Dalbir S. Sehmby

Introduction

Domestic violence is a serious social ill that, for any number of reasons, is a problem throughout varying nations, cultures, and communities. Domestic abuse, typically the perpetration of male violence, is an inexcusable crime. Unfortunately, men who abuse women, specifically husbands who abuse their wives, may claim that they are not to blame for their violent behavior.² Rather, it is their wives, usually through argument, disagreement, or insult that provokes the violence of husbands. The following informal reflection on selective moments in Sikh history (especially during the rule of Aurangzeb) and thought (especially equal rights and the use of violence) will help demonstrate why any degree of spousal abuse is the fault of the abuser; furthermore, under no circumstances does an individual have the right to settle a disagreement (especially verbal or philosophical) or react to an perceived insult through violence.

Excuses and Attitudes in History and in Domestic Abuse

A common belief for an abuser is that someone else provokes an abuser to be violent.³ A schoolboy may tell his mother, the other kids were making fun of me, so I had to beat them up. An adult may say, that guy insulted me because he wears a turban, so I will beat him up. Historically, Aurangzeb may have said the words, beliefs, and behaviour of Guru Tegh Bahadur insult me, so I will physically harm Guru Tegh Bahadur. These three examples have two elements in common. One, the difference between words/ideas and physical force is being overlooked. Two, the fact that a choice is being made is overlooked.

One, words are words. If someone attacks you with words, you fight back with words. As soon as you use physical violence, then you change the rules and only the person who commits the violent act is to blame. For instance, Guru Tegh Bahadur was preaching non-violence and the peaceful tolerance of other religions.⁴ Guru Tegh Bahadur and Sikhism were against some fundamental Hindu beliefs and practices, but the principle of equality and humanity was above all else; so, Guru Tegh Bahadur fought for the freedom of Hindus to see the world and practice their beliefs in the way they wanted. Moreover, Guru Tegh Bahadur fought in a way that he felt comfortable doing, through non-violent bravery, upholding difference and equality through peaceful respect and love in action.

Two, violent action is a choice. Believing in the inherent right to attack another person, or believing that one is provoked into violence by words and ideas is a way to deny one’s own responsibility in the act of violence. Whether in public life or private circles, when violence becomes the imprudent means to settling disagreements, differences of opinion, or differences of taste, then one is forcing a dynamic of hierarchical power upon the situation, rather than upholding equality and tolerance. For instance, Aurangzeb did not belief in the tolerance of others, because he wanted to be correct at all costs, even if it meant damaging others.

In part, what made Aurangzeb a tyrant was he belief in his own superiority, that he and those close to his court could be the judges, juries, and executioners of others whomever they deemed offensive to his claims to rule, a threat to his belief in his inherent right to convert or kill. Aurangzeb did not have the mental clarity to question his own perception of self-imposed power, his belief in himself as the source of absolute truth. Certainly, Aurangzeb did not have the humility, patience, or respect for the rights of others, to look inside and to improve his own behavior. Rather, Aurangzeb took to injuring others in pursuit of self-serving power. Aurangzeb did what he had done to his own family: he used violence, lies, and excuses.

Similarly today, family violence is often about power and control. The male abuser wants to exert his power and control by force, because he may believe in his inherent superiority; he may believe that his violent action is automatically triggered through perceived provocation (rather than by choice, habit, and learned patriarchal biases); also, the male abuser may be addicted to exerting control, because he has little or no respect for his wife, and quite possibly, women in general.

The Power Politics of Aurangzeb Versus the Example of Guru Tegh Bahadur

Aurangzeb wanted to be the patriarch of India and Islam, the living male leader in charge of all that he would forcefully own and control. If the world was not the way he wanted it to be, then Aurangzeb forced it to bend to his selfish lust for power and control. He saw himself as a person with the absolute right to silence others and to use force in the process. His relentless desire to control through force made him a tyrant.

Guru Tegh Bahadur lived a life of self-reflection and change. His real courage stemmed from his meditative example, his ability to look inside himself with honesty, to see his reflection in the steel blade of truth, to look into his own eyes and ask for God’s help in improving himself. His father was Guru Hargobind and together they fought side-by-side in bloody battles. However, rather than continuing a martial lifestyle, Tegh Bahadur abandoned violence to engage in a possibly more difficult battle, to defeat his inner demons and practice self-control with peace of mind.

Guru Hargobind and Guru Gobind Singh lived in times of emergency; they made the choice to fight to protect men, women, and children, upholding the principle of human rights, regardless of religion or caste. However, even Gobind Singh recognized the great virtue of his father’s bravery:

      Theekar fore dilees sir, Prabh par kiyo payan,
      Tegh Bahadur si kriya, Kari na kinhoo aan.
      Tegh Bahadur ke chalat, Bhayo jagat main sog.
      Hai hai hai sab jag bhayo, Jai jai jai sur log.

      He burst the bonds of mortal clay
      And went on to the abode of God.
      No one ever performed an act as noble
      As did Tegh Bahadur.
      With the departure
       of Tegh Bahadur
      The world was stricken with sorrow.
      A wail of horror rent the earth,
      A victor's welcome by the dwellers of heaven.  ~ Bichitra Natak⁵

Guru Gobind Singh, the great warrior he was, admitted that “No one ever performed an act as noble as did” his father. It is important to stress that violence is not an automatic response in Sikh history, because in the history of the gurus, violence was not always met with violence, let alone meeting disagreements in opinion or different practices of belief with violence.⁶

Violence and Sikhism

If one takes the history of the conflict between Aurangzeb and the Sikh gurus into account, it seems that there may be only one place for violence and that is under at least three conditions. It is possible that the only time and place violence is permitted is in the public sphere, as a reaction against tyrannical violence. This may be so that the violence can be open, direct, and judged by all of society. And even then, violence is used against sustained violence, not against words, ideas, or differences of opinion. Furthermore, violence is only permitted to counter violence when all other peaceful avenues have been explored, in the words of Guru Gobind Singh:

      Chun kar az hama hilate dar-guzasht,
      Halal ast burdan ba shamshir dast.

      When all avenues have been explored, and the affair has passed all remedies,
      It is rightful to draw the sword, and wield it with your hand.⁷

Violence then, is a last public and political resort, after all over methods of reconciliation and all other attempts of peaceful coexistence have been explored. Violence is to be used against tyrannical violence and the direct violent abuse of the innocent, regardless of their nationality or faith. It follows that, violence has no place in the public realm of conflicting ideas nor in the private sphere of conflicting opinions and viewpoints; certainly then, violence has no place in a verbal familial disagreement between husband and wife.

Even during a war, the values of peace seem to take greater precedence than the emergency measures of violence. During the battle of Anandpur Sahib, Bhai Kanahyia ji served water and gave first aid to the Sikhs and the enemy alike. When someone complained of Bhai Kanahyia's giving first aid to the enemy, he replied, to paraphrase, that he saw the face of Guru in all, and thus, could not say no.⁸ Guru ji was very impressed and blessed Bhai Kanahyia ji, because humanitarian values, the values of life, love, respect, and peace, are fundamentally important, even during a war with one’s political enemy.

Violence is permitted in public to deal with corrupt political tyranny in an open manner, but only if all three conditions are met: one, the violence is open and public; two, the violence is acting against sustained violent acts, not differing viewpoints; three, the violence is being used after all other peaceful approaches have failed. However, as with the example of Bhai Kanahyia ji, even in types of war, peaceful action is of great value. As is evident from the lessons provided us by the lives of the Gurus, it can be concluded that violence is strictly forbidden in the home, between husband and wife.

Change

Change takes the ultimate courage – actual, personal change. This means admitting that your past self and your past behaviour was wrong. Then, it requires the courage to alter one’s actions in the future. It is easier to spend an entire life blaming others and justifying your behaviour. It is easier to force others to accept what you have to say. We know this, because this was the way of Aurangzeb. The way of Guru Tegh Bahadur is the more difficult path, but it may be the path to immortality. Unfortunately, centuries after Guru Tegh Bahadur’s example, some people have not learned. Practicing self-control, cooperation, and peace are virtues that the world has not become wise enough or strong enough to practice.

Principles in Action

Although patriarchal beliefs, where women are treated as lesser than men, have influenced many Sikh households, according to Sikh philosophy, men and women are equal and should treat one another with genuine respect and not violence. Here, it may be necessary to distinguish between Sikh culture, and Sikh philosophy. Although Sikh philosophy is egalitarian, some Sikh households have naturalized patriarchal values, informally believing in a hierarchal division between men and women. As it relates to gender norms, it is significant that langar is a key part of Sikhism, for at least two reasons.

One, langar is a gesture towards equality, for all are equally fed. The kitchen was not a typical place for holy people, saints, or poets to work; so in this sense, upholding langar erases the hierarchical distinction of servant and the served. Two, it takes a traditionally female domain, the kitchen, and makes it a central part of Sikh identity, male and female. Guru Nanak, Guru Angad, and Guru Amardas, early in the development of Sikhism, and all being men themselves, stressed the importance of and worked within the traditional female sphere of the kitchen, demonstrating through their actions, the equality of duties in the burgeoning house of the Guru.⁹

Partner violence has absolutely no place within any household, but taking the religious legacy and sacrifices of the Gurus in mind, partner violence especially has no place within a household, which calls itself a Sikh family. In our lives, if any one of us has allowed anger turn into insults, yelling, screaming, and words that we later regret, then we have all made mistakes. But, such mistakes are within the realm of ideas and words. As soon as one becomes physically violent, then the entire situation changes. Debaters may argue with one another for hours, students may argue ideas with one another for years, and thinkers may argue with one another for centuries, but as soon as one commits a physically violent act upon another, then that person who turns to violence is the only one to blame.

The only person to blame when a person hits someone else is the person who raises his hand for violence. No one makes a person lift up his hand to hit someone, except that person himself. The situation is made much more shameful when a person hits his own wife, the person whom he has sworn to love before the current Guru, Guru Granth Sahib. A person who hits someone else is violent and is an abuser. The sooner such a person admits the problem, the sooner the problem can be solved. If the abuser goes through life blaming others for raising his hand in violence, then the problem will never be solved. Families will be torn apart and despite the common social habit of highlighting how a woman may provoke her husband to violence, with careful and honest reflection, it becomes clear that the only person to blame is the husband who abuses.

Seven Myths of Abusive Behavior

Learning from history, it may be easy to deal with some common myths upheld by those who abuse.

i.   “She made me angry.”

As has been repeatedly been mentioned, there is a major difference between words and physical violence. Words, ideas, and thoughts are in the realm of dialogue, debate, and argument. If an argument turns unfair and insults are hurled, then matters become emotionally strained. However, even the most insulting argument is just that, an exchange of words. Physical violence changes the rules. If any man raises their hand because of the words of another, than the man who raises his hand is at a greater fault. With words, only feelings are hurt. And even then you have a choice in terms of how to emotionally and logically handle the words. With violence, you have no choice, because actual physical bodies are hurt. When you hit someone else, you take the choices of the other person away, and only make the other person feel pain.

ii.   “The law does not enter the home.”

Physical violence is illegal and punishable by law. Violence is breaks another person’s basic human right to be safe from harm.

iii.   “If women want equal rights, it’s fair to hit a woman.”

Equal rights do not imply an equal right to being hit. Nevertheless, if one believes that it is “fair” to hit a woman, then let us look at how that contradicts other instances of fairness, with an example from sport. In boxing, men box one another of the same weight class. A heavyweight boxer would not box a lightweight boxer. Moreover, in fair fights, usually a male boxer challenges another male boxer, not a female one. Why then, would any man hit a woman in the interest of fairness?

iv.   “She attacked me first.”

In general, because of the weight and size advantage of the average man, even if an average woman attacked a man with physical violence, that man cannot attack the woman with force. The police are even under such a law. For instance, the police try to match force with force. If a suspect has no weapon and is not being physically violent, the police do not shoot him. If they do shoot him, even the police can go to jail. Because they have power, the police need to use their power with respect to the law. Even if one is attacked, the use of excessive force prevents one from brutalizes another individual.

v.   “Nothing is wrong with some violence now and then, because it is natural.”

Many things may or may not be natural, but that does not make them permissible. Urinating is natural, but one does not urinate whenever one feels like it. If people attacked each other every time they were verbally insulted or felt angry, then the world would be full of violence. People would attack one another day and night.

vi.   “Violence solves the problem.”

Violence does not solve a problem; rather, violence masks a problem. Violence leads to a destructive atmosphere without solutions. When one becomes physically violent over another, all discussion stops, but the negativity and distrust intensifies. Violence leads to an attitude of one person is right and the victim is wrong, rather than allowing for cooperation and equal respect.

vii.   “I can’t help myself, when I get angry, you better watch out.”

Those who have a history of using violence or getting into fights often find excuses to get violent, without blaming and correcting themselves. Violence is a vicious circle, that teaches one to become more intolerant and more violent. If one gets into a fight as a child, because someone insulted him, then the next time that person is insulted, it becomes easier for him to get into another fight. Fighting becomes an addictive and easy solution to dealing with one’s anger. Because they wants to be right and fear the shame of being wrong, often it is difficult to disagree with violent people.

Even if the disagreement is minor, for the violent person, it will be major in his mind. He will dwell on it, until a little fire becomes burning rage and then, he commits a violent act. Fortunately, if someone knows and admits that he has a problem with fighting and violence, then that person can learn from Guru Tegh Bahadur’s example and change himself. Today, there are doctors, counselors, and psychologists that can help us improve ourselves. It takes courage to contact them, more courage than it takes to hit a defenseless woman.

Conclusion

If we reflect upon the lessons of Sikh history, especially from the time of Aurangzeb and the examples of Guru Tegh Bahadur, the words of Guru Gobind Singh, and the ideal of Bhai Kanahyia ji, then perhaps we can learn to put a stop to domestic violence.

NOTES & REFERENCES

¹ Translation taken from: http://www.sikhreview.org/february2002/meta.htm

² To help remedy the social problem, several groups have decided to take action, such as The Sikh Coalition (http://www.sikhcoalition.org/Women.asp), which fights to protect the rights of women. The Sikh Women site, at http://www.sikhwomen.com/antiviolence/Domestic-Violence.htm, also provides useful insight into the problem of domestic abuse. An underlying problem of domestic violence is the belief that men are somehow naturally superior to women and thus should be permitted to dominate them in personal and public spheres. In Sikhism, while this is more of a patriarchal cultural influence, rather than a religious one, it nonetheless pervades varying facets of daily life. The extent of such a belief is tied to the rise of sex-selection problems, where families prefer male children over female ones. One example of such a report can be found at http://www.lifenews.com/nat1881.html, where Agnives, Mani and Kuster-Lossack investigate the issue in “India Girls Still Face Sex-Selection Abortions, Female Infanticide.”

³ The following site explores the dynamics of spousal abuse: http://ianrpubs.unl.edu/family/ec465.htm

⁴ I have accessed the SikhiWiki site and the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee sites for historical information on the Sikh Gurus. Specifically, I accessed the following link on Guru Tegh Bahadur, http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php?title=Martyrdom_of_Guru_Tegh_Bahadar, and I accessed the biographies of the Sikh Gurus, from Guru Nanak to Guru Gobhind Singh, from the following SGPC index: http://www.sgpc.net/gurus/index.asp.

⁵ Translation taken from: http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php?title=Martyrdom_of_Guru_Tegh_Bahadar.

⁶ According to the SGPC, along with Guru Tegh Bahadur’s example,

“In the year 1520, Babar attacked India. His troops slaughtered thousands of innocent civilians of all walks of life. Women and children were made captives and all their property looted at Amiabad. Guru Nanak Sahib challenged this act of barbarity in strong words. He was arrested and released, shortly after making Babar realising his blunder. All the prisoners were also released”
(http://www.sgpc.net/gurus/gurunanak.asp).

In the face of extreme violence, the first impulse of Guru Nanak was not to meet carnage with bloodshed. According to the SGPC, in the time of Guru Angad faced the difficulty of survival: “The period of his Guruship was the most crucial one. The Sikh community being infant, had to face a number of dangers. It was not difficult for Hinduism to swallow the newly born Sikhism in due course of time. Moreover Sri Chand's Udasis sect community and the activities of Jogies had not yet abated. At this hour of juncture he lived Guru Nanak Sahib's tenents in true spirit and there were manifest signs of drifting it (Sikhism) away from the Hinduism. Sikhism established its own separate religious identity”
(http://www.sgpc.net/gurus/guruangad.asp). However, rather than meeting such a threat of religious survival with force, Guru Angad focused, instead, on living the principles of Sikhism in a peaceful manner.

⁷ This translation is from http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php?title=Martyrdom_of_Guru_Tegh_Bahadar. Further discussion of the kirpan can be found at: http://www.sikhreview.org/june2002/youth.htm.

⁸ The following site, http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php?title=Bhai_Kanhaiya, explains the exchange as follows: “Guruji said, “These brave Sikhs are saying that you go and feed water to the enemy and they recover to fight them again – Is this true?”

Bhai Kanhaiya Ji replied "Yes, my Guru, what they say is true. But Maharaj, I saw no Mughal or Sikh on the battlefield. I only saw human beings. And, ... Guru Ji, .. they all have the same God’s Spirit? – Guru Ji, have you not taught us to treat all God's people as the same?"

The Guru was very pleased with the reply. Bhai Kanhaiya Ji had understood the deep message of Gurbani correctly. Guru ji smiled and blessed Bhai Kanhaiya. Guru Ji said, "Bhai Kanhaiya Ji, You are right. You have understood the true message of Gurbani".

He then continued and told the Sikhs that Bhai Kanhaiya had understood the deeper message of the Gurus' teachings correctly and that they all have to strive to learn lessons from the priceless words of Gurbani. Guru also gave Bhai Kanhaiya Ji medical Balm and said “From now on, You should also put this balm on the wounds of all who need it.”

Then turning to the sangat Guru Ji said, "Saadh sangat ji, Bhai Kanhaiya is a God-fearing saintly soul. His impartial and non-biased behaviour towards others has led him to achieve Sehaj-avastha. Let him carry on with his mission. Many more will follow in his footsteps in the years to come and keep the tradition of Nishkam sewa alive."

⁹ The following SGPC links all make mention of the involvement of Guru Nanak, Guru Angad, and Guru Amardas in langar: http://www.sgpc.net/gurus/gurunanak.asp, http://www.sgpc.net/gurus/guruangad.asp, and http://www.sgpc.net/gurus/guruamardas.asp.