Reading Jasbir Sarai’s article “Hizb-ul-Mujahideen Plays Politics In the Name of Religion” (SikhSpectrum.com Quarterly, Issue No. 30, November 2007) I get the impression that the author is quite an expert about the violence plaguing the Kashmir Valley.
Sikhs have tried in vain so far to find out who carried out the murder of 35-40 innocent Sikh villagers in Chitthisinghpura in March 2000 on the eve of President Clinton’s state visit to India. Can Jasbir Sarai could shed some light on this dastardly and heinous crime. Can he also tell us why no one has been punished for the mass murder of thousands of innocents Sikhs throughout India by Congress government after the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi? Further, he can also share with us why Manmohan Singh, the current Prime Minister, was sent by Rajiv Gandhi to defend India’s human rights record?
Baba Saheb Ambedker passed away on 6th Dec1956 giving the sufferers a
message of victory like St Paul “I have fought the good fight, I have
finished the race, I have kept the faith”. Timothy 4:7.
His fight against the monster of casteism was unparallel in the history of
humanity since creation. We read in the Holy bible how God planned the
liberation of Israelis from the bondage of Egypt, using His servant Moses
for the noble cause, similarly Heavenly Father used Ambedker to liberate
the untouchables of India from the shackles of satanic religions. In case
of Israelites there was no religious sanction for committing atrocities
upon them but here, Hindus are equipped with religious sanction through
their religious scriptures. There is further similarity in the two
happenings that God liberated Israelites from the bondage of Egypt but
they turned to the yoke of Satan disobeying the commands of the Heavenly
Father. Similarly, the untouchables have refused to free themselves from
the yoke of devilish religion that enslaved them for centuries.
Ambedker himself had tasted the bitterness of being untouchable so he
fought against the system of castes dedicating his entire life. Lastly he
could conclude that “To reform the Hindu society is neither our aim nor
our field of action. Our aim is to gain freedom. We have nothing to do
with anything else. If we can gain our freedom by conversion, why should
we shoulder the responsibility of reforming the Hindu religion? And why
should we sacrifice our strength. The object of our movement is to achieve
social freedom for the untouchables. It is equally true that freedom
cannot be secured without conversion”.
His writings We can classify his writings in three categories such as (a)
For political Activists. “What Congress and Gandhi have done to the
Untouchables?” (b) For Social Activists. “Annihilation of Caste”. (c) For
Religious Activists. “Buddha and his Dhamma”.
Babasaheb was the first person in India to tell that untouchability is
part of the caste system. And caste is the foundation on which Hindu
religion stands. So all those persons like Vivekananda, Gandhi etc., who
wanted to reform Hinduism, failed because Hinduism is not amenable to
reform. One cannot reform Hinduism keeping intact the caste. If you
abolish caste, whole edifice of Hinduism collapses, because Hinduism is
nothing but caste. Gandhi failed because he wanted to abolish
untouchability keeping caste as it is. He proclaimed that Caste System is
the soul of Hinduism. This statement he gave not for his ignorance of the
fact that caste system is a crime against the divinity but because he was
fearful of Hindu fundamentalists. Gandhi knew the curse of caste system
well but did not like to put his hand into this beehive and get bitten. He
wanted to reform Hinduism without touching the privileges that caste
confers on upper castes.
Babasaheb was the first person in India to point out these unpleasant
facts. Ignoring his meritorious services to the nation Gandhi gained
better recognition as Mahatma. Fortunately the bare facts are surfacing on
the international platform and world is able to understand the role of
Babasaheb to eliminate the curse of caste and build a healthy nation where
Gandhi and other reformers had failed.
His book “Annihilation of Caste” was his speech, supposed to be delivered
in 1936 in Lahore in a conference organized by “Jat Pat Todak Mandal” of
high castes. The said conference could never be held simply to evade his
dynamic speech. Baba Saheb had to preside over the conference and it was
his presidential address. Baba Saheb Ambedker had put the so called holy
scriptures of Hindus to the acidic test. He said that until and unless we
deny the sanctity of the scriptures, which justify castes, we can not get
rid of castes. Gandhi and his coterie never wanted to demolish the
religious status of the said scriptures. Later on Baba sahib Ambedker
publicly burnt Manu Simiriti. His burning of Manu Simiriti was just a
token of condemnation of the scriptures and a lead for the nation to
dismiss the false sanctity of scriptures.
As father of Constitution of India enforced on 26th Jan 1952, Ambedker
demolished the caste system making India “Sovereign Socialist Secular
Democratic Republic and to secure to all its citizens Justice, social,
economic and political, Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and
worship, Equality of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them
all Fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and
integrity of the Nation”.
India became independent, in 1947. Now we are in the year 2007. That means
60 years have passed but we have failed to meet with the aims and
objectives of the Constitution of India. Why it is? It is a big question.
It is not the failure of the constitution, but it has happened because the
Brahmins have virtually dominated over the governance of the country. They
have viewed the constitution, ensuring green pasture for the Brahmin. Even
today, Manu Simiriti has edge over the constitution of Independent India.
Brahmins have not domination over the bureaucracy only but, except BSP all
political parties are headed by Brahmins. It is not an incidence but a
fact that none of the non Brahmin Prime Minister could complete full term
since the independence of the country. Gulzari Lal Nanda, Ch Charan Singh,
Chander Shekhar, Gujral, Devgauda, V P Singh have been the non Brahmin
Prime Ministers and none of them could survive for the full term. On the
other hand Narsimha Rao and Atal Bihari Vajpai both Brahmins, completed
full term despite their governments in minority. Present Prime Minister of
India could be facing danger of similar fate as he is non Brahmin and the
so called nuclear deal could be just an excuse. Even in crimes, Brahmins
have left every one behind. Recently a good number of Sharmas have been
booked for rapes, murderers and burning of women. There could be no major
racket where Brahmins had not played prominent role.
Brahmins, the most privileged class has kept other castes to be with them
on the issue of castes. Resultantly there has been no change in the
thinking of other upper caste too. Not only there is no change in their
thinking but there has not been even an honest attempt at discussion among
the "learned" people of India on the havoc caused by the caste. Presently
more "educated" the upper castes, more caste-conscious they become.
India's biggest and bloodiest "caste wars" were all led by these very same
"highly educated" upper castes. Today it is the "educated class" that are
fighting to keep the caste alive.
Apart from Brahmin, Why other upper castes are not interested in giving up
caste? Because caste helps them to exploit their fellowmen better, it has
a theological sanction under the Hindu religion. If the law of the jungle
is that a strong animal shall devour the weak (otherwise called laissez
faire or the survival of the fittest), in the jungle of Hinduism this law
has the blessings of its sacred scriptures. That is why in India wealth is
getting accumulated in the hands of top 10% to 15% of the upper castes and
the rest are joining below poverty line lot. And yet there is no public
debate on the merits of caste anywhere, not even among our university
eggheads. If any body raises caste issue in any "intellectual seminars"
such a fellow is dubbed biased, prejudiced if not a nuisance-monger–and
laughed at. Every avenue of debate–media, public platform—is in the hands
of the upper castes who gained a lot by holding on to caste. So we can't
expect this upper caste nation to put a dagger into its own stomach. That
means the future is gloomy. The vast Dalits and other oppressed minorities
of India will have to cope with fundamentalism and remain slave to the 15%
upper caste till eternity. But there is a brighter solution, a hope
suggested by Baba Saheb himself.
“I tell you all very specifically; religion is for man and not man for
religion. To get human treatment, convert yourselves. CONVERT -For getting
organized, for becoming strong, for securing equality, for getting
liberty, for that your domestic life may be happy”. Ambedker
Mat 11:28 "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give
you rest”.
Regards,
- Rev Jasjit Singh
Seventh Day Adventist (Indian) Church
2257 Sandy Street
Caruthers, CA 93609
Editor- This article was reproduced from the August, 1972 edition of The Sikh Review.
Dear Editor,
I am a student in Argentina working on a history project on one of Dr. Ganda Singh's article which was published on your website recently. I would be most thankful, if you could spare some of your time to answer a doubts concerning that very article.
I basically would like to know in which year was Dr. Ganda Singh's article 'The Truth About the Indian Mutiny of 1857' actually published in India.
I read this article on folk arts and communications in which the author traces
the historical evidence on the subject and presents it in a natural way
of narrating topics such as this. In this way we can preserve knowledge for
future generations. Nowadays, reading habit is on the decay among the youth, therefore subject matter needs to be coated with an attractive style.
I knew before I read the article that the time spans of Hindu religious
traditions were immense compared to those of the Bible, but I did not know
of the tales of great deeds by ancient heroes.
I wish to compliment S. Jarnail Singh for his remarkable article on the
Mool Mantar. He has delved into the subject and produced a masterpiece.
I, however, have one major and a few minor observations.
The major observation is on his use of the term 'God in Sikhism' more than
once. I submit that this gives the impression that Sikhs' God is different
from that of others say, Islam. If we study the progression of scriprtures
from the Gita, the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Quran and Sri
Guru Granth Sahib we see a progressive refinement of the concept of God, from the incarnated Krishna in the Gita,
God of Israel in the Old Testament, God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the
New Testament and the Rabbulaalmeen or God of all the worlds in the Quran.
We thus see a movement towards larger acceptance of the God of the
Universe. That some Muslims have tried to appropriate God as only of the
Muslims is unfortunate. The Quran makes it clear that God likes those who
submit to the will of God, which is what the word, Islam stands for.
Gurbani has clarified this by saying that God does not belong to any
particular person or group (Aapan baapai naahi kisi ko bhaavan ko Hari
raja, Ravidas P 658), (tuh sabhnaa kaa sabh ko tayraa, M5, P 1079) and
(Sabhay saajhiivaal sdaain too kisai na disai baahraa jeeo, M5 P 97). So
there is no one who could be called God in Sikhism.
The author has used 'It' for God, which signifies something inanimate,
which God is not. This has probably been done to show that God has no
gender. 'He' could have been used as a generic term which is used with a
masculine connotation in Gurbani frequently.
Nirbhau and Nirvair could be seen in the context of what the earlier
scriptures mentioned above say. In the Old Testament God is errant because
He repented for creating man, He is a jealous God and is partisan to
Israel. The Quran mentions instances for having punished some people. On
the other hand Guru Nanak's concept of God is His being the Supreme Lord
of all and none being equal to Him. He does not have to fear any one nor
be jealous of any one and is thus above the attributes of fear or
jealousy.
And finally the Mool Mantar is not part of Japu Ji Sahib, but is a
preamble or Manglaacharan for the whole scripture and the basis of Sikh
teachings. Japu starts after the Mool Mantar thus "Japu". And "Aadi
sachu---" is the preamble for Japu Ji Sahib.
Let me comment briefly on Jarnail Singh’s thoughtful exposition of the “opening verse/line” of Aad Guru Granth Sahib (AGGS), SikhSpectrum.com Quarterly, Issue No.30, November 2007.
All the words of opening verse/line are different attributes of the Entity (God). And Guru Nanak did not assign any specific name or gender to the Entity.
However, Jarnail Singh says that the special “open Ura with extended curved line” (
<
) means “Oankar” and “Ikoankar” means “God that pervades everywhere.” And latter on he says “Purakh” means “the Supreme Being (God) that pervades everywhere.”
Now if the special “open Ura with extended curved line” means “Oankar” then Guru Nanak would have spelled it that way as on pages 929-30 of AGGS.
EAMkwir bRhmw auqpiq ]
EAMkwir kIAw ijin iciq ]
oankaar brahma utpat oankaar keea jin chit
It is Oankar, who created Brahma. And Brahma keeps his mind focussed on the Oankar.
AGGS, M 1, pp. 929-30.
Moreover, If the “special open Ura with extended curved line means “Oankar” then Guru Nanak and other Gurus would have used this special Ura instead of spelling oankaar. The special Ura occurs only in the “opening verse/line” and its abridged forms that Jarnail Singh has pointed out. It is not found alone anywhere in the AGGS; it is always found in conjunction with digit ‘1’.
Guru Nanak has repeatedly pointed that God is infinite, ineffable and unfathomable – beyond human comprehension in totality. A finite entity can’t define an infinite entity. So Guru Nanak designed this special symbol: digit 1 and open Ura with extended curved line (
<
) to represent the “One and only” Entity (God) That is infinite, ineffable and unfathomable. After writing 1E (ik O meaning, One That) Guru Nanak extended the open loop of the Ura to indicate the infinite, ineffable and unfathomable nature of God. After doing this he has described some of the attributes of God that human beings could understand.
Now the question people often ask me, “How do you pronounce this special symbol.” The answer is simple, read the way you see it: ik O (Oh), followed by a slight pause to reflect on the infinite, ineffable and unfathomable nature of God, and then read the rest of the line continuously.
Respectfully,
- Baldev Singh
2035 Tres Picos Drive, Yuba City, CA 95993.
Phone: 530-870-8040
Baldevsingh07@comcast.net
Yoginder Sikand is guilty of serious academic ommission in concluding that
Oberoi’s work (Construction of Religious Boundaries) “persuasively argues”
against any well-defined Sikh identity prior to advent of the Singh Sabha
movement.
In accepting Oberoi's ill-argued hypothesis without reference to the
critiques of Oberoi’s work -- by Dr Noel Q King, Dr Gurdarshan Singh
Dhillon, Dr Bhagat Singh, Dr Madanjit Kaur, Dr Sarjit Singh, Dr Gurmel
Singh Sidhu, Dr Hakam Singh , Dr Sukhmandar Singh, Dr Kharak Singh,
amongst many others -- Sikand indulges in the questionable practice of
picking and choosing the sources that support his own line of argument.
To illustrate the self-evident absurdity of the statements made by Oberoi
in his work, we may cite some here:
1. Page 56: “…just as there is no fixed Guru Nanak in the Janam Sakhis
there is no fixed Sikh identity in the early Sikh period”. Dr Bhagat Singh
rightly remarks that the “fixed Guru Nanak” should be searched in his bani
and not in Janam Sakhis. Similarly, the Sikh identity needs to be searched
for amongst the Sikhs and not amongst Ram Raiyas, Dhir Mallias, Nirmalas,
Udasis, etc.
2. As Dr Bhagat Singh quotes the author of Dabistan: “the disciples of
Nanak do not read the mantras of the Hindus. They do not venerate their
temples or idols nor do they esteem their avtars. They have no regard for
the Sanskrit language which according to the Hindus is the speech of gods”.
3. Furthermore, if for the sake of argument we do accept that there was no
well-defined Sikh identity till late 19th century, then one needs to
explain how the government of the day identified the Sikhs for general
genocide; how exactly did one claim the reward fixed on a Sikh’s head, if
that head was like a Muslim’s or a Hindu’s; how numerous Western travelers
were able to differentiate the Sikhs from Hindus and Muslims and remark
about their distinct characteristics.
4. It also needs to be explained that if there was no well-defined Sikh
identity distinct from Hindus and Muslims, what exactly did the new
converts do to “become” Sikhs? We know that no one could convert to
Hinduism (one had to be born into it) and Muslims had a set system for
converting people to Islam. It doesn’t need much imagination to see that
what one does defines one’s identity in conjunction with what one refuses
to do.
Sikh identity started taking shape from the moment Guru Nanak
refused to wear the Janeu – without Janeu he couldn’t be considered a
Hindu. When Guru Angad became a disciple of Guru Nanak, he stopped his
pilgrimages to Jwalamukhi and the belief system associated with it. Thus
he became something other than a Hindu. We can go on citing examples on
similar lines. Another line would be the open flouting of the rules of
conduct governing caste. If the Sikh identity could not be differentiated
from the Hindu or Muslim identity, why would Guru Nanak and his successors
lay so much stress on founding new cities – cities where the Sikhs could
live according to the rules of Sikhism, like no caste hierarchies or
Brahmin Qazi dictates.
5. To take a personal example of identity – Mr Yoginder Sikand identifies
himself as an agnostic. It is his privilege to do so. Would it offend him
if someone called him a Hindu? I think so because that would not be how he
sees himself. And what would be his reaction? “Mai Hindu nahi.” Similarly,
if a card-carrying communist is “accused” of believing in the existence
of, say, a Hindu god, he would be offended too, for that would mean he isn’t
true to the communist doctrine. So what would be his reaction? “Mai Hindu
nahi.”
6. Oberoi says on Page 54: “While propagandists of modern Sikhism see in
the collation of the Adi Granth in 1603-1604 under Guru Arjun a powerful
public declaration of the separation of the Sikh Panth from other
religious traditions, historically it is difficult to admit such an
interpretation.”
7. It seems that Oberoi does not have even passing knowledge of Gurbani.
For Guru Nanak says on page 556: “Hindus are lost, whatever Narad says
they worship accordingly. These blind and dumb people are always living in
darkness (i.e., neither can they see the true path nor do they sing the
praises of His True Name). These foolish, ignorant people are happy
worshipping a stone. O man, the stone you worship when itself drowns in
water, how can it help you to swim across this sea of life?”
8. Similarly, Guru Arjun remarks on page 1136: “I do not do Hindu fasts
and I do not do Muslim fasts. I worship that One God who looks after
everyone. In spiritual pursuits I have nothing in common with Hindus or
Muslims. I have only Him to guide me whom Hindu addresses as “Gusain” and
Muslim as “Allah”. Unlike Muslims I do not go for Haj to Kaaba and unlike
Hindus I do not go on pilgrimages. I remember only One God and no one
else. I do not worship the Vedas and I do not do namaaz. I have only that
One God in my heart to whom my head remains always bowed. O man,
spiritually we are neither indebted to the Hindu nor to the Muslim. Our
body and our life are a gift of that One God whom Muslims address as Allah
and Hindus as Raam. O Kabir! Say, ‘I openly say that after meeting my Guru
I have developed a deep bond with Waheguru.’
9. Bhagats also didn’t see themselves as either Hindu or Muslim. For
instance, Bhagat Kabir says on Page 655: “Hindus are wasting their time in
worshipping stones, while Muslims are busy wasting theirs in bowing in the
direction of Kaaba. Hindus cremate their dead while Muslims bury theirs.
They keep fighting about who is right. O almighty, both sides are unable
to fathom You.” On Pages 1158-1159, he says: “With the blessings of Naam,
I have turned my mind away from material pursuits and I no longer
subscribe to either caste or lineage. I have understood that caste or
lineage play no role in realizing God. My mind is now in a state where
material pursuits have no meaning and I have found peace. As I weave the
thread of Naam Simran, I am going further and further away from both
Pandit and Mullah. I have nothing to do with either Hindu rituals or
Muslim Shariah any more. Compared to Naam Simran Hindu rituals and Muslim
Shariah stand nowhere. I am weaving the thread of Naam Simran and clothing
my being in it. I have reached a state of being where there is no
I-am-ness, Everything that Pandits and Mullahs have written, I have left
behind. I no longer take any advice from either. If there is His love in
the heart, one can realize Him. O Kabir, everyone who has realized Him has
done so through introspection and looking inside (not through any
rituals).”
10. Bhagat Namdev says on Page 875: “Hindu is completely blind (i.e. knows
nothing about God) while the Muslim has one eye (i.e. knows little bit
about God). But wiser than both is that person who has realized the True
Knowledge. Hindu lost one eye when he started telling uncomplimentary
stories about his gods, and lost the other eye when he started believing
that God is to be found only in the temple and started worshipping the
temple. Muslim on the other hand has one eye intact because he knows there
is only One God and he truthfully tries to follow Mohammed’s way, but he
lost one eye when he started believing that God lives in the Kaaba. I,
Namdev, worship that One God who has no dedicated temple or mosque.”
11. The above quotations are only illustrative and not exhaustive. But
they should suffice to make the point that Sikh identity has always been
distinct from Muslims and Hindus and very well-defined. It is evident even
in the Bhagat bani, which illustrates the fallacy of calling Bhagats
“Hindu” or “Muslim” when they clearly do not see themselves as such.
12. The summary of four approaches is also full of errors and
misstatements which will need a lot of space to explicate.
13. The only part of this article that may be acceptable is the critique
of Khwaja Hasan Nizami’s writings. Sikand is at liberty to interpret
Nizami’s motives and to question his assertions regarding Guru Nanak being
“a Muslim”. But even in the critique Sikand needs to learn a lot more
about Sikhism, especially Gurbani, as at many places his lack of
first-hand knowledge of Gurbani is glaringly obvious. He is also guilty of
mis-reading Nizami's statements. [I will comment on these in a separate
mail.]
The article does little credit to Sikand when compared with some of his
previous writings.
I have read many articles on Gandhi's life, but I have never read an article like
this anywhere. I completely agree with the author. I would appreciate if you
can send me additional information on Gandhi.
I really appreciate the efforts done for getting the victims justice. I pray for
the author's success. But the amount of time taken for delivering justice is what bothers me.
The views expressed by Rev Jasjit Singh regarding Paul having been against
caste discrimination are misleading and incorrect. While Paul spoke in the
name of Jesus, he said and did against what the latter taught. Paul must
take most of the blame for creating antagonism between Jews and the
Christians and the resultant bloodshed. Whereas Jesus had committed to
the laws that Moses gave, Paul repudiated those. The New Testament,
particularly his letters, are an exercise in Jew-bashing. Let me quote from
the Bible.
In Matthew 5:18 Jesus says: "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot
or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled"
but in Galatians 3:23-25 Paul repudiates this. Tribulation and anguish,
upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the
Gentile (Romans 2:9). But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a
stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness; (1 Corinthians 1:23).
Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was
contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; (Col
2:14).
Even the statements attributed to Jesus denigrating the Pharisees do not
seem to be those of Jesus and have apparently been added later. Two
glaring examples are:
Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the
Jew first, and also of the Gentile (Romans 2:9). But we preach Christ
crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks
foolishness; (1 Corinthians 1:23). Blotting out the handwriting of
ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out
of the way, nailing it to his cross; (Col 2:14).
Even statements regarding the Jew clergy attributed to Jesus could not
have been made by him and seem to be later additions.
Here are two examples:
1. O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for
out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh (Matt 12:34)
2. A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there
shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he
left them, and departed (Matt 16:4).
Let us not credit someone with the opposite of what he actually did.
I was pleased to read Rev. Jasjit Singh’s letter. I hope he will continue to share his views with us. I thought I might add something of value to his well-meant letter.
1. Reverend mentions of Biblical God (BG) liberating Israelites from Bondage in Egypt. We can’t find any independent evidence of this myth.
2. In fact BG has sanctioned slavery in the Bible a fact that resulted in untold misery of genocides and slavery throughout history. The problems that Untouchables have found in Hinduism would in no way be different if they had been slaves under the followers of the Bible.
3. The Constitution of India has not banned the caste system. Only “untouchability” is banned.
4. Long before Dr. Ambedkar talked about the caste system Sikh Gurus brought a social and theological revolution against the caste.
Editor- We would appreciate if people write clearly why they disagree with someone’s views. This way we can forward your concerns to the author so that he or she can address them in an intelligent way. We request the Reverend to kindly state where he disagrees with Rawel Singh and his reasons for the disagreement.
_._._._._
Dear Editor,
"And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free" John 8:32
My friend has followed the mechanism of Brahmins (BE-REHM-MAN) to evade the soul of the letter as he had no material to defend the Satanic religion. I suggest him to join some theological college for better understanding of Holy Bible.
Regards,
- Rev Dr. Jasjit Singh
I have been disappointed with the....
-Rawel Singh, USA
from Rawel Singh
Place: USA
I have been disappointed with the response of Rev Jasjit Singh. Instead of
squarely facing the challenge to his views he asks me to take a course on
theological studies. Pray, why is a course in theological studies required
for this purpose? For his satisfaction let me say that I am a student of
the Bible study course being run by the United Church of God. I have
relied on the Bible to point out his errant views, and if he thinks what I
have said is not correct he should point it out to me. Please do not shy away
from gracefully acknowledging that you were wrong, Jasjit.
As for his complaint regarding the soul of his letter, as he calls it, I
am giving a separate post, so that the two issue are not mixed up, and
I request him to respond separately.
Regards,
- Rawel Singh
Rev Jasjit Singh in his letter....
-Rawel Singh, USA
from Rawel Singh
Place: USA
Dear Editor,
Rev Jasjit Singh in his letter on the caste system in India says that
Dr B.R. Ambedkar was the first person in India to point out that
untouchability is part of the caste system. But the real message in his
letter is asking for conversions to Christianity. I shall deal with both
the issues. It appears that the Rev decided to convert to Christianity without
his having read the scripture of the religion of his birth. It is his
prerogative to choose to convert, but if he had read Sri Guru Granth Sahib
(SGGS) and tried to understand its teachings, he would not have made the
statements he has now made.
The ninth Ashtpadi (composition of eight stanzas) of Sukhmani Sahib refers
to the Brahmin who does not want to be touched by those belonging to the
so called the low castes. The Slok (prologue) preceding the Ashtpadi tells
us in essence “ One who has Lord’s Name in his mind, sees the same God in
all, remembers the Lord every moment; such is a person who cannot be
touched by others and in fact saves all”. It later says “One who,
controlling his sensory organs, keeps away from the evils of lust, anger,
greed, attachment to transitory things and pleasures, and vanity; such a
person cannot be touched by others and is found one in millions”.
In fact,
the scripture makes fun of the Brahmin in the same connection when Saint
Kabir asks him “You were born to a Brahmin mother; if you were so special
why didn’t you come by a route other than your mother’s womb (SGGS P
324)? Similarly the scripture quotes the story of Saint Namdev, a devotee
who was turned out of the temple due to his low caste. The saint complains
to God “These so called high caste people were annoyed with me and turned
me out. What can I do” (SGGS P 1292)? These are some of the quotes on
untouchability. The scripture is replete with exhortations to shed
casteism.
Rev asks people to convert to Christianity. He does not seem to realize
that in modern times his new religion promotes casteism. That is the only
way one can explain the innumerable denominations that have come to exist
in Christianity. Jasjit, will you tell people why are there so many
denominations in Christianity?
The impatience of the Christian missionaries with other
faiths results in trying to obtain conversions to their faith. But this
malaise of impatience is so deep that they became impatient with each
other and not only split into different denominations but seek conversions
from one another. The memories of bloodshed between Christian
denominations are still fresh. The seeds for this were laid by none else
than Paul about whom Rev has referred to so reverently.
Here is what the
Bible says “And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname
was Mark. But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed
from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. And the
contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from
the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus (Acts
15:37-39).
Which denomination do you belong to Jasjit and will you please
tell us why should any one join the company of those so impatient not only
with others but also between themselves? I hope you will answer all these questions
before any one can make up his mind to convert to your new faith.
A gift is always given to someone who has a higher stature than the gift
itself. Why call oneself a Sikh if calling an Indian is better? Sikh
authors need to understand Sikhi in terms of Sikhi and not in term of
India, Hindusim or Islam.
While this is an interesting and, no doubt, a well thought out article the author
claims without academic support that "yogis were homosexuals".
Other than that I found this article thought-provoking and interesting.
Regards,
- Jagtaran Singh
I appreciate Onkar Singh’s....
-Baldev Singh, USA
from Baldev Singh
Place: USA
Dear Editor,
I appreciate Onkar Singh’s comments on my article on M. K. Gandhi (http://www.sikhspectrum.com/082003/king_and_gandhi.htm)
published in the Feedback section of SikhSpectrum, Novemeber 2007. I would recommend him Colonel GB Singh’s book, Gandhi Behind the Mask of Divinity, my review of this book on SikhSpectrum.com, August 2004 and www.gandhism.net.
Regards,
- Baldev Singh
I appreciate very much that....
-Baldev Singh, USA
from Baldev Singh
Place: USA
Dear Editor,
I appreciate very much that Jagtaran Singh has read my article “Sant Tradition Or Sant Mat” (SikhSpectrum.com, November 2007) carefully and asked why I did not provide evidence for my statement about yogis’ homosexuality. I did not do that because the article is not about yogis’ homosexuality or Radhasoami sect; it is about how W. H. McLeod has undermined the uniqueness of Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat) by concocting the term “Sant Tradition”, which is a literal translation of “Sant Mat”, the name Radhasoami sect of Beas uses for it brand of teachings. Moreover, the statement is made in the context that Radhasoamis are heavily influenced by yoga practices as reflected by their literature.
My statement “yogis were by and large homosexuals” is based on modern scientific understanding of human sexuality. All living beings are born with sexual drive/ instinct for procreation – for the preservation of the species. However, among humans sexual activity is much more than procreation, it is one of the pleasures of life which people seek through heterosexual or homosexual acts as people are born as heterosexuals (predominant) or homosexuals (minor). Now yogis were ascetics who were not supposed even to look at the face of a woman and they lived in their tillas (centers/ stations) away from a householder’s lifestyle. So what could constitute the outlet for their sexual drive? It has to be homosexual activity. It is a myth that sexual feelings can be eliminated through prayers or counseling. On the other hand there is lot of evidence that suppression of sexual feelings leads to psychological disorders.
Finally, my statement does not imply in any way negatively on homosexuality as it is natural because people are born that way.
Regards,
- Baldev Singh
Rev Dr Jasjit Singh has named....
-Baldev Singh, USA
from Baldev Singh
Place: USA
Dear Editor,
Rev Dr Jasjit Singh has named his church “Satnam Aradhana Bhavan
(siqnwm ArwDnw Bvn)”
, meaning the place to contemplate on truth. However, his letter (SikhSpectrum.com, Feedback, November 2007) about Dr. Ambedkar’s fight against caste system is spiced with fantastic statements, which show very clearly that he does not know the difference between fact or fiction, truth or falsehood, right or wrong, and good or bad. Just look at the opening paragraph of his letter.
Baba Saheb Ambedker passed away on 6th Dec1956 giving the sufferers a message of victory like St Paul “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith”. Timothy 4:7. His fight against the monster of casteism was unparallel in the history of humanity since creation. We read in the Holy bible how God planned the liberation of Israelis from the bondage of Egypt, using His servant Moses for the noble cause, similarly Heavenly Father used Ambedker to liberate the untouchables of India from the shackles of satanic religions. In case of Israelites there was no religious sanction for committing atrocities upon them but here, Hindus are equipped with religious sanction through their religious scriptures. There is further similarity in the two happenings that God liberated Israelites from the bondage of Egypt but they turned to the yoke of Satan disobeying the commands of the Heavenly Father. Similarly, the untouchables have refused to free themselves from the yoke of devilish religion that enslaved them for centuries.
1. There is no archeological evidence for the Jewish slave quarters/settlements in Egypt. So far archeological diggings have found pyramids and other artifacts related to the Pharaohs.
2. For the sake of argument if Jews were kept as slaves in Egypt then why the “Heavenly Father” to Whom the Jews were so special allow the Egyptian kings to enslave them in the first place? Moreover, during that age slavery was practiced all over the world – the natives (Advasis) of the Indian subcontinent were enslaved by their conquerors – made Sudras and Untouchables. Why did not the “Heavenly Father” send Ambedkar, his servant to liberate them at that time? And why did not the “Heavenly father” send His other servants like Moses to free slaves all over the world?
3. He says, “God liberated Israelites from the bondage of Egypt but they turned to the yoke of Satan disobeying the commands of the Heavenly Father.”
The “followers of Heavenly Father” have used this statement along with others to justify the persecution of Jews for centuries. However, after the slaughter of six million innocent Jews – men, women, children in Second World War by the “followers of Heavenly Father”, sober minded Christians have stopped calling Jews as the followers of Satan. It seems that Rev. Jasjit Singh being the newly enlisted crusader of the “Heavenly Father” wants to renew the persecution of Jews for disobeying Him.
4. If the “Heavenly Father” chose heathen Ambedkar to liberate heathen untouchables from tyranny of heathen Brahmans then why did not He liberate Christian black slaves from the bondage of Christian white masters/monsters? Or why did the “Heavenly Father” allow his followers to subject blacks to slavery?
5. If the “Heavenly Father” is so compassionate to the Untouchables of India then why did He allow his followers to carry out genocide of heathens all over the globe – subjecting them to slavery and misery, destroying their culture, denying them human rights and property rights and playing eternal havoc with their psyche?
6. The Reverend knows very well that the “followers of Heavenly Father” ruled over India for more than three centuries. Did they liberate the Untouchables? The Indian population is overwhelmingly made up of Sudras and untouchables (85-90%). What did the British or Portuguese do to relieve the misery of Sudras and untouchables? It was the Hindu elite that the British rulers hired to run the administration.
Reverend! wasn’t it the British colonial rulers who reinforced the divide between Indian people on religious, racial, caste, regional and ethnic lines. Wasn’t the plight of Sudras and untouchables far worse under the Britsh colonial rule than before? Did not the British invent the “Aryan Race” theory to assert their racial superiority and to legitimize the superiority of the Dwijas (twice born – Brahaman, Kshatriya and Vaishya)?
Did not the British starve millions of Sudras and untouchables to death by creating famine in eastern India by exporting the rice crop from this area to other colonies of the Empire? Isn’t it true that the colonists threw out of work millions of Sudras and untouchable (artisans) by bringing cheap imports from their factories in England? Isn’t it true that while this was happening to the downtrodden masses of India, the “Heavenly Father” turned a blind eye or He was reveling in the celebration of the glorious exploits of his dedicated followers?
7. Why has the Reverend declined to respond to GB Singh’s straightforward questions? He advises Rawel Singh to take a course in Bible studies in response to Rawel Singh’s letter that questions Reverend’s understanding of the Bible. Furthermore, he accuses Rawel Singh for using mechanism of Brahmins (BE-REHM-MAN) to evade the soul of the letter as he had no material to defend the Satanic religion. However, Rawel singh did not defend the Brahman or his Satanic religion, he only questioned Reverend’s understanding of his Bible by reading his Bible to him. The reverend talks about “soul of his letter” while he himself is soulless according to his Bible. The reverend should look into the mirror.
I agree with the Reverend that the inventor of Varana Ashrama Dharama/caste system is indeed “BE-REHM-MAN” a cruel man without mercy. However, the Bible-Braham is far more cruel and devious than the Brahman. In my article (SikhSpectrum.com, May 2006) during the debate between GB Singh and Reverend Zekveld on Bible, I have pointed out that Christianity is the grandchild of Brahamanism -- Varna Ashrma Dharma/ Caste system. Whereas the plague of Brahmanism was confined to the Indian subcontinent, the scourge of Bible-Brahmanism is global.
8. The statement that “Ambedkar’s fight against the monster of casteism was unparallel in the history of humanity since creation” show that the Reverend does no know that Varna Ashrama Dharama/Caste system is practiced only in the Indian subcontinent and it is not more than five to six thousand years old whereas creation has existed for at least 15 billion years. Besides, there was opposition to this inhuman system the moment it was imposed on the natives (Advasis) generally known as Dravidians by their Caucasian conquerors.
Countless Advasis sacrificed their lives fighting valiantly against the plague of caste. And list of the number of historical figures who opposed the caste monster is rather long: Buddha, Mahanbir, Thriru Vullar, Namdev, Kabir, Ravidas and many more. Guru Nanak denounced the caste system and declared his solidarity with the downtrodden: “Nanak will stand by the lowest of lowest, not with the elite. Societies that take care of the downtrodden have the blessing of God (AGGS, M 1, p. 15). One pain is the separation from God (lack of morality), second pain is the grinding poverty and third pain is the tyranny of the ruler (AGGS, M 1, p. 1256).”
The Guru gave a clarion call to the masses to join his movement with an explicit warning that it would require supreme sacrifices: “If you want to play the game of love (follow the righteous path) then follow me and be prepared to sacrifice your life. Once you step on this path, do not hesitate to offer your head (AGGS, M 1, p. 1412).)”
This proclamation is central to the Sikh revolution; it is the basis of Miri-Piri (temporal and spiritual sovereignty) and the evolution of the noble Khalsa Order. Only a moral person (gurmukh) can be a mir-pir/Khalsa. Inspired by Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat), the Khalsa forces forged overwhelmingly from the downtrodden stock of the Hindu Society--Sudras and Untouchables--fought against three formidable foes: the mighty Mughals, the caste hierarchy and the foreign invaders for about half a century. Eventually the Khalsa established a Kingdom over a vast tract in the Northwest region of the Indian sub-continent. The Khasla forces were led by the descendents of Jats, Sansis, Kalals, Tarkhans, Lobabans/ Banjaras, sweepers (Valmikis/Churas) and Chamars (leather workers). Vast majority (95%) of modern Sikhs are descendents of Sudras and untouchables.
9. The Reverend has incorporated Ambedkar into the coterie of Biblical apostles/saints. It is unconscionable on Reverend’s part to mislead Dalits by his phony proclamation that “Heavenly Father” used Ambedkar to liberate India’s Dalits. Ambedkar who studied in the United Sates and England was well aware how the Heavenly Father’s followers treated colored heathens as well as Christians. During the British colonial rule over India there were signs posted outside British conclaves (residential quarters and clubs): “Indians and dogs not allowed.”
10. The statement, “Ambedker Mat 11:28 "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest” is as phony as, perhaps, the Reverend himself.
Regards,
- Baldev Singh
In this day and age when....
-Baldev Singh, USA
from Baldev Singh
Place: USA
Dear Editor,
In this day and age when people are holding interfaith dialogues to understand each other, emphasizing peaceful co-existence and are talking about multicultural pluralistic societies, it sounds rather strange –- or even obnoxious --to hear Hindus and Muslims claim that that Guru Nanak was a Hindu or Muslim, respectively, on the basis of absurd claims that Guru Nanak did not establish a new religion and Sikhs have no distinct identity. It is one thing for people to make such claims on the basis of Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat) enshrined in Aad Guru Guru Granth Sahib (AGGS), but people who make such claims have no first hand knowledge of AGGS.
For example, all the authors quoted by Sikand with the exception of Kahn Singh and K.S. Duggal, have not studied AGGS. Even, what I know from Duggal’s writings, his understanding of the Nanakian philosophy is superficial whereas Kahn Singh spent his entire life studying AGGS and prepared the Mahan Kosh (Sikh Encyclopedia). The reader may think that Bawa Narain Singh is a Sikh name, but actually he was a Hindu, and a bitter opponent of the Sikhs (Sangat Singh. The Sikhs In History. New Delhi: Uncommon Books, 4th edition, 2001, p. 150). So it is difficult for me to understand why an intelligent man like Sikand would publish such a baseless article to undermine his own credibility.
Further, it is intriguing that Christians (Europeans) created their own version of Sikhism based on the writings of Hindus and Muslims or from what they learned about Sikhs from Hindus and Muslims. Now both Hindu and Muslims are using Christian writings on Sikhism to buttress their baseless claims on Guru Nanak and the Sikhs.
Furthermore, Sikand’s thesis is based on the opinions/views of those who are/were ignorant of the fundamentals Nanakian philosophy and Sikh history, for example the views of Sila-Khan and Khwaja Hasan Nizami. I will therefore, restrict my response only to few outrageous statements made in the article.
Running right through the almost five centuries of the history of the Sikh people down to the present day has been an unresolved dilemma of Sikh communal identity. As Oberoi persuasively argues, claims and counter-claims over who exactly the Sikhs are and whether or not Sikhism can legitimately be seen as an independent religion seem to have become particularly heated in the communally surcharged climate of nineteenth century Punjab with the extension of British rule into the region (Oberoi, 1994).
1. First of all the unresolved dilemma of Sikh identity is not a problem for the Sikhs but for those who make false claims on Guru Nanak and the Sikhs. The uniqueness of Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat) and the distinct identity of its followers (Sikhs) became well-known and well established to the day when Guru Nanak refused to wear the sacred thread and denounced the Varna Ashrama Dharrma /caste system and challenged the caste hierarchy – Dwijas (twice born Hindus: Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaishya) by declaring his solidarity with the Sudras and untouchables, and when he denounced the oppression of Muslim rulers and bigotry and intolerance of Islam in no uncertain terms.
PkV jwqI PkVu nwau ]
sBnw jIAw iekw Cwau ]
Awphu jy ko Blw khwey ]
nwnk qw pru jwpY jw piq lyKY pwey ]
Worthless is the caste and worthless is the status attached to it as the Protector of all is One. O Nanak, one may consider one-self high due caste status, but it is found out if it meets God’s approval.
AGGS, M 1, p. 83.
nIcw AMdir nIc jwiq nIcI hU Aiq nIcu]
nwnku iqn ky sMig swiQ vifAw isau ikAw rIs]
ijQY nIc smwlIAin iqQY nidr qyrI bKsIs]
Nanak will stand by the lowest of the lowest, not with the elite. Societies that take care of the downtrodden have the blessing of God.
AGGS, M 1, p. 15.
hku prwieAw nwnkw ausu sUAru ausu gwie ]
gur pIru hwmw qw Bry jw murdwru n Kwie ]
glI iBsiq n jweIAY CutY scu kmwie ]
mwrx pwih hrwm mih hoie hlwlu n jwie ]
nwnku glI kUVIeI kUVo plY pwie ]
To violate or usurp someone’s right or to take away something that rightfully belongs to others is like eating pork for a Muslim and beef for a Hindu. The Guru or pir (spiritual guide) would standby only if the follower does not make unlawful living. Mere talk does not lead to paradise; salvation lies in right conduct. If you add spice to unlawfully earned food, it does not become halal (lawful). O Nanak, falsehood begets only falsehood.
AGGS, M 1, p. 141.
kwdI kUVu boil mlu Kwie]
bRwhmx nwvY jIAw Gwie]
jogI jugiq n jwxY AMDu]
qIny EjwVy kw bMDu]
Qazi (Muslim justice) tells lies and takes bribes (instead of being the guardian of justice). The Brahman priest takes life (exploits ignorant parishioners and practices inhuman caste system), but bathes ceremoniously. The blind jogi (yogi) has lost his way in search of “tranquility” without knowing the truth. The three are spiritually barren.
AGGS, M 1, p. 662.
kil kwqI rwjy kwsweI Drmu pMK kir aufirAw]
kUV Amwvs scu cMdRmw dIsY nwhI kh ciVAw]
It is a murderous age, the kings are butchers and righteousness has taken on wings. It is the dark night of falsehood and the moon of truth do not rise anywhere.
AGGS, M 1, p. 145.
rwjy sIh mukdm kuqy]
jwie jgwiein bYTy suqy]
cwkr nhdw pwiein Gwau ]
rqu ipqu kuiqho cit jwhu]
The rulers are like tigers/lions and their officials as dogs, who harass and persecute the innocent subjects. The claws of the dogs (government servants) inflict wounds on the public. The rulers suck the blood of the public through these dogs who lick the wounds.
AGGS, M 1, p. 1288.
bwbw Alhu Agm Apwru ]
pwkI nweI pwk Qwie scw prvidgwru ] rhwau ]
qyrw hukmu n jwpI kyqVw iliK n jwxY koie ]
jy sau swier mylIAih iqlu n pujwvih roie ]
…
puiC n swjy puiC n Fwhy puiC n dyvY lyie ]
AwpxI kudriq Awpy jwxY Awpy krxu kryie ]
sBnw vyKY nidr kir jY BwvY qY dyie ]
O baba (Sir), Allah is unreachable and infinite (beyond human comprehension in totality). Sacred is Its name and sacred is Its abode and It is eternal and cherisher of all. Pause. Even the power of Its immutable Hukam (Cosmic Law) is indescribable, no one could write it down. If hundred poets get together to try to describe it they could not describe even a tiny bit of it after racking brains. … Allah does not consult anyone when It builds or destroys, or when It gives or takes away. Allah alone knows Its qudrat (power and creation - naturalism). It alone is the Doer. It watches over all kindly and provides them according to their needs.
AGGS, M 1, p. 53.
2. If Sikhs had no distinct identity then what criteria Mughals (Emperor Farrukhsiyar) used to eradicate Sikhs when he put price on the heads of Sikhs in the early 18th century (Sangat Singh. The Sikhs In History. New Delhi: Uncommon Books, 4th edition, 2001, pp. 93-95)? And how come upper caste Hindus benefitted the most by bringing cart-loads of Sikhs’ heads for reward? Were there any Hindus or Muslim who got killed in that campaign due to their mistaken identity with Sikhs?
May be this is an old example for Sikand! What about the killing of thousands of Sikhs throughout India by the Congress Government in 1984 after the assassination of Indira Gandhi? Why only Sikhs were pulled out of trains, buses and their homes and then lynched or burnt alive while the police looked the other way? Were their any Muslims or Hindus killed at that time due to their mistaken identity with Sikhs?
3. What are Oberoi’s persuasive arguments that influence Sikand to say, “There are claims and counter-claims over who exactly the Sikhs are and whether or not Sikhism can legitimately be seen as an independent religion?” Has Sikand studied Oberoi’s book “The Construction of Religious Boundaries: Culture, Identity and Diversity in the Sikh Tradition. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1994” and its rebuttal “Jasbir Singh Mann, Surinder Singh Sodhi, and Gurbakhsh Singh Gill (Eds.). Invasion of Religious Boundaries. Vancouver: Canadian Sikh Study & Teaching Society, 1995.” In his entire book Oberoi does not make a single quote from Aad Guru Granth Sahib (AGGS) to support his thesis. And that is what Sikand has done in his article.
I am a retired pharmaceutical research scientist and let me briefly mention the ethical guidelines necessary for publishing scholarly works: Scholar makes a thorough literature search on the subject focusing on the latest information. Scholar not only cites works that support his/her thesis but also cites works that contradicts his/her views/arguments. However, Sikand does no such a thing. He ignored the most authoritative and reliable recent works on Sikhism by (1) Jagjit Singh, The Sikh Revolution: A Perspective View. New Delhi: Bahri Publications, 4th reprint, 1998; and (2) Daljeet Singh, Sikhism: A Comparative Study of its Theology and Mysticism. Amritsar: Singh Brothers, 1994.
Moreover, Sikand has been publishing his articles on the SikhSpectrum since 2003 where I have critiqued W.H. McLeod’s writings on Sikhism (SikhSpectrum.com, August 2005), Doris Jakobsh’s work who earned her PhD under Harjot Oberoi and Harjot Oberoi’s The Construction of Religious Boundaries: Culture, Identity and Diversi Diversity in the Sikh Tradition. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1994.
In my critique of Jakobsh’s book, “Relocating Gender In Sikh History: Transformation, Meaning and Identity. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2003”, in chapter 1 I have dealt with the controversy over Harjot Oberoi’s appointment to the Sikh Chair at the British Columbia University and his unsuitability for the job and under Appendix B. I have given my critical appraisal of The Construction of Religious Boundaries: Culture, Identity and Diversity in the Sikh Tradition. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1994 (SikhSpectrum.com, November 2006). This article was republished as a separate article later on (SikhSpectrum.com, August 2007). It seems that Sikand ignored this information, which was readily available to him. Oberoi’s scholarship is devoid of academic norms, standards and ethics and, like a typical propagandist he has never responded to the criticism of his indefensible work.
Further, Sikand talks about the Sufi influence on Guru Nanak’s thoughts. Could Sikand point out any Sufi who condemned the Muslim rulers for committing atrocities on the Hindus and Sikhs and the bigotry and intolerance of Islam? Baba Bulle Shah is the only exception who witnessed the systematic extermination of Sikh population by Mughal rulers and their Hindu collaborators.
Finally, scholars respond to the criticism of their works in a professional manner, either acknowledging their errors or by defending their work with solid evidence and sound arguments. The integrity of one’s writings is of utmost importance to a writer or a scholar. Hence the ball is in Sikand’s court, and I look forward to his response.
This is another good article by Dr. Baldev Singh. His writings are based
on Gurbani and as such it is difficult to challenge. But majority of us
don't try to comprehend Gurbani and that is why we are now on crossroads
and quarrelsome amongst ourselves.
The very fact that Guru Nanak Sahib neither agreed to wear the Hindu Janeu
nor undergo Muslim circumcision ritual, clearly shows that Guru Nanak
Sahib was neither a Hindu nor a Muslim. He truly believed in the
Fatherhood of God and Brotherhood of the entire mankind without any
man made labels.
I find it interesting that like this article most other articles are
written by selfless authors. Their efforts are laudable because those
who earn their livelihood by writing books, they write according to the
trend set by others. I am sure S. Jarnail Singh will continue to share his
writings on this forum.
I have been involved with an organization called Nishkam Sikh Welfare
Council, and they are a making difference in the lives of Sikligar Sikh
children living in similar circumstances. By supporting Nishkam, you can
make a difference in these precious lives. Another great organization
that is making a real dent in poverty is Grameen Foundation.
In his paper Scheduled Castes in Sikh community: A historical perspective, Harish Puri has made a rudderless attempt that is neither cohesive nor coherent. His ideas start falling apart soon. Puri claims that people entered the panth with their castes intact and Gurus married their sons and daughters in khatri families. I think Puri is expecting our Gurus to have waved a magic wand in order to end the caste based social order. Please allow me to remind Mr. Puri that in 1893 New Zealand became the first self-governing country in the world to grant all women the right to vote in parliamentary elections. However it took more than 100 years before a woman became the prime minister of New Zealand. Does it mean that New Zealand did not, in practice, believe in gender equality? Absolutely not. Rather social changes take their own time.
But Puri states a fact to contradict his own idea as mentioned before when he states that Guru Nanak finally settled at Kartarpur and started land cultivation. According to Puri, cultivator jati fell in the category of shudra as per the varna order. Puri also mentions that Guru Angad took to the work of weaving ropes. If people were allowed to enter panth with their castes intact then why the Gurus would bother to do the jobs that were attributed to shudras especially when Puri claims that during those early years only khatris were the followers of the Gurus?
In the next paragraph, Puri quotes Irfan Habib claiming a peculiar jat culture first noticed in 7th century that he intermingles with everything Sikh including misals. However, Puri fails to find an answer to an assertion of Habib that jats inherited egalitarian traditions. Who did the jats inherit the egalitarian traditions from before coming into contact with Gurus? It is pertinent to ask this question because Puri also states that jats have maintained a 60-66 percent of the total Sikh population. With this large proportion, how a jat could be a noble, feudal, and a poor peasant at the same time? Puri does not develop his argument to explain this vicissitude.
Illogical ideas of Puri do not end here. He claims that colonial rulers considered 'natural leaders' for army that benefited the jats. Then how the same martial race principal could be applied to lower castes that were also recruited by the colonial rulers? Puri confuses the issue further by bringing in the topic of land ownership. He claims that only agriculture castes were given the right to own the land. But he also adds that mazhabi retired soldiers were given land and subsequently those mazhabis became 'agriculture castes'. If only agriculture castes were to own the land then why mazhabis were given land and not cash or gold instead by the colonial rulers?
Puri's argument about forbidden mazhabis at Golden Temple is also very weak. He is forgetting here that Golden Temple was controlled by mahants in those days when Gurdwara Reform Movement took place in 1920s. Puri also blames Singh Sabha for focusing only on schools and not on the uplifting of low castes. Puri needs to be reminded here that education is a great leveler and enlightener. I think Puri was yet again expecting a magic wand, this time from Singh Sabha, for an overnight solution to the caste problem.
Later in the paper, Puri blames jats for controlling SGPC. Puri should know that SGPC is a democratically elected body. If jats constitute 60-66 percent of Sikh population, they are bound to dominate a democratic body by default. Puri continues with his reckless ideas and blames Sikhs for Ambedkar not converting to Sikhism. May I ask Puri to please explain if Ambedkar was keen on converting why he did not convert in 1936? Who won him over later with the bauble of drafting Indian constitution?; a constitution that does not even guarantee bill of rights (see article http://www.sikhspectrum.com/052007/constitution.htm). Nevertheless, Ambedkar finally converted to become a Buddhist in 1956. Why a change of mind later?
Consequently, Puri cites Juergensmeyer to claim that communist party was a party of jat Sikhs. This is an oxymoron. Puri needs to elaborate who are the members of Akali Dal. Are there no Sikhs in Congress party? If it is a jat factor then how could a jat be a communist, Akali and a Congressi at the same time?
In conclusion, this paper is nothing more than belly dancing that does not have any academic value.
Editor- This is on going discussion and it gets updated when we receive further information. This discussion will be continued in the February 2008 issue of SikhSpectrum. All previous discussion on this topic are available at the following link : http://www.sikhspectrum.com/052007/neighbor.htm. Kindly also go through reader feedback on the past issues to read views sent to us.
_._._._._
Dear Editor,
So far this discussion was a great way to learn more about these two faiths. Why was it stopped?
It is good that the author has researched the background to Sikh Ardas.
What I would like to see from this research is what was the form of the
Ardas say in 1708? If the author can elaborate on this we can make progress in
the direction of fixing what may not be correct!
I found this article deeply insightful. A lot of the statistical data
presented here were revelations to me. I have studied Dharampal's book,
been deeply impressed by it, and have met him a few times. I even presented
a paper, but had not thought to do this kind of research! I also value and
endorse the perspective it moves from. I am definitely not, however, able to
endorse the scathing tone with reference to Gandhi.
I value that the writer of this article lives in India and has the
living experience to back what he says.
Editor- As requested several times in the past we ask all our readers to be specific while critiquing the views of various authors that are published on SikhSpectrum. We believe that the best way to educate our readers when you disagree with the author is to clearly state the reasons for disagreement with appropriate facts and references. Unless this level of clarity is present in your rebuttal the author is not in a position to address your concerns. If you believe that the author has erred in his analysis of Khushwant Singh, please clearly state what the author has written that makes him wrong. If you want to write a detailed rebuttal we will be pleased to publish it as long as it is has the relevant references to support your views.
_._._._._
Dear Editor,
I read the article on Khushwant singh and was disappointed by a narrow
ossified views of S. Baldev Singh ji. Khushwant singh is a Sikh with
great contributions to raising the awareness of the world towards Sikhs
and Sikhism and extensive literary contributions. We as Sikhs have been
been very inward looking and conservative, due to which we lost the
Sindhis and the Sehaj Dhaaris who believed in Gurunanak and still revere the Granth. And now we are loosing our young, future of the Khalsa because of narrow, limited and ossified thinking. How does it matter how Sikhism is defined, A sikh should be strong enough in his beliefs to be above this petty wrangling.
Guru Nanak was born to Hindu parents and proclaimed "Naa ko Hidu na ko
Muslmann" and I am sure if Guru was here today he will surely add to it, "Naa ko Sikh" Why do we get so perturbed by anybody's views on Sikhism, Sikh religion is above all that and must be strong enough to withstand all negative influences.
That brings me to another subject. Sikhs in Punjab in positions of power have done more damage to the Panth than the external enemies by having a closed mind and a narrow world view. "Manas ki Jaat Sabhai Ekai Pehchanbo" is what we are supposed to believe in and we say in our Ardaas, "Tere bhane sarbat da bhala" is an all inclusive good will for all living beings. Why do we fail to see this and believe in it. By limiting ourselves to narrow definitions of Sikhism we hurt ourselves and the Panth. It is almost a Brahminic behavior of exclusion of all else.
One of the worst things we have done to ourselves is destruction of our
heritage. One example is the demolition of the Thanda Burj at Fatehgarh
Sahib. I visited India a couple of years ago and was horrified to
discover that the place where Mata Gujari was imprisoned, the place where her hands touched the walls and the feet touched the floor. The place where she must have prayed for her grandsons has been demolished and replaced by a marble building. Can we ever bring back such important monuments that teach us of our history. Some greedy Sikhs get big contracts to demolish our heritage and replace it with useless buildings for the sordid purpose of making money. It is a sad story indeed. What ever Khushwant Singh or any one else says about Sikhism pales in comparison to the damage we do to our selves due to narrow mindedness and greed for money. There is an urgent need to improve our outlook as a community and reach out to others rather than exclude every non-Sikh from the fold. What happened to the Sehaj Dhaaris and Sindhi's is shame full indeed. Now we cannot even hold on to our young.
Please try and change our outlook and also raise awareness to our heritage and its preservation. My grandfather took me to the Thanda Burj and told me the story of Mata Gujari and the Chote Sahibzaade. We have robbed ourselves of our own history and a part of our heritage, and we will never be able to show our young the place where Mata Gujari and Chote Sahibzaade were imprisoned and gave up their lives to defend the faith.
We as Sikhs need to change our priorities and the erosion at the base of our religion otherwise Sikhism will only be history with no present or future.
Thank you for forwarding me the comments of Sumitra M. Gautama on my write-up Dharampal and The Beautiful Tree. I am glad that Gautama appreciates my article. After going through Gautama's comments I again read my article. I do not think I have been harsh on Gandhi though that seems to be the impression conveyed by the article to Gautama. In fact, I have a lot of respect for Gandhi, and his leadership and scholarship, though I disagree with him on several issues. My respect for Gandhi increased manifold after reading several volumes of his biography which I used for preparing a write-up "The Meaning of Vaikom" on the Vaikom Satyagraha led by Gandhi for temple entry of the lower castes. I have often tried to compare the great scholarship and social commitment of Gandhi and Ambedkar, though not with much success.
Gautama may be able to appreciate my views better if the article on The Beautiful Tree is placed in the context of the Gandhi-Ambedkar debate on Hinduism and the caste system. I have written on this, among other things, in my article Ambedkar's Legacy. That article, and the article on Vaikom Satyagraha are available in one of my recent books The Perfidies of Power: India in the New Millennium. It is an online publication and can be downloaded from the website of ideaindia.com (please enter my name in the search box on this website for locating the book).
My best wishes and warm greetings to you and to all the contributors to and readers of the SikhSpectrum.com for the New Year. SikhSpectrum has been doing a lot of good work in silence and with a lot of equanimity. I hope the contributions to it, the debate on the contributions, and the readership of the website will increase manifold in 2008.
Jasbinder Singh from UK has asked me about the form of Sikh Congregational Prayer (Ardas) during the time of Guru Gobind Singh (http://www.sikhspectrum.com/112005/ardas.htm ).
From the time of death of Guru Gobind Singh in 1708 to the last quarter of the nineteenth century when the Singh Sabha Movement was launched, whatever has been written about Sikh religion/theology and religious practices is by Udasis, Nirmalas and other persons of Brahmanical mind set i.e. the anti Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat) elements. The form described by McAuliffe is the form of Ardas that evolved after the death of Guru Gobind Singh and was in practice when McAuliffe wrote his magnum opus “The Sikh Religion” in the last quarter of the nineteenth century. I think in earlier times before 1708, most probably Ardas was the Sabad that is still recited after Ardas: tu thakar tum paih ardas. Jio pind sabh teri raas. … Nanak das sada kurbani.
As it happens,today I was going through some historical information about
partition of India. It struck me as quite a sad happening that Sardar
Baldev Singh, as a representative of Sikh community, did not or could not stake a
proper claim for sikhs at the time. Either he was too pliant or too self-centred to do justice to the platform he was given and as such let the
Sikh community down. It is not beyond a possibility that he was not
allowed to do anything different than what he actually did (a la Zail
Singh) but then he should have stepped aside to give opportunity to
someone else. Now we can only speculate as things have moved and obviously
cannot me reverted.
How unfortunate!
Regards,
- Kanwaljit Singh
I want to bring to Dr. Baldev Singh....
-Harmeet Singh, USA
from Harmeet Singh
Place: USA
Dear Editor,
I want to bring to Dr. Baldev Singh's and Col G.B. Singh's attention in response to very interesting feedback they posted about Bhagwad Gita (BG) in Issue No 16 of SikhSpectrum.
There is Sakhi of Guru Harkrishen amongst Sikhs that tells that when confronted by Brahmins, the Brahmins asked Guru Harkrishen to explain Gita "to test" if he is really spiritually enlightened (implying BG is the standard of enlightenment). Later, a person by the name of "Chaju" who was retarded astonishngly did it. If your assertion that BG never existed as a separate text until 1785 is true then the above mentioned story has to be false. Secondly, on Ang 874, Line 17 of Guru Granth Sahib, it says:
Thus prays Naam Dayv, and so says the Gita as well. ||5||2||6||
Editor-- Past discussion can be read at the following link: http://www.sikhspectrum.com/052007/neighbor.htm
_._._._._
Very clear, interesting replies from Rawl Singh. Where can I read the Reverend's
original 'discourse'?
Regards,
- Nishatro Sanghera
The sakhi about Guru....
-Baldev Singh, USA
from Baldev Singh
Place: USA
Ref: Harmeet Singh's letter
Dear Editor,
The sakhi about Guru Harkrishan is a hagiographic tale, and is not consistent with Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat).
Colonel GB Singh is correct that Bhagvad Gita did not exist as a separate text until 1785. In the Aad Guru Granth Sahib there is mention of Vedas, Puranas and Simrtis but no mention of Bhagvad Gita. Moreover, the word “gita” means song and in the verse quoted by Harmeet Singh, Bhagat Nam Dev advises a Brahman that the right way to realize God is to sing Its praise (reflect on the attributes God).
I really like this story. We had to read in English for our short stories
project. I feel that even though it is really short, it still has some
impact on what life was like during the Civil War and during other wars. I
feel that if I were to kill my sibling and didn't know it until they were
dead, I would feel horrible.
In response to the comments of the learned readers I would like to submit as under.
I thank S Gurmit Singh for his encouraging words.
In response the comments of S Rawel Singh, I would like to say that when I say God of Sikhism I do not mean that God is a personal property of Sikhs, all I mean is the concept of God as described in Gurmat. This certainly is different from other religions. I understand that he also agrees with this. God has not changed, what has changed is our understanding of God. (And I am indebted to our Guru for that). I am sure the issue will get further clarified as we go ahead in our understanding of Jap in the coming issues of SikhSpectrum.
Yes, I use It for God to denote that It does not have a gender. Rawel Singh's suggestions about the explanation of Nirbhau and Nirbair are well taken. Thanks. I agree with you that Mool Manter is not a part of Jap, but it is part of none of the other verses in GGS. As I said it is an abstract of the entire GGS and has been embedded as priceless diamond in the entire texture of GGS to guide the reader towards an accurate understanding of the verses that follow. So in my humble opinion, the understanding of Jap has to start from here.
I want to say thank you....