|
The French and the
Sikh approach to non-sectarianism
Gurtej Singh
| |
Though the Sikh
culture can be described as ‘faith’ of a different category, the
term religion is wrongly applied to us by conventionalists who
have no choice but to use the prevalent vocabulary to describe
the phenomena. It certainly is misapplied to the Order of the
Khalsa... |
|
 Primary difficulty in understanding the Sikh faith has been the
attempt of scholars to interpret it in the context of the prevalent
notions about spiritualism and religion.
Complete appreciation of the Sikh position is also marred by the use
of terms current in religious terminology to describe religious
experience and religious fundamentals.
The
Sikhs believe that theirs is the ‘third way’ distinct in all
essentials from both the Semitic and the Indic pathways.
 To
emphasise the unity of thought and belief, the ten originators of
the Sikh faith all call themselves Nanak after the first who bore
that name. Nanak (1469-1539 CE) was not a ‘prophet of the Semitic
belief’ nor was he an ‘Indic incarnation;’ he was a Guru (a
teacher). In an act of supreme significance, the last Nanak
(1666-1708) merged his body into the congregation of believers and
his thought (soul?) into the Granth. This compilation of their views
is now, along with the body of believers (the Khalsa), the
‘eternally reigning Guru,’ known and revered as Guru Granth Sahib.
It teaches the faithful to believe as follows:
1.
God is One. The very first ‘word’ of the Guru Granth is
the absolute numeral ‘1’ to emphasise the unity of Godhead without
reservation. He is not ‘our one God’ opposed to ‘their one God.’
He/She is just one God common to all humankind. One important
implication of this belief is that we do not view the world as the
strife-torn planet where Jew-Gentile, Christian-Heathen, Muslim-Kafir
or Hindu-Mallechha are in perpetual conflict.
2. All religions are valid though they need to be updated
according to their own original preaching.
3. Luring or terrifying innocent people with temptation of
heaven or fear of hell is wrong. Neither hell nor heaven exists.
Purity of life is a reward in itself as impurity is a curse.
 4. There is no “original sin,” evil is a product of wrong
appreciation of Reality and has no independent existence. God is
immanent in His creation; no Satan can exist therein. No
intermediary, be he a prophet, ‘son of God,’ Guru or a priest can
take anyone’s sins upon himself or can absolve another of them. No
verbal formula (the kalmia, the mantra, for instance)
or expression of faith in another can redeem anyone. There is no
such thing as mukti, moksha, nirvana, salvation, deliverance
or final release after death. These concepts are irrelevant to
religious living – which is merely an expression of love.
5. Realising the Will of God as is depicted in the Word of
the Guru is the only pursuit worthy of a spiritually inclined
person. Imbibing the Will within the self as spontaneous programme
of action is the only religious activity worth pursuing. Acquiring
the mental and physical skills, habits and attitudes that equip one
to accept and promote His Will as the basis of conscious living (turia
avastha, the fourth state of existence), alone is holy. Actually
striving incessantly to help in implementing the Will in human
affairs alone is salvation. It is a state (jiwan mukta) that
must be obtained while one is living. This is salvation, mukti,
moksha, final release, nirvana or deliverance. It is the
summum bonum of human existence.
 5A. God loves all. S/He wills that all should lead tension
free lives (in complete absence of coercion). Everyone is entitled
to unlimited spiritual progress (likened to transforming the beast
and ghost within, to angelic state) and has the right to make
socially compatible material progress.
A
seeker after God must let his facial and head hair grow long in full
acceptance of His Will. Some, who among them are sufficiently
motivated and have trained themselves adequately, take a formal vow
( undergo amrit sankar) to make the implementation of His
Will the sole concern, while still leading a normal house-holder’s
life. Such people adopt five symbols of faith to act as constant
reminders that they are in the service of God and His creation.
Those who take such vows and adopt the symbols, have been known to
history as the Order of the Khalsa or the society of the Khalsa or
simply as amritdhari Sikhs. Their primary aim is to bring
about a moral revolution for the benefit of humanity. This Order
seeks ultimately to make everlasting bliss a normal condition by
promoting harmony amongst all living beings.
 That was also the aim of the European and English thinkers of the 18th
and the 19th centuries. The teachings of the Guru
sometimes appear paraphrased in their writings. The secular policies
of the French government, as far as we know, are formed under the
influence of these great thinkers and philosophers. There is no
contradiction between the teachings of our Guru and the aims of the
French polity.
Though our culture can be described as ‘faith’ of a different
category, the term religion is wrongly applied to us by
conventionalists who must use the prevalent vocabulary to describe
the phenomena. It certainly is misapplied to the Order of the
Khalsa. Arnold Toynbee understood its character much better. While
rejecting the claim of Lenin that his Communist Party was the first
political organisation wedded to an idea, he said words to the
effect, that ‘the Khalsa of Guru Gobind Singh is a true precursor of
Lenin’s Communist Party.’ The symbols of the Khalsa are a badge of a
people committed to one of the noblest ideals evolved by humankind –
they, including the turban and are not sectarian ‘religious
symbols.’ Limitation of vocabulary, resulting in inadequate
articulation, is severely hampering the understanding of our wholly
original society. Our spiritual literature tells us that the Khalsa
is to regard itself as outside the conventional world of religions,
races, castes, and other interest groups.
The
French government may consider tolerating the Sikh turban. It is no
conventional religious symbol but is a badge of the Khalsa dedicated
to the same ideals that are the bedrock of laudable secular policies
pursued by France.
Having conceded that, it still appears difficult to define the
turban as a ‘symbol of the Sikh faith.’ Bhai Nand Lal Goya, a
contemporary Persian poet and disciple of Guru Gobind Singh has
specified the five symbols of the Sikh faith or, rather, the Sikh’s
faith in God. He says these are five article beginning with the
Persian letter ‘kaaf.’ (Nishan-e-Sikhi ast een panj harf
kaaf) This is also the universal opinion of history. According
to it ‘kesh’ or full length hair are a symbol. If a students
cannot wear a turban in school, he will be removing that which is
not a symbol and will be displaying what actually is a symbol – the
unshorn hair. Would the government see that it is not achieving the
object it set out to achieve and needs to allow the turban to keep
the real symbol of faith neatly tucked away?
It
may also be considered that the turban has been an item of a
gentleman’s attire much before Guru Nanak, originator of the Sikh
view of life. It retains that position in various countries and
cultures. No evidence is required to be cited as the turban is
conspicuous by its presence in many states of India besides the
Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Africa and so on. It finds
acceptance amongst votaries of various religions and adherents of
several cultures as has been already stated. The Sikhs proudly adopt
it as an efficient and the most revered headgear in all history.
They, thereby preserve an aspect of the heritage of humankind. What
will France gain by seeking to eliminate this elegant headgear that
has been adorned by the noblest people in the past including some of
the greatest benefactors of humankind?
(Gurtej
Singh is National Professor of Sikhism and a former IAS officer who
quit the coveted cadre of India in protest against the atrocities on
Sikhs. He may be contacted at akalsahaigurtejsingh@yahoo.com)
30 January 2008
|
Read Also