by Baldev Singh

Dear Editor,
India Tribune

For the sake of historical truth and communal harmony, please allow me to respond to Niranjan Shah’s column published in the India Tribune (Chicago) of September 28, 2002, which claimed that Sikhs are Hindus.

Let us not poison the minds of our young children with ignorance, communal hatred and historical myths. Let them grow to be honest, upright and truthful human beings, which the world needs the most, especially, a country like India.

I am glad that he admitted at the outset that the word “Hindu” is not found in Hindu Scriptures and this label was given to the Indian people by outsiders. However, for some reason he failed to inform the readers about the meaning of “Hindu” and gave an absurd explanation that “Hindu” is the Persian equivalent of the Vedic term “Sindhu” used for a river. It is difficult to imagine that a knowledgeable person like Shah does not know the meaning of “Hindu.” Let me explain what the word “Hindu” means.

Indian subcontinent was inhabited by dark complexioned people before the migration of Caucasian people from central Asia. The fair skinned people who lived on the West of Hindu Kush mountain range called the Indian subcontinent the “land of the black people”. I would like Mr. Shah to explain the meaning of “Hindu Kush.” In Old Persian and Turkic languages “Hindu” means black, slave and thief. Muslim conquerors used these words for the subjugated Indians. It is ironic and shameful that now Shah wants to assign that derogatory label “Hindu” to Sikhs, Jains and Budhists. Did Shah ask any Sikh or Jain or Budhist about how do they feel when someone calls them Hindu? As a Sikh I would feel highly insulted if some body called me a Hindu. Shah won’t understand what I am saying because he is totally ignorant about Sikhism as is evident from his column.

Mr. Shah, our Hindu ancestors accepted whatever was dished out to them by outside invaders because the clever and devious Brahmin kept them ignorant like dumb driven cattle. The Brahmin took away all their human dignity and self-respect by using the most cruel and tyrannical “caste system” ever devised by man for the exploitation of man.

Shah says that the Iranians used the word “Hindu” for the river Sindhu and for the population around Sindhu. If that is so, how come, neither did the river Sindhu, nor the people around Sindhu acquire the name Hindu? The river is called Indus in Greek and Sindh in Punjabi and people who live around this river are called Punjabis or Sindhis whereas the religion of the people of Aryavarta or Bharavarsha came to be known as Hindu. Does Shah know any person who calls the State of Sindh as Hind or Sindhis as Hindis?

Furthermore, it is absurd to say that the Iranians could not pronounce “Sindhu” due to phonetic difficulties; they can pronounce both the sounds of “s” and “sh” very well. How come the people of the so-called Aryavarta or Bharavarsha did not correct the Iranians or Greeks to use the proper name “Sindhu?”

The Greeks who ruled over the territory around Sindh called this river Indus. That is how to Europeans, the so-called Aryavarta or Bharavarsa came to be known as India. The Arabs and Iranians called it Hindustan. Does Shah know any other people, whose religious identity and the name of their country was assigned by outsiders? Was Aryavarta or Bharavarsha the name of the country or the name of the religion?

Shah says that Sikhs are Hindus because the Indian constitution says so, Khushwant Singh says so, and for all the things Maha Raja Ranjit Singh did for the brahmins and Hindus. Moreover, he goes on to claim that Guru Nanak built a Hindu temple in Afghanstan at a time when Muslims were destroying Hindu temples in Punjab. His statements about Guru Teg Bahadur’s martyrdom or that Guru Gobind Singh sent his five disciples to Banaras to study Sanskrit or that Ranjit Singh was establishing a Hindu Empire in the Northeast are patently false. Let me deal with these arguments one by one.

First, during the debate on the Indian constitution when the clause claiming Sikhs, Budhists and Jains as “Hindus” came for discussion, the two Sikh representatives, Hukam Singh and Bhupinder Singh Mann opposed it vehemently. Their objections were over ruled and the constitution was adopted. No Sikh has ever signed the Indian constitution. The Sikhs have been protesting this unspeakable crime ever since.

The world community has been hoodwinked into believing that India is world’s biggest democracy whereas in reality it the biggest tyranny of majority over minorities. Where else in the world, what to speak a democratic country, the majority community has decided the “religious identity” of minorities. Hindus keep talking day in and day out about the atrocities and forced conversions of Hindus carried out by the Muslim rulers. I agree with this claim without any hesitation. But let us discuss this issue dispassionately.

The Muslims ruled over a major portion of the Indian subcontinent for almost seven centuries. In 1947, when the British relinquished their rule, majority of the Indian population, 65-70% was Hindu. Contrast this with what the so-called secular and liberal Hindu rulers lead by Jawahar Lal Nehru did to the minorities shortly after independence. These Hindu leaders converted all Sikhs, Budhists and Jains to Hindus with the stroke of a pen. No Hindu leader worth the name has ever protested against this abominable injustice to the minorities. Let me ask a question to the Hindus living in the United States. How would they react if the US Congress were to pass a law declaring all minorities as Christians?

Shah has asserted that the declaration of Sikhs as Hindus in the Indian constitution and imposition of Hindu Code Bill on them has nothing to do with the force of majority. To support his argument he says, “How come Muslims got their own Bill.” It is not that simple as Shah thinks. It was not a magnanimous gesture to Muslims. Rather, it was a calculated sinister plot by the follower of Kautilya Muni to tie the Muslim community to the Congress party in perpetuity, and to hoodwink the international Muslim community in believing that Hindus are liberal, tolerant and respectful towards Muslim fellow citizens.

Second, Khushwant Singh is not a spokesperson for the Sikh community. He lacks the integrity to be an objective writer. For example, what he wrote about the Sikhs thirty years ago is not the same what he is writing nowadays. During the emergency, he was the staunchest supporter of Indira Gandhi and Sanjay Gandhi. He used to regard Menaka like his own daughter. Recently, he wrote a book with juicy tales slandering all of them. Menaka took him to the court to stop the publication of his book. Khushwant Singh is no different than his father. While hundreds of Sikhs kissed the gallows, hundreds were exiled to the isles of black waters and hundreds courted martyrdom in the Jallianwala Bagh and other places to liberate India from the British yoke, Khushwant’s father, Sobha Singh became Sir Sobha Singh enriching himself and his progeny. Khushwant Singh is no different from Hindus who used to regard Mulim rulers as incarnation of God (eeshvro va dilishvro va, The emperor of Delhi is as great as God)¹.

Third, I agree with Shah about all the things Maharaja Ranjit Singh did for the Hindus. But Shah does not say what the Hindus did in return as a gratitude to the Maharaja. The Brahmins and Dogras (Rajputs) destroyed his kingdom and his family.²

Fourth, Shah says, “ Guru Nanak built a Hindu temple in Kabul, Afghanistan, when Muslims were destroying Hindu temples in Punjab. However, it is true that in most of the contemporary literature, Sikhism is treated as a separate religion.” Does it make any sense that the Muslims of Afghanistan allowed Guru Nanak to build a Hindu temple in Kabul while the Muslims in Punjab were destroying Hindu temples? May be what Guru Nanak built in Kabul was not a Hindu temple but a Sikh Dharmsala!

Fifth, the final authority on Sikhs and Sikhism is Aad Guru Granth Sahib, Holy Scripture of the Sikhs. This Scripture is unique because unlike other world Scriptures, Sikh Gurus wrote it themselves. Aad Guru Granth Sahib, Sikh Gurus and others who have made in depth studies of Sikhism have confirmed unequivocally that Sikhs are not Hindus.

“Neither we fast like Hindus, nor observe Ramdan like Muslims. We dwell only on the One, Who protects everyone. We don’t follow the Hindu or Muslim religion. We dwell on the One, Whom Hindus call Gusai and Muslims call Allah. Neither we go on a pilgrimage to Mecca, nor to sacred Hindu centers. We serve only the One, not anyone else. Neither we follow the Hindu worship or the Muslim prayer. We meditate on the Formless One. We are neither Hindus nor Muslims. Our bodies and breaths belong to the Almighty God, Whom people call Allah or Ram.” Aad Guru Granth Sahib, P 1136.

When Shaikh Braham asked Guru Nanank, “Are you a Hindu or a Muslim?” “I will be telling a lie if I say that I am a Hindu but I am also not a Muslim,” averred Guru Nanak.³

The Sikh Gurus rejected all the essentials of Hinduism and the moral authority of Hindu Scriptures.⁴ Hindus have created a myth that Sikh Gurus were Hindu reformers and that the Hindus supported their movement wholeheartedly.

First, only the first four Gurus were born in Hindu families, the later six Gurus were the descendents of the fourth Guru, Ram Das. Guru Nanak rejected Hinduism the very day he refused to bear the sacred thread (Janeu), which was essential for a Hindu of Khatri caste. The other three Gurus, Angad Dev, Amar Das and Ram Das rejected Hinduism when they became followers of the Nankian philosophy.

Second, how could Sikh Gurus be considered Hindu reformers if they rejected all the essentials of Hinduism and the moral authority of Hindu Scriptures?

Third, contrary to the myth that Hindus supported the Sikh movement wholeheartedly, some of the high caste Hindus (Brahmins, Rajputs and Khatris) opposed it vehemently from the very beginning.

Let me highlight the attitude of high caste Hindus towards the Sikh movement from the time of Guru Nanak.

Guru Nanak rejected the sacred thread, befriended a low caste Muslim Mirasi named Mardana and called him Bhai (brother) Mardana. Bhai Mardana accompanied Guru Nanak during his odysseys and remained his devoted friend and follower till his death. Guru Nanak stayed in the homes of shudars partaking their food and traveled to Muslim countries to preach his message of universal love and equality under One and only God. He proclaimed his solidarity loudly with the downtrodden.

“I will stand by lowest of the lowest caste rather than with the arrogant and rich of the high caste. Societies which take care of their downtrodden enjoy the blessing of Merciful God.” Aad Guru Granth Sahib, p 15.

Guru Nanak also repudiated the caste system by introducing the concept of Sangat and Pangat among his follwers. Sangat means a congregation where all irrespective of their caste, creed and gender participate in Divine kirtan (recitals) and religious discourses. Pangat means sharing of community meal where all irrespective of their caste, creed and gender sit together in a row to partake food.⁵

The high caste Hindus (Brahmins, Rajputs and Khatris) retaliated by calling Guru Nanak a Karahia (one who follows a wrong path). As the Sikh movement grew stronger, high caste Hindus started harassing the Sikhs. For example, they would not allow Sikhs to fetch water from their community wells and ponds or allow them to live in their neighborhoods.

The Sikh Gurus established their own towns and dug up wells and ponds. Since the rulers of the country were Muslims, the Hindus could not take any direct action against the Sikh movement, which was growing stronger day by day. Therefore, they complained to Emperor Akbar that Guru Amar Das was defiling the traditions and religion of our forefathers by abolishing the caste distinctions among his followers. Guru Amardas sent his trusted and devoted Sikh, Bhai Jetha to answer these allegations. Bhai Jetha explained to the Emperor, “ We have abandoned the traditions and religion of our forefathers not to offend any body, but to practice a new faith of universal love and equality founded by Guru Nanak.”

The Emperor found no merit in their complaint and dismissed it. The Emperor himself paid a visit to Guru Amardas in Goindwal. He was so much impressed with the concept of Langar (community kitchen) that he granted revenue of several villages for the maintenance of the community kitchen.⁶

Emperor Akbar’s relations with the Sikh Guru were very cordial, However, Guru Arjan's growing influence and popularity was irksome not only to high caste Hindus, but also to the conservative Muslim clergy. People like Shaikh Ahmed Sirhindi complained to prince Salim about the growing influence of Sikh faith, which was becoming an obstacle in the Islamisation of India. On the other hand high caste Hindus saw Sikhism as a challenge to their way of life, the caste system. They conspired with Hindu government officials like Chandu, Birbal, Raja Mann Singh (maternal uncle of Salim) and Salim’s Rajput mother against Guru Arjan Dev. When Salim (Jehangir) became the Emperor after Akbar’s death, he ordered the execution of Guru Arjan Dev by torture. It was Chandu Khatri, a government official who carried out the order.

Shortly after that, government officials of Lahore and the Khatris started hostile activities against Guru Hagobind Sahib, the successor of Guru Arjan Dev. In the ensuing skirmishes Guru Hargobind Sahib scored decisive victories. Guru Hargobind Sahib’s army also had a contingent of Muslims. Bhagwan Das Gherar, his son Rattan Chand and Chandu’s son, Karam Chand were killed in actions. The Guru built a mosque for the Muslims in the village of Hargobindpur. This mosque is preserved as a historical site and it is called Guru Ki Masit. ⁷

Later when Guru Gobind Singh created the Order of the Khalsa and gave a clarion call to the downtrodden of India to come under his banner to fight the oppression of Mughals and the tyranny of caste system, the Rajput kings of hills adjoining Punjab declared war against him. In the battle of Bhangani a Muslim divine, Pir Budhu Shah helped Guru Gobind Singh. The Pir lost two sons and many followers in the battle.

After a bitter defeat the Rajput kings appealed to Emperor Aurangjeb to come to their aide. Guru’s force was no match against the combined forces of Rajputs and the Imperial army. When most of the Sikhs including Guru Gobind Singh’s two older sons and three Piaras (beloved ones) courted martyrdom, the Sikhs asked Guru Gobind Singh to leave the battlefield and move to the safety of Malwa region. Muslim friends and followers like the Khan brothers, Rai Kalah and others helped Guru Gobind Singh at this critical juncture.

On the other hand Guru Gobind Singh’s one time household employee, Gangu brahmin (Ganga Dhar Kaul) betrayed Guru’s mother and his six and eight years old sons. He handed them over to the government officials for a monetary reward.⁸ The Nehru family is the descendant of Gangu brahmin.⁹ Wazir Khan, the Subedar of Sirhind was unable to convince the young ones to convert to Islam, so he ordered their execution. Nawab Sher Mohamad of Malerkotla reminded Wazir Khan that the Holy Quran forbids the killing of innocent and helpless youngsters, whereas Diwan Sucha Nand Bhandari urged Wazir Khan to execute the young ones by saying, “The offspring of a poisonous snake are also poisonous snakes.”¹⁰ The young ones were tortured before being bricked alive.

During the early part of the eighteenth century the Muslim rulers and their Hindu collaborators carried out systematic extermination of the Sikh population. There were two major massacres of the Sikhs known as big and small Ghalooghara (holocaust). Ahmed Shah Abdali carried out one of the massacre while Diwan Lakhpat Rai was responsible for the other. The later took a vow “Nanak, a Khatri started this hoax of Sikhism and I a Khatri will destroy it.”^11,12

More recently, Indira Gandhi created the bogey of Khalistan to destroy the vibrant Sikh community, which constitutes only 2% of India’s population. When Indira Gandhi imposed “emergency” on the country in 1975, the Congress party and communists supported her. The so-called “free press” buckled under pressure and some of the journalists called “emergency” a necessary and positive step, while others like Khushwant Singh started serenading Indira Gandhi, her son, Sanjay Gandhi and his wife Maneka. No political party except the Shiromani Akali Dal took up the challenge to oppose the imposition of emergency; the only other exception was the Rashtriya Swym Sevak Sangh (RSS).

However, its chief, Balasaheb Deoras, while still in jail pleaded for a compromise, and RSS periodicals started praising Indira Gandhi and her son Sanjay, whereas the Sikhs continued their agitation against emergency. According to the Amnesty International, 140,000 persons were detained without trial during the emergency, and of them 60,000 were Sikhs.

When the whole of India lay prostrate before Indira and her son Sanjay, the Sikhs continued the anti-emergency agitation. Indira Gandhi took it as a personal affront and she made up her mind to teach them a lesson once and for all by intimidating the Sikh community by killing large number of Sikhs and subjecting them to draconian civil laws and economic hardships. With the help of Giani Zail Singh, Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwala an obscure country preacher with no formal education, was projected as a great spiritual leader and foisted on the Sikhs through the machination of the central government. He was well financed and armed and finally installed with the help of musclemen in the Golden Temple complex, the most important and sacred center of the Sikhs.

In order to find a justification to attack the Golden Temple complex, Indira Gandhi started accusing Bhingranwala of being an extremist and separatist. Additionally, “intelligence service agencies” hired criminal and depraved elements from the Sikh community to do the dirty work for them. People like Jagjit Singh Chauhan, were sent overseas to mislead the Sikh community and to malign it internationally. He declared himself as the president of Khalistan while he was staying in England. Others like Sohan Singh Boparai went to Pakistan to carry out the propaganda for the so-called Khalistan.

In the beginning of 1984, the government ordered the military to make preparations for the attack on the Golden Temple complex. Similar instructions were given to highly trained commandos, a secret outfit of RAW at Chakrata, where they had a large replica of the Golden Temple complex for practical exercises. By the end of May over 100,000 Indian troops were sent to Punjab (an area of about 25000 sq. miles). These troops spread throughout Punjab surrounding almost all the major Gurdwaras.

On June 4, 1984, Indian army attacked Golden Temple complex with tanks and heavy weapons to flush out Bhindranawala and his forty associates. The government knew it very well that June 4 was a sacred day for the Sikhs. Thousands of Sikh men, women and children, who had come to Amritsar to celebrate the martyrdom of Guru Arjan Dev, were killed in that attack. This was a warning to the Sikhs by the Hindu leaders that if the Hindus could get Guru Arjan Dev killed during the Mughal rule, imagine what Hindus could do when they are rulers of the country?

From that day onwards Sikhs, particularly young men became the target of Indian military, police and organized Hindu mobs. May be as many as 250,000 Sikhs were killed from 1984 to 1996, thousands were jailed and tortured, hundreds of women were raped and tortured in jails, and property worth billions of dollars was destroyed and looted.

After the assassination of Indira Gandhi, there was organized massacre of Sikhs all over India under the direction of the Congress Party. In Delhi, the capital of India, thousands of Sikhs were killed by mobs led by congress leaders while the military and police looked the other way. About twenty thousand Sikhs were killed in that carnage all over India. To divert the attention of the world community from the their heinous crimes, the Indian rulers ordered their agents in the West to commit outrageous acts to blame the Sikhs. Bombing Air India flight, AI-182 was one such atrocious act.

No responsible Sikh or Sikh organization has ever called for a separate Sikh State. Indira Gadhi and her successors created the phony Khalistan movement to destroy the Sikh community. Jagjit Singh Chauhan, the self proclaimed president of Khalistan is back in India living on government pension. Sohan Singh Boparari and General Bhullar are living in Chandigarh. Sohan Singh Boparai’s son Swaran Singh Boparai has been appointed as a vice chancellor of Punjabi University. He has no prior academic experience.

Furthermore, on the eve of President Clinton’s visit to India, there was a massacre of innocent Sikhs in a village in the Kashmir Valley. Until then the Sikhs were safe in the Kashmir Valley. The massacre of the Sikhs was carried out to draw President Clinton’s attention to the situation in Kashmir. It is difficult to imagine that this dastardly act was the work of Kashmiri militants or Pakistani agents as it would have been very detrimental to their cause in the eyes of President Clinton and world community. Most probably, Indian agents carried out this massacre to blame Pakistan and Kashmiri Muslims for the Kashmir problem.

After all, didn’t Lord Krishna during the battle of Mahabharata advised the Pandvas to break all the accepted principles of war and urged them to do whatever was required to win the battle. Verily, the truth lies in victory (Satyamevajayate). So far the Indian Government has refused to investigate this massacre.

From my interaction with Hindu students and faculty members during my studies at Banars Hindu University (1960-1962), I was convinced that Hindu morality is different from that of others. For example, the British colonists, returned the bodies of the victims to their relatives, paid some financial compensation to the victim’s families and apologized for the massacre of Jallianwala Bagh. On the contrary, the bodies of the Sikh victims of 1984 massacre were not returned to their relatives because the Indian government disposed of the bodies by burning or throwing them in rivers and deep canals. No Hindu government official up-to-date has expressed any remorse for the killing of thousands of innocent Sikh men, women and children by their own government.

Hinduism is altogether different from Sikhism theologically. Let me illustrate this point by citing two passages from Aad Guru Granth Sahib one by Guru Nanak Dev and the other by Bhagat Nam Dev addressed to a Brahmin priest.

“The gods and goddesses whom you worship and to whom you pray, what can they give? You wash them yourselves; left to themselves, they will sink in the water. There is no merit in the worship of statues.” Aad Guru Granth sahib, p 637.

Bhagat Nam Dev was tormented and not allowed entry into the temple due to his low caste. He expressed his anguish in a hymn addressed to a Brahmin priest.

“Listen o Pandey, I meditate on the Almighty God and I have found Him. O ignorant one, what have you gained from your holy mantras and gods? I have heard that your gyatri was a cow in previous life. When she strayed into the crop of a farmer, named Loda, he broke her leg with a club and she became lame.

I have heard about your god Shiv Ji, the rider of white bull. He went to the house of generous person for a feast. He didn’t like the food, so he killed that man’s son with a curse. I have also heard about your god Ram Chandar Ji. He fought with Ravan, who took away his wife.

Hindu is blind to God due to his worship of idols of gods and goddesses and the practice of caste system whereas a Muslim who worships God is partially blind to God due to his bigotry. Wiser than both is he who sees God in all.

Temples are sacred to the Hindus and mosques are sacred to the Muslims, whereas Nam Dev focuses his mind on the One and Only, Who is not restricted either to the temple or the mosque.” Aad Guru Granth Sahib, p 875.

Most of the Sikhs are ethnically and culturally related to Punjabi Hindus and Muslims, as the ancestors of Sikhs were either Hindus or Muslims. The overwhelming majority of ancestors of Indian Muslims were also Hindus as pointed out by Mr. Shah. However, after 1947 the high caste Punjabi Hindus disowned the Punjabi language and culture of their ancestors thus severing their cultural ties with Sikhs.

Hindu media has no qualms about publishing misinformation about non-Hindus, but when confronted with a rebuttal, the editors look the other way and ignore it. Thus, I was not surprised when Prashant Shah published only a small portion of my response in India Tribune of Novenmber 2, 2002, to Niranjan Shah’s column “Letter from grandpa” with headline “Who is a Hindu? Who is not?” – that was published in India Tribune of September 28, 2002.

Due to many centuries of subjugation and humiliation by foreigners, Hindus have lost self-respect, dignity and the will to face the truth and reality. Instead, they have become masters of deception, manipulation and hypocrisy. They cry hoarse, that foreign writers have maligned their religion and culture and distorted their history. However, they don’t have any compunction against quoting foreign historians if it suites their purpose as Niranjan Shah has done in his baseless and illogical rejoinder. Here is my reply to his rejoinder.

Shah has quoted several foreign sources to prove that “Hindu” is a corrupted version of “Sindhu.” However, he has ignored my questions and failed to reflect on the meaning of “Hindu Kush.” The interpretation that the word Hindu is a corrupted version of Sindhu does not explain why the Sindhu River or the people who live in the valley of this river did not acquire the name “Hindu.” This river is called Sindh and the people are called Punjabis and Sindhis. No body calls the state of Sindh as Hind or Sindhis as Hindis.

I am not sure whether it was a Hindu or a European, who was the first to suggest that Persians called river Sindhu as Hindu due to difference in pronunciation. Nonetheless, this explanation has found its way in European writings. Hindus find comfort in this absurd explanation as it provides them escape from facing the reality of their humiliating past and connects them to their mythical glorious past, the Vedic period of Ram Raj.

Indian writers who have looked at the meaning of “Hindu” with a critical eye don’t agree with the interpretation of foreign writers. For example:

“The political situation of our country from centuries past, say 20-25 centuries has made it very difficult to understand the nature of this nation and its religion. The western scholars, and historians, too, have failed to trace the true name of this brahminland, a vast continent like country, and therefore, they have contended themselves by calling it by that meaningless term “Hindu.”

This word, which is a foreign innovation, is not made use by any of our Sanskrit writers and revered Acharyas in their works. It seems that political power was responsible for insisting upon continuous use of the word Hindu. The word Hindu is found, of course, in Persian literature. Hindu-e-falak means “the black of the sky and Saturn.”

In the Arabic language Hind not Hindu means nation. It is shameful and ridiculous to have read all along in history that the name Hindu was given by the Persians to the people of our country when they landed on the sacred soil of Sindhu.” [R. N. Suryanarayan, Universal Religion, p 1-2, published from Mysore in 1952.]

And

“Some people, according to the author, say that this word Hindu is a corrupt form of Sindhu but this is wrong because Sindhu was the name of the river and not the name of the community. Moreover, it is correct that this name has been given to the original Aryan race of the region by Muslim invaders to humiliate them. In Persian, says our author, the word means slave, and according to Islam, all those who did not embrace Islam were termed as slaves.” [Maharishi Shri Dayanand Sarswati Aur Unka Kaam, edited by Lala Lajpat Rai, published from Lahore in 1898, in the chapter of introduction.]

Besides, a Persian dictionary titled Lughet-e-Kishwari, published in Lucknow in 1964, gives the meaning of Hindu as ‘chore (thief), dakoo (dacoit), raahzan (waylayer), and ghulam (slave)’. Yet according to another dictionary named Urdu-Feroze-ul-Laghat – part 1 (p 615), the meaning of the word Hindu is as under:

In Turkish: chore, raahzan and lutera (looter).

In Persian: ghulam (slave), barda (obedient servant), sia faam (black color) and kaalaa (black).

The hypothesis that Persians had difficulty in pronouncing Sindhu is baseless and preposterous. For example, how do the Persians who are Shia Muslims pronounce words like Shia, Sunni and Shariat? In Punjabi there are many words of Persian origin, which start with “s” and “sh.” For example, sardar or sirdar (leader), shaheed (martyr), shhadat (martyrdom), shair (lion), sahir (town), sar (walk), shayer (poet), shakar (sugar), sza (punishment), siahi (black ink), siah (black) and so on. The word Punjab is also derived from Persian panch and aab (five waters).

The Muslim conquers used the word Hindu for all the Indians. However, Hindus who supported Muslim rulers in the establishment of their authority over Hindu masses, were honored with titles like Chaudhary, Malik, Dewan, Shah, Raizada, Rayees, Munshi, Mahajan and others. Nowadays, the descendents of those Hindus bear these titles with great pride as surnames.

The word Hindu may be as old as the Indus Vallay Civilization. To find the meaning of “Hindu” one ought to look at the term “Hindu Kush” (killer of Hindus). Who were the people, who named this mountain range as Hindu Kush? Why these mountains were called the killers of Hindus? As I mentioned earlier, the Indian subcontinent was inhabited by dark complexioned people before the migration of Caucasian tribes from the Caucasus region.

The fair skinned Caucasian tribes who lived on the Northwest of Hindu Kush Mountain range called the Indian subcontinent as the land of Hindus (land of black people). The Northwest expansion of the inhabitants of Indus Valley was prevented by Hindu Kush Mountains. Whenever the plain dwelling Indians (Hindus) attempted to cross these mountains, they met death due to the harsh terrain and heavy snow. This is how these mountains were given the name Hindu Kush by mountain dwelling Caucasian tribes. Shah did not find the meaning of “Hindu” as black because he searched the wrong sources.

When the Caucasian tribes conquered Northwest India, they continued using the name Hindu for native Indians. To humiliate the natives, the Caucasians ridiculed their culture, looks, and their black complexion, and used derogatory expressions for them. It is astonishing that these derogatory expressions have survived through thousands of years of Indian history and are found in modern Indian languages. “Blackness” is used in bad connotation in Indian languages.

For example, in Punjabi, there are expressions like kaala munh (black mouth, ugly or who speaks ill), kaali jeebh (ill-omened tounge), kaala chore (notorious thief), kaala dhandha (illegal profession), kaala dhan (black money), kaali bhaid (black sheep), kalai laikh (black deeds) and kaala chum (black skinned person). There are also expressions like bandar munhan (monkey face) and rish jeha (bear-like), which the Caucasians used to describe the features of native Indians (Hindus). In Ramayan, the two native devotees of Shri Ram Chandar are depicted as a monkey (Hanuman) and a bear (Jamawant).

Moreover, even if Shah had found that “Hindu” means black, he would have been hesitant to accept it, as the inferiority complex of “blackness” is deeply imbedded in the psyche of Indians. Most Indians except the dalits consider themselves as the descendants of Caucasian tribes, who ruled over India before the onslaught of Muslims. So for Hindus to accept that “Hindu” means black would make them the descendants of native Indians, who are black people. This is why Hindus insist that “Hindu” is the corrupted form of Sindhu.

In the matrimonial columns in Indian newspapers everyone looks for a spouse of lighter color. Why does a dark person want to marry a person of lighter color? Is it because the dark person is not comfortable with his or her color and want to improve the color of his or her progeny. The superiority of white skin is deeply imbedded in the Indian psyche because ever since the conquest of Indus Valley by Caucasians, India has been ruled by white people like Aryans, Persians, Macedonians, Scythians, Huns, Arabs, Turks, Afghanas, Mangols, Portugese, French and English.

Indians of today are the products of thousands of years of miscegenation between Caucasian groups and native Indians. However, Indians are reluctant to admit this fact. Excluding Kashmiris, the complexion of the Indian population varies from ‘light tan’ to ‘ebony black’ and the majority is quite dark. Indians despise black skin color inspite of the fact that Indians are considered non-white by Europeans. For instance, in Indian movies, invariably, the hero and heroine have Caucasian features and lighter skin color than most of the population.

When the English left, Indians crowned Jawahar Lal Nehru, who was the fairest among the Hindu leaders. In the words of a socialist leader, Madhu Limaye, Nehru practiced both racism and casteism, despite his modern upbringing and outlook (Telegraph, Calcutta, November 21, 1987). In a revealing passage about his “making,” Nehru wrote,

“Behind me lie somewhere in the sub-conscience, racial memories of hundred or whatever the numbers may be, generations of Brahmins. I cannot get rid of that past inheritance.” [Jawaharlal Nehru, An Autobiography (1936)), 1980, p 596.]

Being a fair skinned Brahmin he rode roughshod over other leaders. The so-called iron man Patel or president Rajindra Parsad did not dare to challenge Nehru over his policies. The reason could be that both of them belonged to lower castes and had very dark complexion. It is intriguing why Mahatma Gandhi, a Gujrati bania with caricature personality, insisted upon making Nehru his heir apparent, while ignoring others who were equally qualified. Was it Nehru’s fair skin, which impressed Gandhi the most? Similarly, why couldn’t the Congress Party find a single person in the whole country worthy enough to be its leader? It turned to Sonia Gandhi, who like her late husband does not understand or speak Hindi very well. What qualifications distinguish her from other Congress leaders? Is it her fair skin?

Whereas Hinduism is derived from the word Hindu, the names of the other three religions, Buddhism, Janism and Sikhism founded on the Indian subcontinent are derived from Indian words with noble meanings: “Budh” (enlightenment), “Jan”[victorious (over vices)] and “Sikh” (learner), respectively.

Does it make any sense for Indians who are never tired of talking about the glory of their past, their religion, and their civilization to call themselves “Hindus” when this word is not found in any Hindu text? The foreigners gave this derogatory label “Hindu” to the people of the Indian subcontinent. What right or justification do the champions of “Hindutva” have to apply this derogatory label “Hindu” to others, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists? Have Hindus no sense of shame or decency? It is no wonder that Sanskrit does not have the equivalents of words like zmir (conscience), imaan (moral conviction) and Vfa (fidelity).

India will remain mired in religious, caste, linguistic and ethnic strifes as long as Indians don’t come to terms with their past history objectively and learn from it.

Sikh organizations, including SMART, protested this wrong portrayal of Sikhs in media and other inaccuracies in Bharati Mukherjee’s statements on the PBS show. I also sent a letter to Bill Moyer. An excerpt of that letter follows. ~ Author

Dear Mr. Bill Moyer

I would like to draw your attention to Bharati Mukherjee’s slanderous remarks about Sikhs on your program on May 2, 2003. Before commenting on her remarks, let me emphasize that every type of terrorism – economic, political, religious, social and environmental – must be denounced and exposed -- and stopped by all reasonable means with international cooperation. The most effective way to combat terrorism is to understand the causes of terrorism and to take action to alleviate those causes while cutting off financial and other support for terrorist organizations with international cooperation.

While the violent form terrorism draws immediate condemnation, the invisible form of terrorism is ignored or goes unnoticed. The invisible form of terrorism may not be physically devastating; nevertheless, its effects could be equally damaging to the victims. Spreading of false information by anyone including “intellectuals” against any community is also a form of terrorism. Whereas the number of people affected by violent form terrorism is limited, false information about any community -- maligns, humiliates and harms the entire community.

While discussing her new novel, Mukherjee took the opportunity to defame Sikhs and Mulims. She talked about Sikh and Muslim fundamentalists and terrorists while ignoring the scourge of Hindu fundamentalists and terrorists in India. She talked about fund raising by Sikh and Muslim terrorists in Gurdwaras and mosques respectively, while making no mention of the financial sources of BJP and its terrorist affiliates like Shiv Sena, RSS, VHP and Bajrang Dal. Of course, Hindus who believe in their ideology support them. Moreover, these organizations are actively raising funds from overseas Hindus including US corporations.

For example, for the last thirteen years a US-based charity, the India Development and Relief Fund (IDRF), has reportedly misused American corporate philanthropy to fund RSS-affiliated organizations. For instance, the IDRF obtained vast sums of money from CISCO, a leading technology company in the US with a substantial number of Hindus on its rolls, by saying that its activities are “secular” since the company rules explicitly prohibit donations to organizations of a “religious” nature. These are some of the findings presented in a 91-page report by the “Campaign to Stop Funding Hate (TCTSFH)”, a coalition of professionals, students, workers, artists and intellectuals. In the first phase of its campaign, “Project Saffron Dollar”, the TCTSFH plans to write to large American corporations to guard against funding IDRF, says Biju Mathew, a spokesman for TCTSFH [The Sikh Bulletin, Jan. 2003, p 28].

Hindu fundamentalism has many faces. While BJP and its terrorist affiliates -- RSS, VHP, Shiv Sena, Barjang Dal and others -- represent the “violent face”, Mahatma Gandhi represents the “peaceful face”, Jawahar Lal Nehru represents the “liberal face” and people like Mukherjee represent the “intellectual face”. But their goal is the same – the supremacy of Hindus and the subjugation of others.

For instance, in 1950 the Congress party led by Nehru adopted the Indian Constitution declaring Sikhs as Hindus, in spite of vigorous opposition from the Sikh representatives, Hukam Singh and Bhopinder Singh Mann. Their objections were overruled and the constitution was adopted. No Sikh has ever signed the Indian Constitution. The Sikhs have been protesting against this unspeakable crime ever since.

Later, the Congress government imposed “Hindu Code Bill” (personal law) on the Sikhs, while exempting Muslims and Christians in order to mislead the Muslim and Christians nations about the liberal, tolerant and peaceful nature of the Hindus. The Indian rulers have killed more Indians since 1947 than the British colonists killed in 300 year. More than 90% of the victims were Muslims, Christians and Sikhs, who constitute about 15% of the population of India. Hindu intellectuals like Mukherjee are covering the crimes of these “Indian rulers” against minorities, while at the same time carrying out a campaign of spreading false information.

In her interview Mukherjee asserted, “She and her journalist husband have investigated the June 23, 1985 bombing of ill-fated Air India flight, AI-182. Their investigation has established that “Sikh terrorists”, who want to create an independent state of “Khalistan” carried out the bombing of that plane.” It is a calculated statement to malign the Sikh community and to cover the crimes of the “Indian rulers”.....

Finally, Mr. Moyer you should do your own investigation to find out what is happening to minorities in India. What you will find will sober you up.

REFERENCES

¹ Narang, G. C., Transformation of Sikhism, 5th ed., 1960, p 98.

² Singh, Sangat, The Sikhs in History, 4th ed., 2001, p 110-130.

³ Ibid, p 16.

⁴ Ibid, p 19; Grewal, J. S., The Sikhs of the Punjab, 1st paperback Indian ed., 1994, p31; Singh, Jagjit, The Sikh Revolution, 4th reprint, 1998, p 105.

⁵ Singh, Sangat, The Sikhs in History, 4th ed., 2001, p 21-22.

⁶ Ibid, p 26-27.

⁷ Ibid, p 37-38, 45-46.

⁸ Ibid, p 76.

⁹ Ibid, p 94, 178, 289, 295-297, 371, 386, 420.

¹⁰ Johar, S. S., Guru Gobind Singh, 1967, p 183.

¹¹ Singh, Sangat, Sikhs in History, 4th ed., 2001, p 96-98, 102.

¹² Bhangu, R. S., Prachin Panth Parkash (Punjabi), edited by Singh, Vir (Bhai), 4th ed., 1962, p 321-322.

Additionan Reference Material

Inderjit Singh Jaijee. Politics of Genocide (Punjab 1984 – 1998), 1998.

People’s Union for Democratic Rights / People’s Union for Civil Liberties. Who are the Guilty? 1984.

Samata Era Publication. Army Action in Punjab: Prelude and Aftermath, 1984.

Citizens for Democracy. Report to the Nation: Oppression in Punjab, 1985.

Sangat Singh. The Sikhs in History, 4th ed., 2001.

Zuhair Kashmeri and Brian McAndrew. Soft Target: How the Indian Intelligence Services Penetrated Canada, 1989.

Joyce Pettigrew. The Sikhs of the Punjab, 1995.

Cynthia Mahmud. Fighting for Faith and the Nation, 1996.

Chand Joshi. Bhindranwale: Myht and Reality, 1984.

Swami Dharma Theertha. The Menace of Hindu Imperialism, 1946.

Amnesty International.

Asia Watch


Copyright©2003 Baldev Singh. About the author