|
|
|
|
|
||
Sri Guru Granth Sahib
Towards Making a New Civilization
- N.Muthu Mohan
Introduction
The theme of civilization has been made prominent by
western scholars in the most recent times. This is associated with the
popularity of Samuel Huntington’s article, later a book titled “The Clash of
Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order” (1). Interestingly, the Anglo-American politicians, also the
military experts, have contributed much to popularize the terms “ Clash of
Civilizations” in the aftermath of 11th September 2001. In the book
of Samuel Huntington as well as in the articles pro and con published on the
theme, there is a conspicuous absence about Sikhism and the civilization of
India is referred with a blanket term ‘ Hindu Civilization’. That naturally
cannot stop us in any way to discuss about Sikhism in terms of civilization,
because we do believe that Sri Guru Granth Sahib, the Sacred Scripture of the
Sikhs indeed contains in itself a socio-cultural model that could lead to the
making of a new civilization. The present paper attempts to substantiate the
above contention.
Guru Granth Sahib and Defining a Civilization
Samuel Huntington’s book contains certain number of
definitions of civilization, however, a curious reader would find that
Huntington has not taken any special effort to define or redefine the concept
of civilization or discuss the basic features of a civilization. On the other
hand, Huntington just makes use of the already existing definitions, even
popular views about civilization, that too rudimentarily or partially. Quoting
the anthropologists, sociologists and historians, Huntington defines
civilization as “the most enduring of human associations” identifiable in terms
of “blood, language, religion, way of life etc”, however, “religion as the
central defining characteristic of civilizations”(2). Although we do not have
much to contradict the quoted ideas on civilization, we do want to continue the
discussion on civilization in a few other points that would take us deeper into
the problem of civilization. A civilization differs from a culture in a
particular way that the former contains the material aspects of living
organically connected with the spiritual or ideational aspects. In our view, a
civilization must synthesise the spiritual and temporal aspects of collective
human existence. It must be a conscious attempt to avoid fragmenting,
dichotomize, and hierarchies the society. A civilization western or Hindu, as
it is named by Huntington, to be called as civilization, needs to be evaluated
on this ground. How much the material and the ideational are united in the
western or Hindu civilizations? How much the civilizations are creative and
synthetic? Is there any principled unity between the extremes in the quoted
civilizations?
Hinduism in many of its variations is a religion of
otherworldliness and its literatures are abundant with ideas negating the
worthiness of earthly living. The ascetic who has renunciated the world is the
ideal figure in Hinduism. The Vedic-vedantic core of Hinduism philosophically
celebrates the Nirguna Brahman and evaluates the world as Maya, an illusory
entity. It distinctly dichotomizes the reality into paramartika and
vyavakarika. One can rightly bring to our notice that Hinduism does have a
social philosophy and advocates a social structure in the form of caste system.
The unjust caste order advocated by Hinduism does not worth the word
‘civilization’ as it is the most discredited and scandalized form of the Hindu
living. The caste order of Hinduism reminds not its civilized dimension, but on
the other hand informs us the uncivilized or barbarian dimension of Hinduism.
Similarly, when we take up the term ‘Western
Civilization” for scrutiny in similar lines, one finds another set of
difficulties to make it fit to the definition of civilization. It is noteworthy
even at the outset to find that Huntington has not named the western
civilization in terms of any religion, although he does not hide the fact that
the Christian religion is behind the history of western civilization.
Huntington does not agree to identify western civilization with modernity,
however enumerates the characteristic features of western society not
altogether beyond the pale of modernity, namely the separation of spiritual and
temporal authority, the rule of law, social pluralism, individualism etc (3).
We do have certain amount of respect to western values, particularly to west’s
contribution to the making of democracy and concern for human rights. We
consider it worth the achievements of science and technology in the west.
However, we cannot remain uncritical to the west regarding the poverty of
spiritual values the west has acquired along with its enduring interest in
temporal successes for the last 300 years. It has to be reminded that during
the entire 20th century the western scholars themselves have made so
many fundamental critiques addressed to the western industrial culture,
particularly from the point of view of human values and human existence. The
Existentialist and phenomenological philosophers have left a big corpus of
criticism targeting the core values of the western civilization. The total
message of those criticisms is basically against the absence of unity between
the spiritual and temporal values. The west is criticized for it has traveled
excess on temporal lines bereft of humanism.
It is at this juncture, we return to our initial
definition of civilization that it must organically unite the spiritual and the
temporal, and look into Sikhism and the Sikh Scripture, Sri Guru Granth Sahib
from that point of view.
The act of laying the foundations of a new religion by
Guru Nanak Dev, the first Guru of the Sikhs, comes to realization not merely as
an outcome of spiritual intentions but as an alternative to the general crisis
both in temporal and religious realms of the then society. Guru Granth Sahib
depicts the comprehensive situation without any ambiguity.
“The Quadi speaks falsehood and eats filth
The Brahmin, guilty of much cruelty
Makes a show of ritual bathings
The Yogi, blind and misguided
Knows not the true practice
All three are at one in
bringing harm to the people” (GGS,662)
“Avarice is the king
Evildoing his minister
Falsehood is his revenue
factor
Lust is the councellor
always consulted
The subjects are purblind
and thoughtless
Who foolishly obey these
evil rulers” (GGS,468-469)
“The people wailed in their
agony of suffering
Didst Thou feel no
compassion for them
Thou who art the creator of
all?
If a powerful foe molest one
equally powerful
Little would be there to
complain
But if a ferocious tiger
falls upon a herd of kine
Then must the Master be
called to account” (GGS, 360)
Possibly, this was the
moment of truth, moment of a new revelation, birth of a new religion, of a new
social order (4). One cannot distinguish in the quoted lines where is the
spiritual quest and where the temporal interest. The Guru’s pains are both
spiritual and temporal or in other words, civilizational. The Guru was not for
another set of truth but stood for in search of a truthful living. The Guru was
not for one another means to achieve mukti or atmajnana but deeply in search of
an ethical and just living. Gurmukh is asked to opt an active life of intense
devotion and committed social justice. Guru Granth Sahib intensifies both the
components of the total life, the spiritual and the temporal, thus creating a
new mode of living. The asocial sanyasin way of seeking egoistic salvation is
out rightly condemned and by way of annihilating the ego, the art of achieving
sahaja is proposed. If sahaja marks the spiritual end of the Gurmukh, critique
of casteism, gender inequality, political despotism etc marks the temporal end
of Sikhism. Both the traits, not in their isolation, make together the ideal of
Guru Granth Sahib. The metaphor of playing the game of love widely celebrated
in Guru Granth Sahib, in fact, erases the boundaries between body and soul,
male and female, transcendent and immanent etc. All these and others immensely speak
in favor of constructing a new civilization.
Multiculturalism and the debate on Civilization
In the 80s and 90s of 20th century, the theme of
multiculturalism was widely discussed in the world forums and it was
overwhelmingly appreciated by people who were particularly fighting for
safeguarding their cultural identities. The fact that every country in the
world has become culturally and religiously pluralistic makes the recognition of the cultural rights of the
people into an imperative for cordial coexistence of people. The Canadian federal cultural example was
studied by scholars to make it a relevant model peaceful co-living. The UNO and
other world forums went for propagating the idea of multiculturalism and it was
seen as a new development in realizing democracy in terms of culture (5).
Huntington’s book on Clash of Civilizations,
unfortunately, does not pay enough attention to the theme of multiculturalism
and his coinage of the term ‘civilization’ seems to be challenging the spirit
of multiculturalism that is emerging, and worse still, wants to replace the
idea of multiculturalism with that of civilization. Huntington is inclined to
place the concept of civilization as a fresh version of the earlier American
idea of ‘melting pot’. Often the
multicultural articulations of cultural or religious groups in each and every
country are rephrased by Huntington as ethnic conflicts and tribalism. More
fundamentally, Huntington’s discussion of “Clash” of civilizations sees the
entire world and every country as a field of cultural and religious conflicts.
We do not think that the concepts of
civilization and multiculturalism should necessarily exclude the other and
should perceived as opposites or binaries. We reject the dichotomic approach. A
civilization could very well be conceived as following the principles of
multiculturalism through which the civilization truly becomes rich and
concrete. A civilization without multiculturalism would be reverting to
colonialism.
The Sikh Scripture, Guru Granth Sahib, renders a
wonderful combination of civilizational and multicultural dimensions of a
society. The Sikh Gurus lived in and interacted with a multicultural and
multireligious world that they recognized this fact deeply. Consequently, Guru
Granth Sahib too registers this fact. Variety of Saints religiously, regionally
and linguistically different are found articulating their religious experience
in a unique way in Guru Granth Sahib. Guru Granth Sahib is a great work of
dialogue of variety of voices, however, reconciled and synthesized in a
specific way. It is true that there is a strong critical trait in Guru Granth
Sahib but ultimately the Scripture strives to synthesize the differing voices
into one. Guru Nanak traveled through the many streets of the known world then
and got introduced with the saints of various teachings, also met the people of
different regions and their existential problems. Names and attributes of Gods
of various linguistic families, Arabian, Persian, Sanskrit and Dravidian, the
ways of worship and living of diverse people were known to the Gurus and the
Gurus duely recognized them. Even the so-called dregs of society came under the
humanizing spell of the Gurus. The Gurus always preferred to be with the lowest
of the lowly. Guru Granth Sahib is a civilizational construction with a
unrelenting commitment to the oppressed and exploited. Guru Granth Sahib does
not attempt to offer another philosophy of otherworldly solace but energies the
masses and calls them to a dynamic living. Civilization and multiple cultures
are reconciled in Guru Granth Sahib without sacrificing the critical spirit. It
is not a proposal of clash or conflict but a grand conception of friendship,
love and community.
Guru Granth Sahib and the Construction of A Community
Civilization is not worth its name if it does not aim
to construct a community. To be a member of community cannot be the birth
right, and it must be founded on equality, friendship and common commitment. A
society of caste order cannot be called a community because it is founded on
graded inequality as Ambedkar says. The Guru was categorically against caste
system and Guru Granth Sahib does not recognize the Shastras, that advocate
caste, as holy books. Guru Nanak refused to wear the sacred thread on his body
by which he decided to remain ever with the casteless. The Guru asserts,” Vain
is the pride of caste and vain the pride of high station, because only the Lord
alone gives the real eminence to everyone” (GGS, 1330). Bhai Gurdas informs,
“Guru Nanak has abolished the differences among the four castes” (Var 1:23).
The One God, the collective kirtan, the langar and the common title of Singh
and Kaur are aimed to abolish the caste system and construction of the
community.
Constructing a community with the fatherhood of God was
an ideal all along in the Bhakti thought. I can witness that the Tamil Saivite
and Vaishnavite hymns of early medieval period did have such an ideal. However,
with the development of feudalism, the Bhakti movements failed in their attempts
to achieve the ideal. On the other hand, Bhakti itself became institutionalized
into temple and mutt cultures. The Siddhas, the Sants and the Sufis appeared
criticizing the failing ideals of Bhakti and they turned their focus towards
internal purity and non-ritual approach to religion. The Sikh Gurus appreciated
the efforts of the medieval mystics, but they felt a strong individualism in
the attempts of the mystics. The Gurus understood that the construction of
community is the irreplaceable aspect of Bhakti and Bhakti had to be revisited
taking along the critical spirit of the mystics. The collectivism and popular
emotional spirit of Bhakti were, thus, revived in Sikhism, having readdressed
the issue of curbing individualism. Interestingly, the Gurus did not absolutize
the annihilation of individualism as it is used to be in some earlier systems.
Again a moderate approach is opted and the extremes of individualism are
checked recognizing the social dynamism of individual initiatives. Guru Granth
Sahib says, “Egoism and devotion are to each opposed, Abiding not together”
(GGS,560). Guru Arjun says,” Those caught in egoism are verily dead; Those
whose egoism is dead are truly alive” (GGS, 374). This being the case, however,
the Guru states that in egoism beings come into existence, get differentiated
into many and so it is the source of change and development. It is the very
principled state of the Guru that individuality should not be abolished but it
has to be molded into a community. The Guru would declare,” Haumai is the
malady and Haumai is the remedy”. This is a complicated dialectics that shows
the genius of the Guru. The dynamism of individuality to differentiation and
creativity should be preserved and should be poured into the common pool of collectivity,
thus making it a real social force for emancipation and advancement. The
measured dialectics of individuality and community is the path of constructing
a new civilization.
At times it seems that Huntington’s celebration of
individualism as the unchecked fundamental value of western society fails to
make a community, thus fails also to make a civilization.
Conclusion
Guru Granth Sahib, the Sikh Scripture, contains the very principled
stands of making a new civilization. Its idea of civilization organically
unites the spiritual and the temporal, multicultural and civilizational
aspects, and the moments of individuality and community. The organic unity we
have referred does not mean absolute identity of the differing moments, but it
is a dialogical process that contains the creative rupture. That also
guarantees its dynamism and endurance.
References
Copyright© N. Muthu Mohan. About the author
Print this Article
Email this Article
Comment on this Article