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 ਤਿ