|
Meddling With ‘Who is a Sikh’
Question
Every few years,
Indian courts receive petitions from some mischief makers and some
apparently aggrieved people questioning the definition of a Sikh or
a Gurdwara or even challenging the juristic persona status of Guru
Granth Sahib. Sometimes the courts are quick to adjudicate in these
matters and in some cases they take years.
Presently, the
Punjab
and Haryana High Court is seized with the matter of the definition
of who is a Sikh and who is not. It is not the first time that it
has to face such a petition. It has happened in the past too, though
many a time, political developments have overshadowed or superceded
the slow judicial process and the petitions have either become
infructuous or have been simply filed in the labyrinths of the
judicial systems of the country.
In a recent
interim judgement, delivered this week, without giving reprieve to
the petitioner Gurleen Kaur, who was denied admission to the Guru
Ramdas Medical College for trimming her hair, the court has asked
the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee to explain as to
“whether or not a person who cuts his hair and/or shaves his beard
is a ‘Sehajdhari Sikh’, if he performs ceremonies according to Sikh
rites, does not use tobacco or Katha in any form, and can recite
Mool Mantra, with reference to Section 2 (10-A) of the Sikh Gurdwara
Act, 1925.”
The Constitution
bench of the
Punjab and
Haryana High Court is treading on a dangerous path. This kind of
intervention is generally the forte of politicians, particularly
misinformed ones. The line of questioning is disturbing for the
term Sehajdhari Sikh has practically been removed from the statue in
the last elections to the general house of the Shiromani Gurdwara
Parbandhak Committee. All votes registered in separate forms for
the so-called Sehajdhari voters, running into lakhs, were rendered
null and void.
The definition
of Sehajdhari Sikh has no religious sanction as far as the
fundamental tenets of the Sikh religion are concerned. One is
either a Sikh or not a Sikh. Just as one is either a Christian or a
Hindu or a Muslim or one is not.
This
nomenclature was added to the Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 under a
particular set of circumstances, which too are questionable per se,
but without going into the details of those times, the circumstance
ceases to exist.
Let us take the
reverse logic. If one performs ceremonies according to Sikh rites,
does not use tobacco or Katha in any form, can recite Mool Mantra,
and cuts ones hair, if he is to be called a Sehajdhari Sikh, so that
he gets all the social benefits the Sikhs per se are entitled too,
then the importance Sikhs attach to the Kesh –unshorn hair as one of
the Five Ks would be abandoned and this would be striking at the
roots of the faith.
Given the
enlargement of the community beyond the shores of Punjab, given the
rise of apostasy amongst the community and particularly its youth,
given the lack of knowledge amongst the religious leaders running
the SGPC affairs in handling such issues, given the lack of
adherence to the requirements of unshorn hair by Sikh boys and
girls, such questions are likely to arise and the situation is
likely to take an ugly turn when some individuals want to reap the
benefits of being a Sikh –say admission into institutions where Sikh
students have a preference and at the same time keep away from those
requirements which are compulsory to the faith.
Anyone using
this ruse to question the universal message of the Sikh religion,
the social and secularist ideals of the Sikh Gurus, the path of
Sarbat da Bhala, is making a private lapse a public outcry.
Irrespective of what the state authorities do while recognizing the
religion of an individual who strictly is no longer a part of his
original faith, the ideal is too strong to be weakened by it. And
that has nothing to do with social, economic or educational
concessions.
1 October 2008
|
Read Also