|
Sehajdhari
Sikh Imbroglio: SGPC takes panthic line, but Panth
raises the bar
Damdami Taksal, experts say scrap Sehajdhari concept altogether
Either One Is A Sikh or Not, There Are No
Half-way Sikhs
Sach Kanwal Singh
 AMRITSAR:
Having been singed badly, the SGPC is now trying to Operation
Cover-up on the Sehajdhari Sikh definition row and is trying to
claim it was in agreement with the panthic bodies. Except that the
panthic bodies have now raised the bar altogether.
Aimed at
retrieving the better part from a worse situation, the SGPC
leadership, particularly its president Avtar Singh Makkar, sought to
dissociate himself from the controversial affidavit submitted to the
Punjab
and Haryana defining Sehajdhari Sikh and strongly backed a
resolution on January 2 saying no one who cuts/trims his hair/beard
can be a Sehajdhari Sikh.
At a broad
spectrum meeting in
Amritsar on
Friday afternoon, the SGPC had invited the Sant Samaj, Damdami
Taksal, many Nihang Singh organisations, the Chief Khalsa Diwan etc
where it was made clear that the earlier affidavit was wrong, and
the resolution was passed that anyone cutting hair cannot be a
Sehajdhari Sikh.
While
representatives of Sant Samaj, Damdami Taksal and Chief Khalsa Diwan
did appreciate the SGPC's action of admitting that the earlier
affidavit, submitted before the High Court on December 5 was wrong
and agreeing to file a new affidavit, the Sehajdhari row seems to be
veering towards a new direction, a direction hailed by many Sikh
experts.
Most of the
organisations are now of the view that there is no concept of a
Sehajdhari Sikh in modern times and one can be either a Sikh or not
a Sikh. Even as the SGPC is readying its new affidavit, likely to be
submitted on or before January 16, the next date of hearing, the
Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (DSGMC) has asked that the
term "Sehajdhari Sikh" be scrapped altogether.
In fact, the
SGPC's own resolutions in the past have taken a similar line.
The SGPC,
through its 1973 resolution, much quoted in the ongoing debate on
the Sehajdhari issue, had already written to the centre that there
were no Sehajdharis anymore and thus anyone calling himself
Sehajdhari cannot be a voter under the Sikh Gurdwara Act 1925.
 Now,
it seems the Damdami Taksal and many Sikh experts are likely to come
around to this view while some members from the Sant Samaj may have
some reservations because a clear denunciation of the term
Sehajdhari may see their following dwindling. Some Sant Samaj
members do not insist beyond a point on matters of "Rehat" and this
easy going cultural stance creates much confusion in theological
debates like the ongoing controversy.
Experts hold
that there is no mention of the term Sehajdhari Sikh in Guru Granth
Sahib, Dasam Granth, Sikh Rahit Maryada, Delhi Sikh Gurdwara
Committee Act, 1971 or even the acts governing Takhat Sri Hazur
Sahib or Takhat Sri Patna Sahib. Sikh Gurdwara Act when introduced
in 1925 also made no mention of this term.
As per the
seminal work, "Law of Religious Institutions" by Dr. Kashmir Singh,
in the year 1959, a Section 2(10-A) was inserted in the Act vide
Section 3(4) of the Punjab Act No. 1 of 1959.
Sikh legislative
affairs expert Gurcharanjit Singh Lamba, who was also part of the
panel of experts set up by the SGPC in connection with the
Sehajdhari Sikh's definition, said in the pre-partition days, in
certain areas of
West Punjab,
there were some people who believed only in Guru Granth Sahib and
Gurdwaras. "At that time certain facilities were given to the Sikhs
by the Government and Sehajdhari Sikhs were also entitled for those.
SGPC was issuing the certificate of Sehajdhari. These Sehajdharis
were following and observing all the ceremonies according to Sikh
rites only. They felt pride in calling themselves Sehajdharis."
He, however,
said that after partition, everything was reversed and trimming and
desecration of the keshas became so copious that the SGPC on
28th March, 1965,
demanded from Government of India that trimming or shearing of
keshas be strictly prohibited in the Army too. This demand of the
SGPC was accepted by the Government of India and a notification to
this effect was issued by the Army Headquarters in the year 1986.
"It is a matter
of fact that the tornado of Partition brought one big change. This
was noted and recorded by SGPC in its General House meeting of 1973
which said that at the time of enactment of the 1925 Act, there were
some Sehajdhari Sikhs in some districts of
Punjab who
fulfilled the required qualifications laid down in the Sikh Gurdwara
Act. However, after partition of the country this institution of
Sehajdhari Sikhs has virtually ceased to exist. Of these Sehajdhari
Sikhs some have become Singhs and some have fallen back to the fold
of Hindu culture. It further noted that this route is now being
misused to enlist non-Sikhs as voters for the Gurdwara elections,"
Lamba said.
he said it was
on this basis that the SGPC had asked the Centre to disenfranchise
anyone calling himself a Sehajdhari and only allow ‘keshadhari
Sikhs’ as voters.
 He
said it is a known fact that in every election to the SGPC this term
has been misused by corrupt and unscrupulous elements to infiltrate
into the apex body.
Sikh experts say
even someone like Khushwant Singh, the author of The History of the
Sikhs and himself no orthodox but rather one who is projected and
perceived as the most liberal among the Sikhs, does not agree with
the idea of Sehajdhari Sikh.
"The absorption
of the Sahajdhari Sikhs into the Hindu fold adds weight to the
argument that there is no such thing as a clean-shaven Sikh. At one
time Sahajdhari Sikhism was – as the meaning of the word signified,
“those who take time” – the half way house to the hirsute (keshadhari)
form of Khalsa Sikhism. Now the process is reversed, and it has
become a halfway house to Hinduism." (A History of the Sikhs –
Khushwant Singh p.305)
Sources said the
SGPC will sooner or later be forced to take this clear stance even
in the ongoing case otherwise its own case will become weak. Some
experts have pointed out to the rising criticism within the
community at the SGPC's decision to respond at all to the High
Court's directive asking it to define the Sehajdhari Sikh. "Where
was the need to define one? Why should the SGPC even respond?
Tomorrow, someone can ask it to define a good Sikh from a better
Sikh. How will we someday define a Nihang Singh? Can a court ask the
SGPC or any other body to define who is a jathedar? Or a sewadar? No
court can or should get into theological definition debates, that
too with the entire community," said an expert.
It seems the
SGPC's move of defining a Sehajdhari, no matter in how good a way
and with whatever unanimity, may still not wash down with a large
majority of Sikh masses. Even experts like G S Lamba, SGPC's own
general secretary Sukhdev Singh Bhaur and others, while
participating in formulating a new and acceptable definition of
Sehajdhari Sikh, are also underlining throughout that the very idea
of a Sehajdhari Sikh is no more acceptable.
Sikh theological
affairs expert Nanak Singh Nishter said Sikhs have had to fight
continued lengthy battles at all levels, against the society and
Government for maintenance of their separate and distinct identity.
He said in the
year 1917, Muslims and Hindus were granted representations in
Punjab
at all parties and official levels. "The Sikhs were denied due
representation, under the contention of the Hindus that the Sikhs
are a part and parcel of the larger Hindu community. Then the Sikhs
were again betrayed in 1919, when the Southborough Committee had
recommended for accepting the declaration of Keshadharis (people
keeping hair) as well as Sehajdharis (people cutting the hair i.e.,
clean-shaven) to be eligible for enrolment in special Sikh
constituencies. The struggle of Sikh identity continued, and in 1920
a deputation left for
London
to put forth its case to the Secretary of State but to no effect,"
he said, recounting instances from history which showed the Sikh
community's long struggle against this back door entry into the
religion that has been consistently misused.
Nishter
especially points to a significant 1905 judgment of King Abdur
Rahman of
Afghanistan that
says, “Followers of Baba Nanak were one of the greatest Unitarians
and were opposed to idol worship. Hindus had no concern with Sikh
shrines, as Sikhs had nothing to do with Hindu Thakurdwaras or
Shivdwaras."
Nishter said it
clearly shows that the Sikh identity crisis was the brainchild of
some fanatical Brahmins, who conspired to undermine Sikhism and
attempted to assimilate Sikhism into their fold.
He said these
forces could not succeed in 1925 when the Sikh Gurdwara Act was
legislated but the term Sehajdhari was "maliciously inserted through
an amendment in the year 1959. "
"It was done
under the pretext 'To amend the Act for the purpose of extending it
to the territories that, immediately before
the 1st November
1956,
were comprised in the State of Patiala and East Punjab States Union
and for certain other purposes'. For other purposes, under Section
2, after Sub-Section 10, a Sub-Section 10-A and Clauses i, ii, iii
and iv have been inserted to incorporate Sehajdhari Sikh and its
definition. "This provision had gone unnoticed by the Sikhs, and
became a part of the Act from 1959 onwards," Nishter says.
The
Jammu
and Kashmir Sikh Gurdwaras and Religious Endowments Act 1973, was
also originally free from the term of Sehajdhari Sikh. In the year
1981 through an amendment in Section 2, the Clauses d, e, f and g
have been inserted to include Sehajdhari Sikh and its definition.
Communal-minded Hindus could not find an opportunity to interfere in
the Acts of Delhi, Nanded and
Patna Sahib
Committees with respect to the definition of a Sikh.
Now, with the
panthic organisations having realized the potential for misuse in
the term Sehajdhari Sikh, it is likely that the move to get it
completely scrapped from the Sikh Gurdwara Act 1925 will gain more
momentum.
5 January 2009
|
Read Also
