Is Sikhism Succumbing to Fundamentalism?

There were riots across northern India last week after a shooting at a Sikh temple in Austria resulted in the death of a sect leader and, given that Punjabi culture is something I bang on about on occasion, it wasn't surprising, I suppose, that a couple of news producers rang, asking me to put the disturbances into context.

I declined because: (a) as a community we are only just learning to talk about ourselves, and too often any kind of commentary is taken as criticism; (b) commenting about religion is a dangerous business when people are being killed and one has absolutely no theological authority; (c) I feel about broadcasting the way many feel about general anaesthetic (you should do it only when you absolutely need to); but mainly because (d) it's quite hard to explain what Sikhism actually stands for.

You see, one of the founding principles of the monotheistic religion, established in the late 15th century by Guru Nanak, was opposition to Hinduism's oppressive caste system. Yet the world's fifth largest organised religion has a caste system of its own, with differences between Jat Sikhs (a group that I belong to and which makes up about two thirds of Sikh society) and non-Jat castes, such as the Ramgarhias, remaining a source of political, social and religious tension.

Even in Britain you'll find different Sikh temples belonging to different groups on the same road, and - according to some media reports last week, many of them disputed by the groups involved - the violence in Austria was sparked after orthodox Sikhs from one caste objected to preachers from another caste being disrespectful towards the Sikh Holy Book.

Also, officially, Sikhs don't worship human beings, since Guru Gobind Singh, the tenth Sikh guru, named Guru Granth Sahib, the Holy Book, as his successor. But certain Sikh sects do believe in living human gurus, some mainstream Sikh families revere spiritual figures and ancestors, and - according to some media reports, again disputed by the groups involved - the violence in Austria was sparked when members of a certain sect gave the Guru Granth Sahib pride of place next to photographs and idols of their own human "gurus".

Then there's the issue of booze. Officially, Sikhs don't drink, and some families don't even allow alcohol to be kept in their houses.

But as the academics Gurharpal Singh and Darshan Singh Tatla point out in Sikhs in Britain: The Making of a Community: "Consumption of alcohol has always been high among Sikhs, with the per capita rate among Sikhs of Punjab among the highest in the world" and "a particularly distinctive feature of British Sikh society today" being "the high rate of alcoholism among males . . . Consumption rates are higher than in any other ethnic minority and in the white community."
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/hard-talk/25346-is-sikhism-succumbing-to-fundamentalism.html

There are other contradictions. Sikhs are meant to adopt the name "Singh", meaning "lion", as a way of encouraging equality (one's caste can often be identified by a surname), but many of us use it only as a middle name. The Gurus declared men and women to be equal, but Punjabi culture is highly patriarchal. Sikhism is the only major world religion that acknowledges that other religions are a valid way of reaching God, but some believers risk being disowned for marrying outside of their religion.

Also, Sikhs, partly as a result of having no clergy (the idea is that everyone can be directly in touch with God without priests) and partly as a result of factionalism, have never been very good at building institutions to represent them, and yet have had great success campaigning on issues such as the right to wear the turban, so much so that Sikhs can legally ride a motorbike with a turban instead of a helmet. When, the other week, the police announced that they were developing a bulletproof turban, apart from a few tiresome jokes about the "turbanator", there were almost no objections from any quarters. Imagine the fuss there would have been if the religious headwear in question had been a burka.

And if there is anything that epitomises the fluidity of Sikhism, it is the turban. Long hair, beards and colourful headwear are synonymous with the religion - I kept my own hair unshorn until the age of 14 - but if you ask any Sikh why they keep their hair uncut, they will give you a different answer.

Some say that it's a way of showing respect for the God-given form; some that it is a way of expressing love for God (like a married person would wear a wedding ring); some link it to intelligence, health and spirituality; some say that Guru Gobind Singh made the keeping of unshorn hair mandatory to give Sikhs a binding identity. There are others who will argue that long hair isn't actually necessary to be a that Sikh.

In fact, a great many Sikhs, if not the majority, don't have long hair and don't sport turbans. And those with turbans are not necessarily hugely religious: I know one turbaned man who runs that most un-Sikh of things, an English pub; another who started wearing a turban simply because he had developed a bald patch; another who is actually an atheist.

As it happens, I don't think that these ambiguities are necessarily a problem. Such issues crop up with all organised religions, and for me, and I am a believer, the massive variation in observance is appealing, as you're basically left to define your own religiosity. Not least, it's an expression of another of Sikhism's fundamental teachings, that empty ritual is meaningless, and it ensures that believers concentrate on the things that really matter, namely "Nam simran" (meditation on and awareness of God) and "Sewa" (community service).
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=25346

But the concerning thing about last week's events is that we seem to have another contradiction developing. This most modern and liberal of world religions, which allows its believers to develop their own relationship with God, is developing a fundamentalist streak, with certain people determined to tell others what to believe and how to believe it, under pain of death if necessary.


About the Autor: Sathnam Sanghera
Sathnam Sanghera writes for The Times. After graduating from Cambridge University in 1998, he joined the Financial Times, where he worked as its chief feature writer and a weekly columnist. His first book, The Boy With The Topknot: A Memoir of Love, Secrets and Lies in Wolverhampton, is published by Penguin

 
Do share your immediate thoughts or reactions on this issue? We value your views! Login Now! or Sign Up Today! to share your views with us.. Gurfateh!

__________________

The Pendulum is definitely swinging...way OUT...One side the Fundamentals...Matt Bhitteh ve matt bhittehs...and the other side...no hair, no turban..no gurbani..no punjabi...NOTHING
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=25346
Very little Middle Ground..Moderation...

Gyani ji

The article is very refreshing. But your comments also mark some truth. Oh my! Where does that leave me in the scheme of things? Are there any pals out there? Help!!!! Or is Waheguru the one who will throw the lifeline .....

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa..Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh...
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=25346

even my friends comment "being as a Sikh you don't drink alcohol and eat meat".... I tell them I am a veg..and Alcohol is not a part of Sikhism...

But thats true...we Sikhs are number 1 in consumption of Alcohol............its bitter...but true.............

Chardi Kala..........

Hi,

With regards to the question in hand, No, I do not believe that Sikhi is succumbing to Fundamentalism.

btw, for me Fundamentalism means something like Hizb-ut-Tahrir and The Sikhs are nowhere near that, as far as i can tell anyway.

wrt to the article, i can only say that i read it with interest.

For me there was nothing in there that pointed to Fundamentalism. If anything, it spoke of the variety that life has to offer and i would say had tone of dissapointed naivity.

It is a shame that the Brother who wrote this article is not here to engage in some dialog regarding the issues raised.

My first concern would be that we, including the Brother, are frankly quite judgemental and have no room for manouver. Generally speaking of course.

There is diversity in life and different people value different things. I for example hold Ethics over Money, but another person may not. Would it be right of me to argue with this person or visa-versa?

We are ridge and like the Tree in the Wind will crack when the Pressure picks up as we have no flexability in us if we continue down this path.

I have never really understood why Sikhs are so concerned that every single individual subscribe to their version, understanding and level of comfort with Sikhi.

Answering some points raised:

...Yet the world's fifth largest organised religion has a caste system of its own

The Caste system has been established for over 1000 years and is part of the very psyche of every single Person who is of Asian origin. It is practiced in other Dharmas also, such as Islam, even though they do not allow it either.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=25346
The Followers have simply reached an equilibrium that they were comfortable with so that they could operate in their society. Clearly, depending on their upbringing and Dharma, this will have different effects on the person.

To drive the point home, if i were to ask weather the Author or the Article was of Working ,Middle or Upper class origin, i feel that he would be able to answer within a heart beat as this is part of the British psyche.

Please note I am not defending the caste system, but simply explaining that something that has/is been practiced for over 1000 years is not going to vanish over night.

As we all know, Sikhi teaches that one should not follow the caste system:

"Recognize the Lord's Light within all, and do not consider social class or status; there are no classes or castes in the world hereafter. ||1||Pause||"

Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji Ang 349

Even in Britain you'll find different Sikh temples belonging to different groups on the same road.

And the same is found in other Dharma's. Let us take Christianity as an example now. There is a church down the road from my Gurdwara where there are the followers are of Black origin and move up the road and only White people go there. Ofcourse they do intermingle, but by and large, Black people stick together as do the white people.

This can be found up and down the streets of Britain also, but i have never seen an issue raised about this in the same way.

But certain Sikh sects do believe in living human gurus, some mainstream Sikh families revere spiritual figures and ancestors

Certain Muslims beleive that divine revelation will continue until the end of time even though according to Islamic belief Mohammed was apparently the last prophet.

Source: Ahmadiyya Sect, Islam

And Chinese Worship Ancestors also.

Source: In the Middle Kingdom - Religion

Dharma is 'pure' but is mixed with the local understanding and it comes out in a particular way. These things will happen.

I for example do Buddhist Meditation and everytime i enter the building, i touch the floor and then touch my Pugh. This is not a Buddhist practice, but something that has come over from my Sikh and Punjabi upbringing which i am incredibly proud of.
I do not think it would be right if someone stopped me doing that just beucase it does not fit with the Buddhists view of how i should conduct myself.

Then there's the issue of booze. Officially, Sikhs don't drink...[But] "Consumption of alcohol has always been high among Sikhs, with the per capita rate among Sikhs of Punjab among the highest in the world"

This is strange topic as i am of the belief that this has infact been engineered by others who wish to see our destruction.

Having spoken to many elders i did ask if Sikhs always drunk like we known to today and the overwhelming response is always no. Yes, we are known to have the ability to hold our drink, but never to such ridiculous excesses.

There were never as many Alcohol shops per square metre as there are today in Punjab, and Amritsar alone generates Rs1 Crore for the goverment alone a day.
Also when Organisations are setup no support is given by the goverment.

Source: Drug Addiction in Punjab - 3HO SuperHealth | MrSikhNet
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=25346

In the same way that the Sikhs have the ability to laugh at themselves, this too has been taken to such extremes by others that we are now having to fight for our respect and dignity.

There are other contradictions. Sikhs are meant to adopt the name "Singh", meaning "lion", as a way of encouraging equality (one's caste can often be identified by a surname), but many of us use it only as a middle name.

This is the manisfestation of the psyche coming out again and one has to understand that people will do these things, me included.

The Gurus declared men and women to be equal, but Punjabi culture is highly patriarchal.

There is currently a vacum for teaching the Dharma in a meaningful way and add to this that women have not really been treated fairly by men all over the world. Sikhs of Punjab have to learn like everyone else. Rome was not built in a Day as the saying goes.

I could go on, but i believe that the point has been made.

My best regards,

Lotus

The author comes from a poor background in Wolverhampton. He father was a Paranoid Schiziophrenic. He has done very well for himself but in his own account of his life (a good read btw), he describes himself as a coconut. He had kesh growing up but cut it as a teenager.
Actually, given his background I was quite shocked to read how he has no friends from a working class background (he says as much). He seemed almost proud of it? Seeing as the vast majority of his own family will be from this background, it is surprising. I guess we can call him a snob. Probably trying to hard to get away from his past now that he has moved from grim Wolverhampton to London.


Good luck to him anyway.

:d

Kee tera ristadaar lug da Amar?