Iqbal Singh Sara was the first Asian-born barrister admitted to the Canadian Bar, British Columbia in 1953. He served as Harbour Commissioner for the North Fraser Harbour Commission, 1966-70, and Temporary Member of the National Parole Board, 1984. In 1992, the Governor General of Canada conferred upon Mr. Sara the Commemorative Medal for the 125th Anniversary of Confederation, in recognition of significant contribution to compatriots, community and Canada.
On his death in December 1997, in a tribute to Sara, Vancouver-Quadra Member of Parliament, Ted McWhinney said:
His approach to the law and to life generally was characterized by intellectual vivacity and imagination, and also by a high style and grace in his personal relations with colleagues and others. While it is a matter of regret that someone with his professional skills and his intellect was not appointed to the Supreme Court of the Province the distinction, which he brought as the first Sikh Canadian to the legal life of the Province, paved the way for the next generation to achieve that extra professional recognition. --Editor
The easiest way to condemn an individual today is to put a "fundamentalist" tag on him. Mr. Douglas Todd, like most adversaries of Sikhs has resorted to this method to malign the whole Sikh community. An internal scuffle in the management of a local gurdwara has been considered sufficient for such a far-reaching and sweeping conclusion on Sikhs. In the following rejoinder, Sardar Iqbal Singh has adequately refuted Todd's views, which are largely based on an article The Double-Edged Sword contributed by Mr. T.N. Madan to the first volume of the Fundamentalism Observed edited by Martin E. Marty and R.S. Appleby under the Fundamentalism Project.
Madan's paper was full of misinformation about the Sikh religion and the Punjab problem. Since this could mislead, and has actually misled, unwary readers like Mr. Todd, particularly in the West, we wrote a detailed rejoinder rejecting with facts and arguments all the erroneous and damaging postulates of Madan. This appeared as a lengthy editorial Sikhism: The Double-Edged Sword in the July 1992 issue of the Abstracts of Sikh Studies. We also took up the matter with the editors of the Fundamentalism Project publications, and demanded that our views be included in one of their subsequent publications. Unfortunately, they have not obliged inspite of an assurance to accomodate our views. They have preferred to perpetuate the damage.
Mr. Todd is not the first to fall a prey to their motivated propaganda, nor is he going to be the last. We can only caution our readers against their designs. Sardar Iqbal Singh Sara's reaction is indeed heartening, since it shows that the community is alert. --Editor, Abstract of Sikh Studies
Rejoinder By Sardar Iqbal Singh Sara
1. Inherent in Douglas Todd's critique is the assumption that the invention of the phrase 'fundamentalist', ascribed to any member of an established religion, is assured lethal journalistic impact. This tactical advantage is, apparently, continually being exploited.
2. It is indeed disturbing to note that, besides the other provocative and misleading tenor of the article, Douglas Todd seems to pre-empt authority to lay the Sikh Scripture open to error. Because, in devising his own suggested and imagined attributes of a fundamentalist, he ventures to project (quote):
"They attribute absolute and exclusive inerrancy to Sikh scriptures."
While the connotation of the word "exclusive" and its context is unclear, the fact remains that each and every Sikh - regardless of how a journalist characterises him or her - does indeed attribute absolute inerrancy to the Sikh Scripture. Therefore, actually all Sikhs are "fundamentalists."
3. In fact, Douglas Todd could well be a fundamentalist himself. He could not have produced a harangue against a religion generally, Sikhism, and its particular adherents, if he was not committed, as a fundamentalist, to journalistic licence, qualified to launch free discussion of Religion and Ethics and, exulting in freedom of speech. How is he different from Sikh "fundamentalists"?
4. He seeks support from publications he mentioned, and the scholars who apparently produced those, attacking "rising 20th century fundamentalist movements". But the point is that he does not seem to realize the anomaly and danger of judging Religion and Spiritual faiths by the employment of eurocentric research tools commonly in the hands of such scholars. It is an utterly inappropriate and absurd approach.
5. Todd's implicit preference for "modernity," as well, may not necessarily be the goal of the religious systems. The moral and spiritual values of religion are not handicapped by "modernity".
6. The correct deduction to be made from Todd's article: Fundamentalist By Any Other Name, therefore, should really be this:
A fundamentalist is one who adheres to the fundamental principles of an education or teaching, be it theological, spiritual or journalistic.
7. Consequently, if criticism of journalistic outpourings against religion or its followers, exposes the privileged culprit to public chastisement, neither Todd nor any other "scholar" can fairly view it as "intimidation" - as Mr. Todd conceives.
8. Lest Todd be under any misapprehensions, it ought to be made clear to him that not only his favourite prey - "fundamentalists" - but in fact, each and every living member of the Sikh faith attributes absolute inerrancy to the Sikh Scripture.
9. When exactly did Mr. Todd take a poll, in concluding, as he did in his article, the "Sikh fundamentalists aspire to live in their own country Khalistan"? Sikhs are settled in almost each and every country of the world; and every Sikh, by virtue of utter faith, is a fundamentalist.
10. Todd accuses that Sikh fundamentalists see religion and politics as inseparable. "Khalistan would be a theocracy"?
The answer is, he should study Sikh history to see how religion and politics are intertwined in the faith; how each and every Sikh temple is a comprehensive assembly for airing and deciding all matters affecting the faith.
The last sovereign Sikh State, in the 19th century, conquered and annexed by British, was not a theocracy. Nor is there any basis for Mr. Todd's insinuation (pinned on a "fundamentalist") that any new state (Khalistan or whatever) will be, if history is any guide.
11. That a "fundamentalist" Sikh is a patriarch, is another of Todd's innovations. But it belies Sikh history. Because, numerous Sikh women made Sikh history. Sikh women have participated in the growth of Sikhism, playing roles of military leaders and commanders, arbiters of spiritual and secular disputes, lay preachers and missionaries, disciplinarians and teachers of erring Sikh men.
12. Todd's scurrilous concept, a Sikh ( he prefers to call fundamentalist) "scandalizes opponents", wields a wise brush. To support his accusation Todd wrote (quote):
Just as some Muslim fundamentalists do not mind horrifying outsiders by cutting off the hands of a thief, Sikh fundamentalists scandalized North Americans, for example, by openly celebrating the murder of Indira Gandhi.
Not only Todd seems to be contemptuous of other people's religions and systems, the relevance of this analogy eludes comprehension.
13. Todd seems to take it upon himself to question and deride Sikhs' own right to revere their Gurus. He criticizes "fundamentalists" for paying special reverence to the sixth and the tenth Gurus. He does not seem to understand or know that in Sikhism all the ten Gurus are alike and the same.
14. Lastly, the rest of the contents of Mr. Todd's article seem too contrived and tendentious to merit comment. Certainly, they are not conducive to a fair portrayal of Canadian Sikhs.
Source: AOSS, Institute of Sikh Studies, Chandigarh (India)
