Is Democracy Approved In Sikhism?

[AngloSikhPeace]

If it's a way of life, it must have some opinion? No?

The way I see it, the 'Sikh' form of government should be one that's based on Sikh principles and beliefs. Rather than merely a Sikh state for Sikhs with a Sikh king or a Sikh PM, with all the legislating done by granthis or something, the Sikh state should be a secular one, but based on the principles and philosophy of our Gurus. This has always been the case, there has never been a single, prescribed government type for Sikhs. In Guruji's times, Sikhs had a theocracy. In the Banda Singh Bahadur period, there was a sort of communist/collectivist agrarian rule. The Misls were a very loose confederacy. the Sikh Raj was an absolute monarchy.

By 'based on Sikh principles and beliefs' I mean that whilst the state is outwardly a secular one like the rest, its ideas and ideology should be constructed with Guruji's guidance in mind. For example, Sikhi emphasises over and over again the importance of Sewa, selfless service to the community (not just the poor, or the needy, or other Sikhs, but the whole world). In a Sikh state, therefore, projects such as an NHS, or an effective armed forces, or community service/environmental work for the young, would all be instituted. Guruji also teaches self-determination and the right of everyone to have a voice in the Sangat. So a Sikh state should hold elections and adopt a government type that allows participation in politics for everyone from the common classes to the rich.

In fact, rather than merely hoping for some sort of Sikh Khalistan, we should work towards persuading society as a whole to honour Guruji's teachings in this way. There is nothing communal or intolerant in this, we are not asking others to follow our religion, but merely trying to persuade others to agree with our points of view (as is normal for everyone to do). A country may be majority-Christian, or majority-Hindu, or even majority-Muslim, but if they agree with and implement the same progressive values that Guruji teaches then that is a victory for Khalsa Raj. I personally think that this will be the way Khalsa Raj is achieved: not merely by the expansion of our religion and way of life, but by the expansion of the philosophies and ideas contained in our religion.

Anyway, that's just my two cents on the matter.

 

[Ishna]

AngloSikhPeace ji

the Sikh state should be a secular one, but based on the principles and philosophy of our Gurus.

This is an oxy{censored}. You can't have a secular government based on a spiritual philosophy.

Also I'm not sure one can institutionalise 'seva'. It's not really seva anymore, as seva is done with a voluntary spirit. You can't govern or institutionalise that. I may have missed your point though.

I'm of the very strong opinion that "religion" and government should be kept far, far, FAR apart.

Khalistan is not a Sikh issue but a Punjabi cultural one IMHO.

 

[harmanpreet singh]

AngloSikhPeace ji



This is an oxy{censored}. You can't have a secular government based on a spiritual philosophy.

Also I'm not sure one can institutionalise 'seva'. It's not really seva anymore, as seva is done with a voluntary spirit. You can't govern or institutionalise that. I may have missed your point though.

I'm of the very strong opinion that "religion" and government should be kept far, far, FAR apart.

Khalistan is not a Sikh issue but a Punjabi cultural one IMHO.

Ishna ji i feel you misunderstood Anglosikhpeace ji ..

 

[AngloSikhPeace]

AngloSikhPeace ji



This is an oxy{censored}. You can't have a secular government based on a spiritual philosophy.

When I say 'secular' I mean in the same way that the USA or the European countries are secular: they allow full rights and freedoms for all the religions and points of view, but their laws are, deep down, based upon the Christian 10 Commandments. Some of those have fallen by the wayside (eg there are rarely laws against idolatry, and 'coverting thy neighbour' is quite popular), but that's where the ideas originated.
So in a state based on the Sikh religion, there would be full rights for people of all creeds. But the laws of the country would be set out in a way that honours and encourages the values of the Gurus: compassion, mercy, determination, contentment, justice and equality.

Also I'm not sure one can institutionalise 'seva'. It's not really seva anymore, as seva is done with a voluntary spirit. You can't govern or institutionalise that. I may have missed your point though.

I'm not talking about institutionalising seva itself, like having langar halls run by the state or something. But instead, creating and supporting institutionalised systems based on the ethos of seva. Like the NHS, or the National Park system, or the police services. All of those are institutions that rely upon voluntary efforts (in addition to paid labour of course), depend upon the selflessness of the people working for them, and serve the community at large.

I'm of the very strong opinion that "religion" and government should be kept far, far, FAR apart.

It is possible on one level to separate Church and State. The US Constitution is pretty clear about it, as is the French one. But there are two problems with that.
1. All states, even secular ones, are based upon a set of ideas and ideologies. Where do these ideas come from? Thinkers and philosophers. And their ideas, their thoughts, are always influenced by their religious beliefs (or lack of belief). The French Revolution was influenced by atheism and other radical anti-religious movements, for example. The American Revolution was influenced by more moderate religious believers, such as the Deists. The Glorious Revolution in England had a very strong Protestant undercurrent, and the earlier English Civil War too featured heavy involvement by fanatical Puritans. Whilst you can make a state behave in a neutral manner to different religious believers, you can't separate ideology from religion.
2. Where does that leave the UK? Despite having no separation of Church and State the UK is one of the freest countries in the world, definitely with more religious freedom than the USA.

Khalistan is not a Sikh issue but a Punjabi cultural one IMHO.

I personally don't really find it a religious issue, but it is exclusively a Sikh national issue. You won't find Muslim Khalistanis in west Panjab.
Anyway, I'm definitely not strongly in favour of Khalistan. I range between 'it would be a complete catastrophe' and 'it might be necessary, but it would still be bad'. I prefer the idea of self-determination (ie the right to referenda on independence and other issues) for the Panjabi people rather than an exclusively Sikh state.

But anyway, that's a whole different debate.

 

[Harry Haller]

Ishna ji i feel you misunderstood Anglosikhpeace ji ..

well then thats two of us that have misunderstood, why should a Sikh government enforce Sikh values? Should Sikh values even be enforced? Surely the best Sikh government would be one that governed well, and had equality for all, or we risk going down the road of the taliban.

A Hindu, Muslim, or even a Satanist should all be happy and fulfilled in an ideal Sikh government, the only way to do that would be govern and not dictate.

 

[harmanpreet singh]

well then thats two of us that have misunderstood, why should a Sikh government enforce Sikh values?

Anglosikhpeace nowhere says enforcement of Sikh valves .

 

[AngloSikhPeace]

well then thats two of us that have misunderstood, why should a Sikh government enforce Sikh values? Should Sikh values even be enforced? Surely the best Sikh government would be one that governed well, and had equality for all, or we risk going down the road of the taliban.

A Hindu, Muslim, or even a Satanist should all be happy and fulfilled in an ideal Sikh government, the only way to do that would be govern and not dictate.

When have I said that?

A government based on Sikhi should not legislate or force the individual people to accept Sikh values. But its own decisions and efforts should be based on the Sikh philosophy. Look at the examples I've given. They aren't things like 'the government should tell people not to cut their hair' or 'the government should outlaw cow slaughter' or 'the government should make Gurbani mandatory in schools.' Instead, I am saying that a Sikh government should support and create institutions that agree with the philosophy of Sikhi. Like an effective healthcare system. Or working environmental protections. Or a truly representative and fair democracy.

 

[Ishna]

Thanks so much for expanding your ideas ASP Ji.

I agree that government should be based on a good ethical framework. Sikhi provides that par excellance. But to call it a 'Sikh state' or a 'government based on Sikh values' is dangerous IMHO. Can't it jsut be a government based on the very best values, without mention of religion? The moment you say 'Sikh values' the whole thing becomes subjective - look at how many different kinds of Sikhs you find already, and different types of Sikhism!! We can't even agree on one Maryada, and that's just for US!

Government should be blind to religion and should be guided by purely secular, universal ethics applicable to the entire planet.

Again I may be misunderstanding you and if so I apologise.

 

[choochoochan]

This "secular" sikh state, would it be a democratically elected one, or a mainly theocratic one?

The area of jurisprudence is one area that may aid in some understanding of this. There are many schools of thoughts, but i am more inclined to adhere to Dworkin's thesis on the whole issue. The crux of the whole issue is : why would anyone observe the rule of law? Ethical reasons? Natural law? By that, surely all humans follow the same ethical code? That's after all, what makes us human. In that sense, i don't think it necessary for a religiosity to be imposed on anything, the ethical code or whatever. Only in primitive civilizations, would this be necessary. None of our current civilizations are that primitive anymore. Our ethical code, every one's, Muslim, Atheist, Christian, Sikh..should more or less be the same.