|
Let the discussion go on
I J Singh
| |
In response
to Jaspreet Kaur's article "(Re)Defining Sikh Activism: Sikh
Scholars, Ivory Towers, and the Sikh Community", published in
World Sikh News' October 14-20, 2009 edition, Prof I.J. Singh
has responded through mailing lists on the internet. In the
interest of an objective debate and fair representation, we
reproduce his observations. – Ed. |
|
 I
am indeed flattered that my posting on academic programs on Sikhism
in North America has generated such a spirited and extensive
response from Jasprit Kaur and comments by Gurmukh Singh and others.
A major purpose of my writing -- to initiate a discussion and debate
-- seems to be amply served. Nevertheless, some issues raised by
Jasprit Kaur deserve further exploration.
A reasonable
reading of my posting should convey that I am not diminishing the
contributions of the academic scholars, nor am I dismissing the work
or the needs of the community or community-based organization pre or
post 9/11. I am also not glossing over the divide that often seems
to exist between the scholars and the community.
Jasprit contends
about me that "He creates a typology in which he delineates three
different levels of writing and communication produced by scholars:
that which is meant for other scholars in their sub-specialty; that
which is meant for other scholars beyond their sub-specialty, and
that which is meant for the educated lay person. He suggests that
Sikh scholars have rarely ventured beyond the first, narrowest
sphere of communication, and implies that this renders them somewhat
useless to the community at large. But his dichotomy between scholar
and community simply does not hold up."
I agree with the
major part of this statement but not all of it. I have not implied
that "this renders them somewhat useless to the community at
large." These are neither my words nor my intent. Yes, what I mean
is that the third level of writing - and I give examples of
Scientific American and the names of many authors of that kind of
discourse - would enhance the scholars' mission of carrying the
community forward.
Incidentally
this "typology" is not my invention. I would happily take credit for
it if it were. I believe this is a wonderful model that many
excellent scientists and thinkers do follow. The result is often a
public debate on larger issues that are important to the community
and such debate engages, educates and enriches the community.
Nowhere is it being said or even implied by me that what the
scholars do in their research is unnecessary or undesirable.
I
am not going to mount here a full defense of the idea of public
intellectuals. All progressive societies value such people. I have
named many, including some Sikhs. Some of the talking heads on
television and on blogs are public intellectuals, others are
well-informed partisans and sometimes ill-serving hacks. Many of
them come from academia. This is the nature of the intellectual
tradition. They have a major role in carrying the community forward.
For instance, the precise research of someone like Noam Chomsky is
probably way beyond most of us, but his role as a public
intellectual is not. Similar comments apply to Carl Sagan and many
of the others that I named. Are they always right or should we
always agree with them? Certainly not. But they are invaluable to us
in the larger community. What is wrong in hoping that in time some
public intellectuals would emerge out of our academics? And that is
precisely what I said.
Again, Jasprit
Kaur's conclusion "he subtly suggests that ONLY (emphasis mine and
added) social and political activism can be of real value to the
Sikh community" baffles me. I don't know where she is getting that
from what I wrote.
These
differences aside I am not, as contended by Jasprit, attempting to
"deprive the Sikh community of much needed rigorous intellectual
engagement", but in fact promoting a much needed rigorous and
vigorous conversation and discourse.
By all means,
let the discussion go on.
I.J. Singh. New
York
21
October 2009
|
Read Also