depression, the gaping “void” that many feel in modernity.

ਵੈਦੁ ਬੁਲਾਇਆ ਵੈਦਗੀ ਪਕੜਿ ਢੰਢੋਲੇ ਬਾਂਹ ॥

The doctor was called to perform his medicine, he grabbed and felt the pulse of my arm.

ਭੋਲਾ ਵੈਦੁ ਨ ਜਾਣਈ ਕਰਕ ਕਲੇਜੇ ਮਾਹਿ ॥

The foolish doctor could not understand, the pain was deep in my mind.

• Guru Nanak in Raag Majh, Ang 1279.43

But even this is not quite new. To revert back again to the Buddhists,

“The mental and the material are really here,

But here there is no human being to be found.
For it is void and merely fashioned like a doll,
Just suffering piled up like grass and sticks.”44

However, what makes Sikhism unique is its life-affirming answer to this issue. For, while the Buddhists may attempt to completely eradicate the self to alleviate the suffering, the Gurus offered a different answer.

ਹਉਮੈ ਦੀਰਘ ਰੋਗੁ ਹੈ ਦਾਰੂ ਭੀ ਇਸੁ ਮਾਹਿ ॥

Haumai (the ego) is indeed a chronic disease, but its cure is contained within it as well.

• Guru Angad, Ang 1023.
• ਸੋ ਤੁਮ ਹੀ ਮਹਿ ਬਸੈ ਨਿਰੰਤਰਿ ਨਾਨਕ ਦਰਪਨਿ ਨਿਆਈ ॥

That very same Infinite dwells within you, Nanak, just as if looking into a mirror.

• Guru Tegh Bahadur, Ang 632.

Within this false self is still the “source” – the True Self that can be recognized.

ਮਨ ਤੂੰ ਜੋਤਿ ਸਰੂਪੁ ਹੈ ਆਪਣਾ ਮੂਲੁ ਪਛਾਣੁ ॥

Mind! You are the form of that Light, recognize your source!

• Guru Amar Das, Ang 441.

But how does one actually recognize this source? It may be easy to simply “declare” the self as false and that one has transcended their personal identity. An extreme rationalist may be able to simply logick their mind into believing that there is only Oneness.45

But Sikhism does not believe it to be so easy. The personal identity is something that is felt. And so, it is feeling, not logic, that offers the escape.

ਕਿਵ ਸਚਿਆਰਾ ਹੋਈਐ ਕਿਵ ਕੂੜੈ ਤੁਟੈ ਪਾਲਿ ॥

But then how does one attain a character of truth, how does one shatter this veil of illusion?

ਹੁਕਮਿ ਰਜਾਈ ਚਲਣਾ ਨਾਨਕ ਲਿਖਿਆ ਨਾਲਿ ॥

Walk along with the underlying Hukam, Nanak, that has been written all along.

• Guru Nanak in Japji Sahib, Ang 1.

And just how does one understand the “hukam,” or command? Another famously difficult subject to explain in Sikh philosophy. But if we remember that this is something that cannot be logicked, and must be felt, then the role of the Shabad becomes more clear. The Shabad is the experience of this feeling, unable to be caged in any one race or people, available to all, itself proof of the “source” of all.

ਗੁਰਮਤਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਨ ਵੀਸਰੈ ਸਹਜੇ ਪਤਿ ਪਾਈਐ ॥

By failing to forget the Name within Gurmat, one receives a true, calm honor,

ਅੰਤਰਿ ਸਬਦੁ ਨਿਧਾਨੁ ਹੈ ਮਿਲਿ ਆਪੁ ਗਵਾਈਐ ॥

Deep within is the treasure of the Shabad, by meeting it, the self is eradicated.

• Guru Nanak in Gauri Bairagan, Ang 228.46

The Shabad of the Gurus and assorted Bhagats, able to make one feel this hukam through their striking effect on the subconscious, are to be sang in sangat (community) with others. The tools of rhyme, rhythm, melody, scale, and common metaphor were utilized by Guru Nanak in his tours of the world – demonstrating the superiority of aesthetic and feeling over cold logic for the purposes of understanding what is at its core a logical proposition.

ਇਕ ਬਾਬਾ ਅਕਾਲ ਰੂਪੁ ਦੂਜਾ ਰਬਾਬੀ ਮਰਦਾਨਾ।

One was the Baba (Guru Nanak), the very form of Akal, and the other was Mardana, the rababi.

• Vaaran Bhai Gurdas, Vaar 1, Pauri 35.

These are tools that appeal to us because we are human, yet they are used to reach where logic cannot. Hence,

ਕਲਜੁਗ ਮਹਿ ਕੀਰਤਨੁ ਪਰਧਾਨਾ ॥

In this dark age of Kalyug, kirtan (communal music) is above all,

ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਜਪੀਐ ਲਾਇ ਧਿਆਨਾ ॥

Chanting thus, the Gurmukh attunes his consciousness.

• Guru Arjan in Raag Maru, Ang 1075.

What is the effect of these tools? As explained by Guru Nanak,

ਧੁਨਿ ਮਹਿ ਧਿਆਨੁ ਧਿਆਨ ਮਹਿ ਜਾਨਿਆ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਅਕਥ ਕਹਾਨੀ ॥

The focus is in the melody, and within the focus one becomes Gurmukh—they can tell stories of the indescribable.

• Guru Nanak in Raag Ramkali, Ang 879.

Thus, the solution offered by Sikhism is one that is fundamentally accepting of the reality of human capability. One may be able to look across the plane of existence and recognize that they should be able to see all as stemming from “one source.” Yet this alone will not actually make one feel this source.

We have gone on a while without mentioning Savarkar. Remember, his claim is that Sikhs are Hindus because of a common geography, blood, and culture. But although it may seem odd, the above discussion illustrates why Savarkar is incorrect. Because the entire point of Sikhism is to rise above such groupings.

ਆਪੈ ਆਪੁ ਪਛਾਣਿਆ ਸਾਦੁ ਮੀਠਾ ਭਾਈ ॥

Brother, recognizing your true self is a sweet feeling.

• Guru Amar Das in Raag Asa, Ang 426.

While the previous shabads have been fairly general, there is no dearth of writing in Gurbani about the falsity of identities connected to geography, blood, and culture.

ਜਾਣਹੁ ਜੋਤਿ ਨ ਪੂਛਹੁ ਜਾਤੀ ਆਗੈ ਜਾਤਿ ਨ ਹੇ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥

Know others as of one light, do not ask for their “jati” – after this life there is no such thing. (Reflect.)

• Guru Nanak in Raag Asa, Ang 349.

Compare here to Savarkar, who states “we feel we are a jati, a race bound together by the dearest ties of blood and therefore it must be so.”47

Relevant as well is the timeless exclamation from Guru Gobind Singh in Akal Ustat,

ਹਿੰਦੂ ਤੁਰਕ ਕੋਊ ਰਾਫਿਜੀ ਇਮਾਮ ਸਾਫੀ ਮਾਨਸ ਕੀ ਜਾਤਿ ਸਬੈ ਏਕੈ ਪਹਚਾਨਬੋ ॥

There are Hindus, Turks, some are Shia, Sunni, but within the jati of humanity, recognize all to be one.

I would think that, if the aim of Sikhism has been shown to eradicate false identities that separate us from our true selves, that if not only race and caste are declared false, but so too is the personal self, then it would seem to defy logic to define a people who believe in such an ideology by geography, blood, and culture. Indeed, it is the universalism of Buddhism that leads Savarkar to declare its eradication from India was necessary for its detrimental effects on “national virility,” despite complimenting its noble aims.48 Had he truly understood Sikhism, perhaps he would have declared it too an anti-national ideology.

A. Geography

Yet we are just getting started. “Sure, Sikhism aimed to be a universal religion,” some will reply slyly. “But look at how it was practiced through the centuries. It was concentrated amongst residents of Punjab, and never succeeded in transcending race, caste, and other groupings.”

However, this is a severe misrepresentation of the historical record.

Consider first the purported travels of Guru Nanak himself. Yes, he is said to have traveled the breadth of India, a fact that Savarkar states proves the efficacy of Hindustani as a “national tongue.”49 Yet Guru Nanak is also said to have brought his message outside of the subcontinent as well, traveling as far West as Mecca in Saudi Arabia. It is clear the intent of the Guru, at the very least as understood by Sikhs in the seventeenth century, was decidedly not to cabin Sikh ideology within the geographic or racial confines Savarkar assigns to Hindustan.

According to Bhai Gurdas, the sangat (spiritual community) that grew as a result of Guru Nanak’s travels was not confined to Punjab, instead, it spanned South Asia. He notes the presence of Sikhs as far as Kabul and Kashmir and across the Gangetic plains. There are two ways of reading this. Either the Guru intended, as Savarkar may aver, to revive a pan-Hindu consciousness that spanned the subcontinent. Or, perhaps the Guru, in establishing sangats well far from Punjab, was putting into practice his universal ideology to the extent that the circumstances of his day would allow, considering that there were no planes to board to spread his revolutionary ideals across the world. I think in light of Gurbani, the better reading is the latter.

Sikhs themselves also took Sikhism outside of the subcontinent. Sikhism’s message of universality seemed to have appealed early on to the trader classes, perhaps well-suited to understand Guru Nanak’s message due to their experience of various cultures. Across the Silk Road, one can see the marks of Sikh traders practicing their beliefs. It is obvious that Punjab played a central role in the organization of the early transnational Sikh community, as the living Guru usually resided there. Yet this does not mean Punjab must be the locus of Sikh activity.

Nowhere is this more obvious than in the mission ascribed to Guru Gobind Singh. In the Tenth Guru, the philosophy of the early Gurus received its formal political dimension, an inevitable logical end to the proposition that all identity, boundary, and difference is ultimately false. It would have perhaps been possible for the Sikhs to remain just a sangat, a community that exists across borders without having to become political – without having to make the “distinction … between friend and enemy.”50 But nations, states, and empires premised on the existence of certain identities – whether the identity be Punjabi, Mughal, Indian, etc. – are necessarily undermined by the propositions of Sikhism. How does one spark a blood-and-soil nationalism in a polity that believes “this head is but a dream, that will leave in the end,” as Guru Tegh Bahadur is said to have stated to his executioner?51 The people who have felt such truths through the Shabad, will view the only true identity to be identification with these ideals. And this is what Sikhism requires of the Sikh – identification with the Guru’s tenets, which include the ultimate falsehood of the personal and the experiential truth of Oneness above all identity. The Sikh identity is ultimately one of relation to Gurmat, which is why to properly identify as a Sikh one must put the identity before all others.

ਜਉ ਤਉ ਪ੍ਰੇਮ ਖੇਲਣ ਕਾ ਚਾਉ ॥ ਸਿਰੁ ਧਰਿ ਤਲੀ ਗਲੀ ਮੇਰੀ ਆਉ ॥

If one desires to play this game of love, come my way holding head in hand.

ਇਤੁ ਮਾਰਗਿ ਪੈਰੁ ਧਰੀਜੈ ॥ ਸਿਰੁ ਦੀਜੈ ਕਾਣਿ ਨ ਕੀਜੈ ॥

Once one has placed their feet on this path, they do not hesitate to give their head.

• Guru Nanak in Salok Varan te Vadhik, Ang 1412.

But why “give one’s head” for such ideals and create a whole identity out of a belief in nonidentity? If Sikhism teaches that the self is false, what difference does it make whether one affirms its truth using the body as testament? If, for example, the Mughal state requires one to convert to Islam or face execution, why not simply perform a superficial conversion while maintaining an internal belief in Sikhism?

This is an amusingly clever rationale for doing nothing in the face of adversity and tyranny. But if one actually does believe in the ideals of Sikhism, then they will have no problem using their body, when necessary, for the protection of its practice. The occasion to do so does not arise until some entity – gang, tribe, or state – attempts to stifle Sikh practice, as the Mughals did in the seventeenth century. When this occurs, then the Sikh must resort to political violence to maintain the ability to practice Sikhism, even if it comes at the cost of one’s life. Why? Because acquiescence presents the possibility that the ability to reach one’s true self, which a Sikh must believe Sikhism at least offers even if they have not experienced it, be forever lost to humanity. And what better way to avoid such a situation than to strive for a sovereign jurisdiction, where under Sikh political control exists a government in which the principle of oneness becomes the basis for law and state action.

This was the nature of the test performed by Guru Gobind Singh during Vaisakhi at Anandpur. Were his Sikhs ready to transcend caste, race, and their own personal identities, and take up arms to fight for a state, for a raj, where they could practice Sikhism freely and provide for the common good? And so, he makes his call for heads from Kesgarh Sahib with his sword outstretched, with many in the sangat gathered wondering if he had gone mad.

ਸਨਮੁਖ ਪੂਰਾ ਸਿਖ ਹੈ ਕੋਈ । ਸੀਸ ਭੇਟ ਗੁਰ ਦੇਵੇ ਜੋਈ ।

Is there any complete Sanmukh (lit. facing the Guru) Sikh? One who can give their head as an offering to the Guru?52

The Panj Pyare (Five Beloveds), the Sikhs who first rise to give answer, are noted by a 18th-century Sikh author to be “a Sobti Khatri of Lahore … a Chheepa of Dwarka … a Nai of Bidar … a Jat of Hastinapur … and a Jhiwar of Jagannath.”53 Just as with the early Sikh Sangat, there are two ways of reading this multicultural group. Savarkar may treat the cross-pollination of these different identities as testament to the Guru implanting a pan-Hindu identity in the Khalsa. Or, limited by the historical circumstance in which, thus far in time, Sikhism only existed across the subcontinent, the identities of the different Panj Pyare are proof of the Guru’s vision coinciding with the universalist philosophy of the early Sikh Gurus. Considering Guru Gobind Singh’s own writings in which he finds common ground with nations across the globe, I find it likely to be the latter.

Also relevant here is the political expansionism ascribed to the Tenth Guru by later Khalsa Sikh literature. Koer Singh writes that, following the administration of khande ki pahul to the Panj Pyare, the Guru stated,54

ਸਭ ਜਗ ਰਾਜ ਤੋਹਿ ਕੋ ਦੀਨਾ । ਪੁਨਿ ਬਿਧਿ ਸੋ ਤੁਮ ਕੋ ਗੁਰ ਕੀਨਾ ॥

“I shall bestow upon you rule of the entire world, because through this virtuous act you have blossomed into Guruship.

ਜਾ ਵਿਧਿ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਤੁਮ ਗੁਰ ਪਾਯੋ । ਤੈਸੇ ਮੋਹਿ ਮਿਲਾਯੋ ਭਾਯੋ ॥

Through this ceremony of amrit (khande ki pahul) I have given you the Guruship, and in this way I have made you one with myself.”

Bhangu, writing at the height of the Sikh Empire, narrates a conversation between the Guru and the newly-ordained Khalsa,55

“The Singhs’ limited imagination could not grasp the extent of Guru’s assurances,

They aspired to possess territorial rights over the Punjab alone.

The Guru asked them to aspire for territorial rights over the superior Southern region,

As well as the mountainous regions of the East and the West.”

But the idea that the Khalsa was meant to escape the territorial confines of the subcontinent appears to have survived. J.D. Cunningham, writing in 1853 following the fall of the Sikh Empire, speaks of how the “follower[s] of Guru Gobind … eye[s] wild with enthusiasm and every muscle quivering with excitement … ardently look forward to the day when Indians and Arabs and Persians and Turks shall all acknowledge the double mission of Nanak and Gobind Singh.”56

So, yes, Sikhism began in Punjab, which is located within the Indian subcontinent. But since its inception, Sikhism has existed beyond the confines of what was considered India, and its universal call had an inherently diasporic drive to reach new land by means of either discourse or empire. To state that Sikhism must be confined to Punjab or the Indian subcontinent would be like stating Christianity must be confined to the Levant.

B. Blood

But Savarkar may then back up to blood. “Sure, there may have existed pockets of Sikhs outside of Punjab, and perhaps it was meant for all to join. But one cannot ignore the historical reality that the Sikh Sangat was mostly Punjabi, as was the Khalsa Panth.”

To this, two responses. First, again one must consider circumstance. There is nothing to suggest that, should someone of European, East Asian, African, or any sort of descent have been present at Anandpur and able to understand Guru Gobind Singh’s mission, that they would have been denied permission to join the Khalsa. The best reading of the different identities of the Panj Pyare, which later Sikh writers find relevant to mention, is that the universal nature of the Khalsa was a foundational element to its identity.

Second, such a statement ignores the relative cosmopolitan nature of the Khalsa even considering that it was mostly Punjabi. In keeping with the Panj Pyare, the Khalsa of the Misl period also was made up of different castes. Bhangu notes that Nawab Kapoor Singh organized the Dal Khalsa into five different contingents, one Nihang, one Khatri, one “Anshi” (of the early Gurus’ lineage), one Jat, and one Ranghreta.57

Of course, a Savarkar may alight on the fact that such identities existed within the Khalsa Panth to state, “Aha! The Khalsa never actually moved past caste – look at how its contingents are divided!”

A couple of points here. First, there is one contingent in which caste is not mentioned – that of the Nihang order, of whom the historical record indicates their Nihang affiliation superseded not just caste, but any other identity, even that of Sikh.58 Second, just because contingents are led by people of a certain caste, that does not, on its own, mean everyone in the band was of that caste. I find it hard to believe the “Anshi” camp could stock its ranks with only men of fighting age who were also descendants of the Gurus, as the Guru’s descendants were numerically a small group. Third, even if it is true that caste may have continued to have been practiced by the Khalsa, that does not mean it must continue to be, or even that it should have been in the first place. Even to the extent that Sikh literature from the period states that certain caste practices should be maintained,59 it may be the case that such authors felt this must be said because of their contemporaries transgressing caste due to the possibilities that the revolutionary nature of the Khalsa’s creation opened up. And even if not practiced, the ideal of the Khalsa as above caste continued to be recognized.60

This move past caste, even if sometimes only an ideal, demonstrates precolonial Sikh attitudes toward the relevancy of blood ties in the Sikh identity. Savarkar himself states that caste is necessarily based on blood, that “the very presence of these present castes [is] a standing testimony to a common flow of blood.”61 The rejection of caste, even if in theory, shows that the Sikh ideal even before colonialism was an identity above blood lineage.

But perhaps we can say the Khalsa, if not to practice caste, still existed on racial dimensions. Savarkar, in presenting his case on Sikhs, states that the Khalsa’s success is owed at least in part “because the race that produced him as well as that band was capable of being moulded thus.”62 He exclaims,

“You cannot pick up a lamb and by tying a Kachchha and Kripan on it, make a lion of it! … The lion’s seed alone can breed lions.”63

Such a framework may seem attractive to those who would prefer to use the achievements of past Sikhs to raise the status of their own tribe, community, caste, or modern nation-state. “It must be something in our blood,” one may reason, “that simply made us better.”

Let us, for sake of argument, assume it to be true that perhaps the men of the Khalsa were uniquely gifted with the traits necessary to survive the brutality of eighteenth-century Punjab and establish independent kingdoms over the ashes of the Mughal Empire. The question is, what did those Khalsa Sikhs actually credit for their success?

These Sikhs credited the Guru and Gurmat for raising their status. As the famous couplet from Bhangu goes, Guru Gobind Singh is said to have stated,

ਇਨ ਗਰੀਬਨ ਹਮ ਦਯੈ ਪਤਿਸਾਹੀ । ਏ ਯਾਦ ਰਖੈਂ ਹਮਰੀ ਗੁਰਿਆਈ ।

To these poor and needy ones, I shall bestow Patshahi. Thus they shall remember my Guruship.64

There were some even then who, like Savarkar, denied that Sikhism can move someone to transcend their biological reality. Bhangu notes the Hindu governor of Mughal Eminabad, Jaspat Rai, stated in anger he would “convert [Singhs back] into Jats with their hair shorn.”65 But note with interest that Bhangu assigns such a statement to an enemy of the Panth. To Bhangu, it is only an enemy who could believe that the Sikh does not become a Singh upon initiation into the Khalsa, and that he can somehow be denied this new identity by an external actor. It is true that many of those who joined the Khalsa’s ranks were Jat. But the idea that one remains just a Jat, or Khatri, Tarkhan, Dalit, etc. upon joining is thus scorned. Note the same Khalsa filled with Jats was willing to lay siege to the Jat ruler Suraj Mal’s forces without an inkling of racial distress.66

To the precolonial Khalsa, the Sikh identity reigned supreme over ties of blood most definitely in theory, and often, if not always, in practice. Even the apocryphal Uggardanti composition, which is sometimes attributed to Guru Gobind Singh and cited for one line which states,

ਜਗੈ ਧਰਮ ਹਿੰਦੁਕ ਤੁਰਕ ਦੁੰਦ ਭਾਜੈ

May the dharma of Hind ascend, and the Turks beat the drum of retreat!

does not necessarily carry the term “Hind” with its connotation of blood, although it certainly can, when taken out of context, be seen to refer to a racial war against “the Turk.”

But later in Uggardanti, the author states the following,

ਦੁਹੂੰ ਪੰਥ ਮੈਂ ਕਪਟ ਵਿੱਦਯਾ ਚਲਾਨੀ ॥ ਬਹੁੜ ਤੀਸਰਾ ਪੰਥ ਕੀਜੈ ਪਰਧਾਨੀ ॥

In both Panths there exists only false teachings–please erect the Third Panth (the Khalsa) to its natural glory!

It is not immediately clear what the author is referring to by “both Panths.” But the only two communities mentioned so far in the composition are Hindu and Turk. A Savarkar may state the author is calling for a new Hindu identity to be formed along the lines of Khalsa belief. But perhaps the author means for a sort of postracial identity to be formed, one free from the perceived corruption of both the racial-religious Hindu and Islamic folds. After all, the author is calling for his dharma to prevail across the world. He adds,

ਮੜ੍ਹੀ ਗੋਰ ਦੇਵਲ ਮਸੀਤਾਂ ਗਿਰਾਯੰ ॥ ਤੁਹੀ ਏਕ ਅਕਾਲ ਹਰਿ ਹਰਿ ਜਪਾਯੰ ॥

Let the graves, monasteries, and mosques fall, and may you ensure the chanting of the One Akal is instituted,

ਮਿਟਹਿ ਬੇਦ ਸਾਸਤ੍ਰ ਅਠਾਰਹਿ ਪੁਰਾਨਾ ॥ ਮਿਟੈ ਬਾਂਗ ਸਲਵਾਤ ਸੁੰਨਤ ਕੁਰਾਨਾ ॥

May the Vedas, Shastras, and the Eighteen Puranas be eradicated, and may the worship call to namaz and the recital of the Quran end.

It is clear the author believes the Sikh belief of oneness should reign supreme, and he advocates for the complete erasure of the classical literature of Hindu culture up to that point. Without the Vedas, Shastras, and Puranas (and likely the rest of the Sanatan corpus) what is Hindu culture? To the author, it seems it would just be whatever Sikh culture and practice is. At that point, even if the author would call this belief Hindu, it would not at all carry the essential Hindu qualities that Savarkar and the modern Hindu would recognize. It would just be Sikhism.

C. Culture

“But the culture,” Savarkar may wail. “Gurmukhi descends from Sanskrit! Gurbani is filled with references to Hindu deities and myths. Even if one rejects a concept from Sanatan Dharma, the fact that one uses the concept still marks the resulting philosophy with the ‘indelible stamp of Hindu culture!’ Also, the Guru celebrated Diwali!”

I suppose I could stop here and state that, even if all of the above is true, the fact that the Sikh identity is not contained within Sanatan Dharma and has escaped the confines of Hindu geography and blood would, under Savarkar’s own definition, appear to already grant the Sikh identity the status of non-Hindu.67 However, a few comments.

Why would the Gurus utilize Hindu stories, figures, and beliefs in the explication of their own? It seems silly to even ask this question. The answer is, of course, they resided amongst a population familiar with these concepts. The Gurus existed in a context. How effective could they have been in spreading Gurmat if they decided to basically never discuss prevailing belief, and make up a culture from scratch? Would this even be feasible?

But does this mean Sikh culture was simply a part of a wider Hindu culture, even if it had its differences? This brings up the interesting question of exactly how different must a culture be before it is considered independent (and query whether any culture can ever be considered truly independent in light of the history of human interaction).

As Gurmat and Sikh culture begins in Gurbani, it is perhaps proper to first analyze the influence the wider Hindu culture had upon it. First, I don’t think it can properly be said that Hindu concepts being mentioned in a dismissive tone makes a writing a part of “Hindu culture” without stretching the term to its very limits. We have already seen the tone Gurbani takes many a time with the Vedas and Hindu deities. If I mention the Bible in a text explaining Sikh philosophy, but state it to be irrelevant, or lesser, or subservient to Sikhism, could this, on its own, establish my text as a part of Christian culture? I think the answer must be, of course not.

But what about when the Guru invokes the divine as “Ram” or “Hari,” or the many shabads from Bhagats who seem to be explicitly praising Hindu deities? Does this mark Gurbani as a part of Hindu culture? It would certainly seem to at the very least thus be influenced by Hindu culture. But what must be remembered here is references to the divine as “Allah,” Islamic concepts such as “hukam,” and shabads from Sheikh Farid who is by all accounts communicating to the Islamic deity in his writings, all appear in Guru Granth Sahib. The mere mention of terms would thus appear to be, on its own, insufficient to establish Gurbani as a part of Hindu culture.

A Savarkar may bring up the “ratio” of different mentions in the Guru Granth Sahib, with Hindu references winning sizably. But I would ask, does the presence of such an array of different cultural references not point to the Guru Granth Sahib as the beginning of a uniquely Sikh culture, one heavily influenced by Hindu culture, but forming a distinct world? And again, are the names for the concepts really as important as what the Gurus and Bhagats reorder them to mean? If the Guru is using Hari to mean an attainable state deep within every human instead of referring to Vishnu, does it really matter how many times it is used?

ਪੰਡਿਤ ਪੜਹਿ ਸਾਦੁ ਨ ਪਾਵਹਿ ॥

The Pandits go on reading, but do not taste the sweetness.

ਦੂਜੈ ਭਾਇ ਮਾਇਆ ਮਨੁ ਭਰਮਾਵਹਿ ॥

In duality and love with maya (falsehood), their mind continues to wander.

ਮਾਇਆ ਮੋਹਿ ਸਭ ਸੁਧਿ ਗਵਾਈ ਕਰਿ ਅਵਗਣ ਪਛੋਤਾਵਣਿਆ ॥

Attached to maya they have lost all that is pure, they live in regret of their transgressions.

ਸਤਿਗੁਰੁ ਮਿਲੈ ਤਾ ਤਤੁ ਪਾਏ ॥

Only by meeting the True Guru, can one attain the fundamental truths.

ਹਰਿ ਕਾ ਨਾਮੁ ਮੰਨਿ ਵਸਾਏ ॥

Only then will the name of Hari be imbued in your mind.

ਸਬਦਿ ਮਰੈ ਮਨੁ ਮਾਰੈ ਅਪੁਨਾ ਮੁਕਤੀ ਕਾ ਦਰੁ ਪਾਵਣਿਆ ॥

By dying in the Shabad one kills their mind, and is able to reach their internal door of liberation.

• Guru Amar Das in Raag Majh, Ang 116-17.

“Ah,” states Savarkar. “Slippery you are. But I have one final weapon – the writings of Guru Gobind Singh! Surely you must recognize his renditions of Vishnu, Durga, and Shiva’s stories to carry the indelible stamp of Hindu culture!”

Yes, it is true, the stories in compositions such as the Chaubis Avtar (25 incarnations of Vishnu) and Chandi di Var (the Ballad of Chandi) are received from Sanatan texts such as the Puranas, texts that are fundamental to mainstream Hindu culture even today. But what does the Guru do in his retellings? Take, for example, the Krishnavtar (the Life of Krishna) section of Chaubis Avtar. Guru Gobind Singh adds to the tale a lengthy battle between Krishna’s forces and the human king Kharag Singh, in which Krishna loses time and time again. Even the beheading of Kharag Singh results in embarrassment to Krishna:

ਸੋ ਸਿਰ ਲਾਗ ਗਯੋ ਹਰਿ ਕੇ ਉਰ ਮੂਰਛ ਹ੍ਵੈ ਪਗੁ ਨ ਠਹਰਾਯੋ

And when the head hit Krishna, he could not stop his feet,

ਦੇਖਹੁ ਪਉਰਖ ਭੂਪ ਕੇ ਮੁੰਡ ਕੋ ਸਯੰਦਨ ਤੇ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਭੂਮ ਗਿਰਾਯੋ

Seeing the bravery of the head of the king, Krishna fell to the earth from his chariot!

Death itself cannot stop Kharag Singh who, headless, makes his way to heaven on his own accord, unaffected by divine intervention. The story has no mention in any other text prior to Guru Gobind Singh’s – it is clear it is the Guru’s own invention. What function is the text thus playing? Is it simply participating in Hindu culture, or is it in a way subtly continuing the dismissive tone the earlier Gurus took to much of the Sanatan heritage, showing his followers that even Krishna loses to a self-realized human. Does utilizing Hindu culture for a uniquely Khalsaic outlook qualify as “the indelible stamp of Hindu culture”? If it does, then so be it, we can add the Krishnavtar to the Hindu corpus just as we can add the Zafarnama to the Persian. However, taken as a whole, it is clear that the body of Gurbani we have available to us reflects a uniquely Sikh attitude in which the Gurus freely make use of metaphors from different existing cultures to explain their own independent philosophy.

“But what about history!” Savarkar may then again complain. “Maharaja Ranjit Singh used to feed Brahmins! The Khalsa used to celebrate Diwali! Will you turn your back on your ancestors?”

The preceding discussion on Gurbani may have left the question of a uniquely Sikh culture ambiguous to the reader. And so, this is often where the work of a severely misread academic is trotted out by modern Savarkars to prove that as a matter of history, Khalsa culture was Hindu. But I believe this misreading of Harjot Oberoi will ultimately be their undoing. Oberoi himself states part of the purpose of the creation of the Khalsa was to “finally end the ambiguities of Sikh religiosity.”68 An analysis of the precolonial rehitnama tradition (codes of conduct) and Khalsa literature makes the answer unmistakeable – the early Khalsa was not only attempting to escape the Hindu identity, but construct a new identity independent from the world as a whole.69

First, consider the new rituals the Khalsa created, either by their own volition or possibly prescribed by the Guru. According to Oberoi, the khande ki pahul ceremony is one “the like of which had never existed before in South Asia.”70 Certain rehitname demanded the Khalsa Sikh perform new rituals for “birth, initiation, and death.”71 These rituals did not use any of the existing Hindu texts – where the recitation of verse is called for, it is always Gurbani that is used,72 and Gurbani is also required for the Khalsa Sikh to recite everyday.73 The Khalsa Sikh’s body too, was to be distinct from all others in society through the keeping of hair, the bearing of arms, and prohibitions on the smoking of tobacco.74

A Savarkar may read this as the Guru and the Khalsa returning to a more ancient form of Hindu warrior. Indeed, there is some evidence to suggest that one rationale later given for the keeping of hair was that it continued ancient Hindu traditions.

However, it is not immediately obvious why the dastar and mandatory weaponry would be required for the Khalsa’s uniform to be reminiscent of the Kshatriyas of old. It seems to me that these additions are in keeping with the idea that the purpose of the Khalsa look is to portray power and masculinity,75 whether or not they are supported by tradition. After all, there does not appear to be any historical parallel for other aspects of Khalsa practice such as khande ki pahul and the unique gatherings of the Sarbat Khalsa, at least not in the specifically Kshatriya context. And to the extent that Hindu deity or tradition are invoked to justify Khalsa practice, it is often to simply bolster the claim of the Khalsa’s supremacy, not to demand worship or acceptance of such deities. This supremacy is necessary because underlying the Khalsa rehat is the making of a new human, one elevated by the Guru to the status of kingship. The practice of rehat is the destruction of the initiate’s previous identity, and admission into the political project of power-brokering around Sikh belief. This necessitates an independence from not just what is Hindu, but from all other identities.

Ultimately, Oberoi believes that the early Khalsa was unsuccessful in maintaining an independence from “the diversity which was a central feature of Indic thought and culture.”76 His thesis is that the political realities of having to administer new Khalsa-lead states led to the Khalsa accepting non-Khalsa Sikh identities that were more prone to identifying with the general Sanatan culture.77 Khalsa Sikhs would have to accept Sehajdharis as legitimate to buy their participation in state-building,78 a project the Khalsa believed to have been mandated by Guru Gobind Singh himself. Thus arose implicit approval of their practices.

But whether or not this is a correct diagnosis of the later Khalsa, Oberoi does not deny that the early Khalsa sought to differentiate itself from the rest of society.79 He simply states the Khalsa was unsuccessful in completely erasing non-Khalsa, Sanatan Sikh identities that would end up receiving patronage from ruling Khalsa Sikh states.80 This offers no help in determining whether such Sanatan identities should be properly understood to be legitimate expressions of Sikh identity.81 Recall the idea from earlier that, if there is to be such a thing as a Sikh identity, it must take primacy above all other groupings as a necessary consequence of Sikh belief. The Khalsa Sikh identity, formalizing the independent philosophy of the Gurus into a political organization, is thus the best expression of what the Sikh identity (which requires its adopter to transcend all other identities) is. So, to the extent that other identities may have existed, this does not mean they are holding true to Gurmat.

“So you’re saying that Maharaja Ranjit Singh was wrong to patronize Sanatan Sikh entities?”

Ranjit Singh was a ruler of a multicultural territory in which the Khalsa Sikh population was in the vast minority. His patronage to both Sanatan Sikh and non-Sikh entities exists in the historical fact that as a matter of successful statecraft, it would help your legitimacy if your people believe you to be accepting of their preferred beliefs. And by all accounts, the Maharaja himself was prone to some personal Sanatan practices. But this alone cannot deny the uniquely Sikh culture of his Sarkar-i-Khalsa (Khalsa Government). A few examples, both general and specific:

1. Coins minted by his government deemed Nanakshahi (“Of the Rule of Nanak”), essentially always in praise of the Sikh Gurus, often carrying depictions of the same.
2. The incessant drive westward to expand the Empire past the subcontinent’s traditional boundaries, in keeping with the expansive nature of Sikh ideology and politics.
3. The acceptance of Europeans and professional European culture in the Khalsa army, reflective of the universal and cosmopolitan nature of the Sikh polity.
4. The reallocation of land from “large proprietors” for the purposes of cultivation and productive use by “the ‘working rural population,’” expressing the Khalsa’s preference for progress over tradition.
5. The use of a Japji Sahib manuscript to sanctify a military order.82
6. Maharaja Ranjit Singh commanding “the Brahmins to be silent, and facilitate the intrusion of Christians” at the Jwalamukhi temple.83

Let us pause and remind ourselves that Savarkar notes within the “common” Hindu culture there exists “common institutions and a common law,” with “feasts and festivals” and “rites and rituals in common” across various Hindu subgroupings.84

Can a Khalsa Sikh be said to have shared with the general Hindu public “common institutions” when the entire point of his initiation was to join the independent institution of the Khalsa and dedicate his life to the practice of political Sikhism? What does it mean when, from the beginning of the Khalsa to the height of Sikh statehood, there existed unique and new Khalsaic “rites and rituals” and an open disregard for Hindu common law with an emphasis instead on the values of expediency and administrability?

I will give Savarkar one point. It would appear to be the case that the festivals celebrated by Khalsa Sikhs were largely absorbed from the Hindu fold. But I wonder, as we near the end of Savarkar’s arguments, if this is enough to deem the Sikh identity a part of the Hindu. It is clear even to Savarkar that Sikh philosophy cannot be properly understood as a part of Sanatan Dharma. As a matter of ideology and history, Sikhism has not kept itself caged to the Indian subcontinent. Sikh philosophy calls for blood affiliations such as race and caste to be transcended, and attempts were made to realize this ideal throughout Sikh history. And now, where we are supposed to find common law and practice, we instead find the Khalsa clearly attempting to create a unique identity and culture, with the academic work that is supposed to disprove this making note that the “Khalsa episteme became hegemonic.”85 But remember folks, Khalsa Sikhs would celebrate Diwali, and so that makes them perfect Savarkar Hindus.

VI. The Forward Pass

And so, the precolonial Sikh identity was not simply an arm of Sanatan Dharma, nor does it fit within what it means to be an ethnic Hindu as enunciated by Savarkar, the father of political Hinduism. The Sikh identity is premised on the rejection of such identities as false, and the Khalsa Sikh identity is premised on organized political action to realize this principle, which from its birth strove for complete independence from not just the Hindu identity, but all other identities that came before it.

So when Bhai Kahn Singh of Nabha makes his seminal statement in 1898, that “We are not Hindus,” has he betrayed the teachings of the Sikh Gurus? Has he turned his back on the precolonial Khalsa culture? Has he forgotten history just to impress his British rulers? Is he simply creating a pretext for Jatts to lobby for their own concessions? The answer must be an emphatic no, no, no, and no. Bhai Kahn Singh reached the conclusion, as Savarkar did, that a logical reading of Gurbani cannot fairly place Sikhism within the Sanatan Dharma. That the early Khalsa literature evinces a thirst for independence. That Sikh culture has had its own unique flourishing, with the philosophy of the Gurus given expression in Sikh statehood. That Sikhism calls upon its adherents to recognize blood ties as necessarily false.

Interestingly enough, I would say that the real problem is perhaps Kahn Singh did not go far enough. At the end of Hum Hindu Nahi, he assures his Indian countrymen that “our country can only develop when the people of all beliefs can feel free to completely practice their beliefs just like the Japanese.”86 In this is the implied sentiment that, while the Sikh belief may be separate from Sanatan Dharma, perhaps Sikhism is still “Bharati.”87 This makes the same mistake as Savarkar, hiding Sikhism’s inherently universal nature simply due to its historical circumstance of being founded upon the Indian subcontinent.

The teachings of the Gurus necessitate that, if their Sikhs are to identify as anything, it must be Sikh first. For, if during the movement of history a Sikh’s other identities clash with Sikhism, if one’s ethnicity, state, caste, class, clan, tribe, or even family, put Sikh ideology in their crosshairs and are willing to resort to violence to suppress its growth, the followers of the Gurus must be willing to group and respond accordingly so as to preserve the ability to practice Sikhism – the use of its tools to feel the “one source” and fill the void within all. The militarization of the Sikh community and the formation of the Sikh identity is thus a positive feedback loop, for it is when a self “comes in contact or conflict with a non-self then alone it stands in need of a name.”88 The Sikh Sangat was focused on the practice of a selfless life absorbed in Guru Nanak’s community until it collided with the Mughal state. Guru Hargobind then made clear that within the ordering of an individual’s identities, the Sikh identity must reign supreme so as to survive attempted repression. This order is then given concrete, everlasting form by Guru Gobind Singh, with the Khalsa instructed to pursue power so that it does not collide with the state, rather, it is the state.

Perhaps the community of Guru Nanak could have went on to transcend the need for identity, becoming identityless. But so long as the human mind’s capacity for differentiation continues (which would seem to be for the foreseeable future), the Sikh identity will be necessary, since Sikhism is the greatest danger to this differentiation.

The Sikh thus cannot treat the Sikh identity as subordinate to a racial identity such as Savarkar’s Hindu (or the identity of Punjabi, or Khatri, or Jatt, etc.) without violating Sikhism. The Sikh cannot treat the Sikh identity as subordinate to a nationality such as Indian (or the nationality of American, or Canadian, or British, etc.) without violating Sikhism. These identities may be matters of perceived reality, biological or geographic. But only those Sikhs have demonstrated loyalty to the Sikh premises of oneness and the falsity of the self who, if such identities come into conflict with Sikh ideology, choose to identify as Sikh and fight for the survival of its truths. This loyalty is what undergirded the test of the Khalsa at Anandpur, and so, the adoption of the Khalsa Sikh identity is the signal of ultimate adherence to the Sikh truth – that the human experience of oneness through beauty and aesthetic is worth the sacrificing of one’s individual self for the experience to be available to others.

Back to Dahl. His conception of a Sikh may have aspects I disagree with – I for one, do not think a Sikh’s homeland must be Punjab, and to state that a Sikh’s uncut hair is “a sort of religion” may be an oversimplification. However, within Dahl’s passage is a recognition that there exists a people who go by the name of Sikh, who have a distinct culture and way of being. Their primary identity rests in the fact that they choose to believe in the Guru’s way, and are capable of political organization to defend it. This is wholly correct.

And one must also not forget that the Khalsa, according to its precolonial conception, was raised to the status of the Guru.89 Along with this comes the authority to continue the construction of Sikh identity, just as the Gurus did. Of course, a guiding principle in this development should be faith to Gurmat. But as stated in Part II, the Panth is not beholden to what the early Khalsa, or the early Sikh community, did just because of tradition. Each Sikh innovation in identity has been shown to have had a functional purpose, with old ways and practices discarded and new ones adopted in pursuit of the mission of the Gurus. The current arguments for and against any changes made during the colonial and postcolonial eras in Sikh history assume the modern Khalsa has only the authority to determine what the best understanding of precolonial Sikh practice is, and then implement that. But it is obvious from the early Khalsa’s creation of its own codes of conduct that this has never been the only understanding it had of its capacity for self-regulation. Instead, the Khalsa had been delegated authority from Guru Gobind Singh to construct its identity as the times warranted for the ultimate practice of raj. A forward pass, if you will, to be caught in the endzone however the Khalsa is to get there. But of course, there is a path drawn out that must at least be loosely adhered to. And it is thus up to the modern Khalsa to ensure it continues the “tradition” of Khalsaic innovation without losing sight of what elevated the Khalsa to its supreme status in the first place.

ਜਬ ਲਗ ਖ਼ਾਲਸਾ ਰਹੇ ਨਿਆਰਾ | ਤਬ ਲਗ ਤੇਜ ਕੀਉ ਮੈਂ ਸਾਰਾ

So long as the Khalsa remains distinct, I shall lend all within my power,

ਜਬ ਇਹ ਗਹੈ ਬਿਪਰਨ ਕੀ ਰੀਤ | ਮੈਂ ਨ ਕਰੋਂ ਇਨ ਕੀ ਪਰਤੀਤ

Should they fall into the ways of Brahmins, they shall lose my support.

–Khalsa Mehima, attributed to Guru Gobind Singh.

source : baaznews