• Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
    Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
    Sign up Log in

The Cancer of Liberalism and Marxism Among Sikhs

Premise:

For all their bitter wranglings of a generational gap, it cannot be denied that the post-partition generation of boomer thugs has grossly failed the Sikh youth owing to their inability to enhance Sikh societal values. The generation that established the precedents of depleting Gurudwara property for their own benefits, diluting Sikh spiritualism with vacuous enlightenment era secular spiritualism, and alienating the youth from Panthic natalism hypocritically cry foul today.

And it is this elderly generation that has accrued the infamy of sundering apart the Sikh moral fabric to the extent that morally antithetical and spiritually unclean ideologies such as feminism, liberalism, Marxism, socialism, and social justice warrior brigandry have entrenched themselves in the hearts and minds of the misguided Sikh youth who are forced to seek societal solace elsewhere because their own roots are concealed from them by avaricious whitebeards.

Such is the venomous miasma of these ‘geezers’ that rather than confess to their failings and depart with whatever shred of dignity they have remaining intact, these emasculated and frail relics of a bygone era would rather make a last stand on the dung heap of the model minority obsoletion through which they defang the young tigers of the Gurus. And their ultimate tool? A subtle but pernicious alliance between liberalism and Marxism that has come to define Sikhi today.

Diaspora:

The impacts of ideological mismatching are nowhere more evident than in the Sikh diaspora today where under contradictory ideologies and dogmas, the western Sikhs’ movements often duly collapse. The sole exception of the Khalistan movement and its survival are hinged on the fact that the initial generation of militants from the 1980s onwards while partially colluding with Marxists, also evolved into their sworn foes thus delineating clear boundaries.

However, these boundaries are today at the risk of being overwritten. This is especially observable in Gurudwaras within India and abroad where intellectual apathy in terms of crystallizing Sikh ethics and proselytizing among Sikhs and non-Sikhs alike has generated a vacuum that has been rapidly plugged by the nefarious collusion of leftwing ideologues and their ideologies seeking to hijack Sikh norms to their advantage and Utopian delusions.

Could the boomer generation have rectified this? With the exception of a few stalwart intellectuals, the rest were prone to shifting their loyalties for individual gain and inimically mitigating the unique religiopolitical doctrines of the Gurus for the latest western societal trends. Essentially, they willingly dismantled the robust defenses incorporated by the Gurus within the Khalsa framework leading to its ultimate disenfranchisement ergo our dire straits today.

The Issue:

Evidentially, while liberalism and Marxism may have superficial similarities with Sikhi the question becomes that when do these similarities cease to exist with other beliefs and philosophies? One can make the same abstract deductions for any other faith and argue likewise. Realistically speaking, these alleged similarities with Sikhi only exist among ivory tower intellectuals and not profoundly. Neither liberalism nor Marxism are a substitute for the path of the Gurus.

The fact that our youth are blindly falling for such regressive delusions substantiates the failure of our institutional systems, under their boomer overlords, to send these deranged ideologies packing. The more galling fact that this is highly prevalent in the west that was supposed to be a safeguard for Sikhi and Sikh rights further proves the inaptness of the boomers in differentiating between fact and fiction.

The British era generation of Sikh intellectuals, with a few notable exceptions, coopted evolving terms such as “liberalism” to describe Sikhi’s stance on equity foregoing the fact that in Sikhi equity is rooted in effort and not prerogative or privilege. The enlightenment era equity of some total deserved equality is not housed within Sikhi as Sikh equality is earned by effort and not right. This is furthermore evidenced by Sikhi’s definition of a human:

ਮਾਣਸ ਜਨਮੁ ਦੁਲੰਭੁ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਪਾਇਆ ॥

ਮਨੁ ਤਨੁ ਹੋਇ ਚੁਲੰਭੁ ਜੇ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਭਾਇਆ ॥੧॥

ਚਲੈ ਜਨਮੁ ਸਵਾਰਿ ਵਖਰੁ ਸਚੁ ਲੈ ॥

ਪਤਿ ਪਾਏ ਦਰਬਾਰਿ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਸਬਦਿ ਭੈ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥

ਮਨਿ ਤਨਿ ਸਚੁ ਸਲਾਹਿ ਸਾਚੇ ਮਨਿ ਭਾਇਆ ॥

ਲਾਲਿ ਰਤਾ ਮਨੁ ਮਾਨਿਆ ਗੁਰੁ ਪੂਰਾ ਪਾਇਆ ॥੨॥

ਹਉ ਜੀਵਾ ਗੁਣ ਸਾਰਿ ਅੰਤਰਿ ਤੂ ਵਸੈ ॥

ਤੂੰ ਵਸਹਿ ਮਨ ਮਾਹਿ ਸਹਜੇ ਰਸਿ ਰਸੈ ॥੩॥

ਮੂਰਖ ਮਨ ਸਮਝਾਇ ਆਖਉ ਕੇਤੜਾ ॥

ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਹਰਿ ਗੁਣ ਗਾਇ ਰੰਗਿ ਰੰਗੇਤੜਾ ॥੪॥

ਨਿਤ ਨਿਤ ਰਿਦੈ ਸਮਾਲਿ ਪ੍ਰੀਤਮੁ ਆਪਣਾ ॥

ਜੇ ਚਲਹਿ ਗੁਣ ਨਾਲਿ ਨਾਹੀ ਦੁਖੁ ਸੰਤਾਪਣਾ ॥੫॥

ਮਨਮੁਖ ਭਰਮਿ ਭੁਲਾਣਾ ਨਾ ਤਿਸੁ ਰੰਗੁ ਹੈ ॥

ਮਰਸੀ ਹੋਇ ਵਿਡਾਣਾ ਮਨਿ ਤਨਿ ਭੰਗੁ ਹੈ ॥੬

ਗੁਰ ਕੀ ਕਾਰ ਕਮਾਇ ਲਾਹਾ ਘਰਿ ਆਣਿਆ ॥

ਗੁਰਬਾਣੀ ਨਿਰਬਾਣੁ ਸਬਦਿ ਪਛਾਣਿਆ ॥੭॥

ਇਕ ਨਾਨਕ ਕੀ ਅਰਦਾਸਿ ਜੇ ਤੁਧੁ ਭਾਵਸੀ ॥

ਮੈ ਦੀਜੈ ਨਾਮ ਨਿਵਾਸੁ ਹਰਿ ਗੁਣ ਗਾਵਸੀ ॥੮॥੧॥੩॥


“To be human is impossible, but the Gurmukh (the truly enlightened individual) becomes human. Their entire mind and body are remade when they immerse themselves within the divine truth. They tread onwards improving their lives while retailing the truth. In their Maker’s true court, they are honoured due to the injunctive words of the divine truth they adhere to. Their minds and bodies are rendered praiseworthy due to the truth as the truth roots itself in their minds.

It is when the mind is lovingly immersed that it becomes pliable and accepts the true Guru. When one starts living virtuously it is then that you (the Maker) start residing within. And with your presence now firmly established within the mind, it sets itself at ease. But the mind is foolish and must be taught that the entire affair is prolonged. The Gurmukh imbibes your virtues and is forever immersed in your colours.

Forever and ever, the Gurmukh preserves their loyalty to you their beloved. And if one treads forward virtuously then no torment can affect them. The unenlightened beast, the Manmukh, forgets this reality and is mired by doubt and fails to accept the truth. For him, death is alien and thus he ruins his mind and body. Only accrue that which the Guru emphasizes and reap the riches returned. This Gurbani (the SGGS) is immortal and acknowledge its injunctions thus.

Nanak has but one request that if you so will it, then bless all seekers with your Naam to change them for the better and so we will continue to sing of your virtues forever.”

-Guru Granth, 751-752.

It becomes evident from reading the above that the Sikh view of equality is derived from responsibility and an unflinching belief in transcendental divine authority rather than biological quirks and intellectual squabbles over the enforced oneness of man. Content wise, this is more closer to John Rawlins definition of equity being fairness rather than oneness as only fairness can enforce a modicum of oneness in an otherwise disparate existence.

Thus the liberal notion of total human equity rooted in the equality of outcome rather than opportunity runs contrary to the constitutional matrix of Sikh society, Gurbani, that bequeathed by divine wisdom establishes that biological equality does not extend to societal equality and each man is responsible for his own equality by shouldering his own burdens. This, then, is the issue that the boomer generation of yesteryear has failed to comprehend and act to ameliorate.

From Utopia to Dystopia:

Much like liberals and Marxists of other denominations, Sikh liberals and Marxists too hypocritically argue that any institutional failings on their part do not reflect the innate contradictions and discrepancies of their ideologies. Spectacular outbursts of professional victimhood are followed by “they are not Marxist enough” or, in emulation of their unholy Islamist allies, “they do not comprehend who we are properly” whitewashings.

One might inquire as to the logic behind clubbing liberals and Marxists together considering their own avowed opposition to each other. As Yoram Hazony articulates in his 2022 book Conservatism: A Study, liberalism is as much the ideological stormtrooper of Marxism as Vaishnavism is the osmosis vehicle of Sanataan chauvinism. It is natural for liberal societies to regress into Marxist hellholes because Marxism exploits the inherent weaknesses in liberalism.

Marxism, by design, captures certain elements missing from enlightenment-era liberalism by virtue of the fact that while liberalism tends to demur from conflict, Marxism invites it. Other than John Stuart Mill, Considerations on Representative Government, justifying the enslavement of non-liberal communities the stormtroopers of liberalism have often been more softer in their approach given their emasculation by their own ideology.

Obviously, Marx plagiarized off the natural economic conflict theories of his time thus lending some credibility to his rationale that ruling groups perceive themselves to be right and rebellious groups to be wrong. Liberalism, strikingly, instills unnecessary guilt among its subscriptive society opening it to a prolonged self-annihilation. Hazony synthesizes these two realities to evince that not all conflicts inevitably imply the overthrow of the guilt-stricken tyrants.

It is a fact, and a hard one at that for Marxists, that not every conflict is oppressive or that every group conflict must necessitate the overthrow of some “oppressive class” by the underdog just because Marx believed it so. Nor must every dominant community or society be encouraged to feel guilty at its sanguinary path to power carved by its forefathers as the liberals slavishly cry for. And more importantly, how is the perfect society to be delivered post-conflict?

Neither liberalism nor Marxism have ever established how a perfect Utopia is to come into existence sans conflict after the overthrow of the tyrant. It is no wonder then that both liberals and Marxists of the Punjabi denomination run to the Sikh corner to avail themselves of Sikhi’s societal construction mechanism, but only effectively cherry-picking what they deem to be integrative with their unclean beliefs while ignoring the requisite Sikh-led micro foundations.

Thus the liberal-Marxist Utopia regresses into dystopia when it is transferred from the reams of paper they pledge it on into cold-hard practicality which effectively rubbishes its fantastical contours. But the cognitive dissonance of self-proclaimed Sikh liberals and Sikh Marxists does not end there much like their wholly liberal and wholly Marxist counterparts. Neither are willing to confess their obtuseness in the face of grim reality.

Unholy Alliances:

What makes liberalism and Marxism natural bedfellows (and this extends far behind the sexual degeneracy of both) is liberalism’s pursuit of equality and freedom. While Sikh boomers will of course be smiling to themselves crying “gotcha!” here, let us delve further into what exactly equality and freedom mean in the Sikh sense and how they differ from the liberal variations.

ਗਰਭ ਵਾਸ ਮਹਿ ਕੁਲੁ ਨਹੀ ਜਾਤੀ ॥ ਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਬਿੰਦੁ ਤੇ ਸਭ ਉਤਪਾਤੀ ॥੧॥ ਕਹੁ ਰੇ ਪੰਡਿਤ ਬਾਮਨ ਕਬ ਕੇ ਹੋਏ ॥ ਬਾਮਨ ਕਹਿ ਕਹਿ ਜਨਮੁ ਮਤ ਖੋਏ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ ਜੌ ਤੂੰ ਬ੍ਰਾਹਮਣੁ ਬ੍ਰਹਮਣੀ ਜਾਇਆ ॥ ਤਉ ਆਨ ਬਾਟ ਕਾਹੇ ਨਹੀ ਆਇਆ ॥੨॥ ਤੁਮ ਕਤ ਬ੍ਰਾਹਮਣ ਹਮ ਕਤ ਸੂਦ ॥ ਹਮ ਕਤ ਲੋਹੂ ਤੁਮ ਕਤ ਦੂਧ ॥੩॥ ਕਹੁ ਕਬੀਰ ਜੋ ਬ੍ਰਹਮੁ ਬੀਚਾਰੈ ॥ ਸੋ ਬ੍ਰਾਹਮਣੁ ਕਹੀਅਤੁ ਹੈ ਹਮਾਰੈ ॥੪॥੭॥

“When one exists within the womb, he has no caste. By the will of the divine Master, all humans are conceived from sperm. So tell me then Pandit, how and when did you become high-caste? Calling yourself and your fraternity high-caste, you only forfeit your current existence. If indeed your high-caste mother passed on this high-caste status to you via blood then why did you not come from some other way (than the womb)? What makes you high-caste and me your subordinate? If I have blood in my veins than are yours flowing with milk? Kabir declares that only the one who contemplates and adheres to the true divine authority is worthy of being considered high and none other.”

-Guru Granth, 324.

As this verse clarifies, the state of equality or even highness is achieved via effort and adherence to the transcendental authority of Akal as biological oneness does not denote anything besides how and where one is born. True merit or demerit is accrued by acts and efforts. Not by birth alone. In the liberal equation, birth lends one equality and freedom. Not equality of opportunity or the freedom to increase responsibility and select one’s reaction to their existential circumstances.

Rather, equality to maximize one’s materialistic choices and freedom from all obligations and responsibilities other than what one may sparingly accept from time-to-time. Marxists, parasitically, latch onto these two conceptions because the Marxist equation provisions an endless supply of so-called examples of unfreedoms and inequalities because Marx never comprehended that limitations on liberty are a natural byproduct of human societal existence and access to fairness.

And just as Sikh liberals paved the way for Sikh Marxists to hijack Sikh spiritualism and civil rights movements from the 70’s onwards, so too do the current crop of liberals after being embarrassed by their inability to achieve Utopia believing that Marxism’s more confrontational tendencies can furnish what they fail to achieve. It is only natural then for liberals to engineer their own fall and allow Marxists to take over and tyrannize non-conformists.

Appeals:

Critical theory, among other liberal theories, widely appeals to the general public at large because it underscores the inability of liberalism to furnish the equality it avows to produce. Marxists, though, fail to correctly summarize the problems it uncovers namely that not every difference is tyrannical and that their one-size-fits-all solution of retributive discrimination exacerbated by uncontrolled state tyranny does not deaden inequality but strengthens it.

The answer to class conflict and even inequality is not Marxism. Sikhi elaborates that human conflict is inevitable. One need only read the Guru Granth. A majority is in the present-tense underscoring the timeless battle between man and his neighbor and man and himself. The Sikh purview does not focus on eradicating class conflict by retributive tyranny but rather unites Sikh society around a common fraternity of the Khalsa and a common vision for good.

Patrick Deneen echoes the Sikh solution when he calls for a renewed comprehension of politics as a sociocultural endeavor for the common societal good within a society shaping political economy rather than an economic endeavor forming economic exploitation. Guru Nanak rejected the notion of class being hostile to class by laying down the principle of Vand Ke Chakna or empowering others to stand on their own feet:

ਅਸੁ ਦਾਨ ਗਜ ਦਾਨ ਸਿਹਜਾ ਨਾਰੀ ਭੂਮਿ ਦਾਨ ਐਸੋ ਦਾਨੁ ਨਿਤ ਨਿਤਹਿ ਕੀਜੈ ॥ ਆਤਮ ਜਉ ਨਿਰਮਾਇਲੁ ਕੀਜੈ ਆਪ ਬਰਾਬਰਿ ਕੰਚਨੁ ਦੀਜੈ ਰਾਮ ਨਾਮ ਸਰਿ ਤਊ ਨ ਪੂਜੈ ॥੩॥

“Donate war mounts; donate elephants; donate women; donate land; donate your own very self! Donate, donate, donate and then donate your own weight in gold-none of these are equal to (guiding one on) living wisely.”

-Guru Granth, 973.

Postscript:

The intellectual failings of previous generations are now being reaped by us today where our own fellow Sikhs are unwittingly becoming avowed foes of the faith while being led astray by the hollow ideologies of liberalism and Marxism. One cannot be a Sikh and a liberal nor a Sikh and a Marxist. As the aforementioned facts establish, these are contradictory identities that cannot co-exist and must end in the annihilation of one by the other.

If the Panth wants to progress, it needs to start ousting both liberalism and Marxism from its spaces.

To read more:
 

gjsingh

SPNer
Oct 29, 2013
91
36
I would say the worst example in the West is Jagmeet Singh, merely because of the height he has managed to attain, be it by luck or pluck.

That said, I've met many similar people within the world of politics and NGOs.

Always they have same stench.
 

gjsingh

SPNer
Oct 29, 2013
91
36
Is it possible to be a foe of the "marxist" cancer in Sikhism, the "Islamist" menace and the Hindutva bigots, while simultanously being a skeptic of Khalistan claims of overall leadership of the panth?
 
Nov 7, 2020
42
8
Our idiot boomer uncles in committees give them unnecessary attention and then platform them in Gurudwaras. What else can you expect from these obsolete buffoons?
 

gjsingh

SPNer
Oct 29, 2013
91
36
I am not against any state with a specifically Sikh character, in principle. And I find much that is righteous about the Khalistan issue.

But, is it not the case that transforming today's Sikh liberation struggle into yet another 20th-century style "bourgeois national-liberation struggle", to borrow a worn phrase from the Marxists, mean that -- practically speaking -- we are giving up any claim to being a world-class religion, in exchange for being just another small stateless nationality?

As the late Jagraj Singh once metaphorically asked in response to this question, what then of Patna Sahib and Hazoor Sahib?

Another observation he made is that it would be easier to convert the millions of Harijans in order to directly take over India, than to survive as a weak state sandwiched between two nuclear powers.
 
Last edited:

Logical Sikh

Writer
SPNer
Sep 22, 2018
280
66
26
As the late Jagraj Singh once metaphorically asked in response to this question, what then of Patna Sahib and Hazoor Sahib?

Another observation he made is that it would be easier to convert the millions of Harijans in order to directly take over India, than to survive as a weak state sandwiched between two nuclear powers.
Our concept of sovereign is soo maligned with the possessions that we have that we can't see our clear goal without getting distracted by the distractions on the way that the world has created for us.

Guru Gobind Singh Ji governed Anandpur when it was sandwiched in Biggest empire of its time.

Misls created their space with literally nothing in their hands sandwiched between Afghan empire on one side and Marathas on the other side.

What then about Patna Sahib and Hazoor Sahib ?

Remember both the Gurdwaras were built only during the Sovereign rule of Sikhs on their land. You can only have any foreign relations and negotiations if you govern your own land. Sadly, Sikhs dont have any foreign policy neither to Haryana, rajasthan nor Pakistan, thus they can't negotiate on simplest matters with any of its neighbours on all four sides without the nod of current Ruling kings....
 

gjsingh

SPNer
Oct 29, 2013
91
36
Well, you make some trenchant points. I remain doubtful however.

Guru Gobind Singh Ji governed Anandpur when it was sandwiched in Biggest empire of its time.

Such talent comes along thanks to Waheguru only once in a yug (if that), so it doesn't really apply to the current crop of leadership.

Misls created their space with literally nothing in their hands sandwiched between Afghan empire on one side and Marathas on the other side.

Ironically I agree with the historical-materialist frame of the Marxists on the unique nature of the modern nation-state, which is much more durable and totalizing than the weak nature of the semi-feudal social context on the ground during the time of the decaying Mughal empire. Plus: nukes.

Remember both the Gurdwaras were built only during the Sovereign rule of Sikhs on their land. You can only have any foreign relations and negotiations if you govern your own land. Sadly, Sikhs dont have any foreign policy neither to Haryana, rajasthan nor Pakistan, thus they can't negotiate on simplest matters with any of its neighbours on all four sides without the nod of current Ruling kings....

Regardless of my comments above, this is an excellent point.
 

A_seeker

Writer
SPNer
Jun 6, 2018
279
63
39
Marxismism ,Its fortress in europe is in ruins ,but it is very much entrenched in may third world countries including India.

they are powerful in politics , in the media , in the univesities and in SIKHI NARRATIVE as well .
THEY ARE VERY HOSTILE to ASIAN Culture ...they believed that India was not a Nation ,that its history was history of invasions ,thats its religion was superstitious
 

gjsingh

SPNer
Oct 29, 2013
91
36
Marxismism ,Its fortress in europe is in ruins ,but it is very much entrenched in may third world countries including India.
Depends on which definition of Marxism you are using, I suppose. On the classical conception, with the 'revolutionary subject' being restricted to the traditional 'Mazdoor-Kisan' you are correct. But that is probably only because a huge percentage of the global population of the mazdoor and kisan are situated in India. Nowadays, all the largest communist parties in the "democratic world" are found in the subcontinent.

THEY ARE VERY HOSTILE to ASIAN Culture ...
Are you quite sure? Why have all Marxist revolutions of consequence been restricted to Asia? (If you include Russia as a "Eurasian" polity, which the Marxists themselves do).

they believed that India was not a Nation ,that its history was history of invasions ,thats its religion was superstitious
Well, Marx and Engels themselves were quite dismissive of the so-called "Asiatic mode" of civilization. One could forgive them for being 19th century ignoramuses, but what is more pathetic is their modern day epigones in India itself continuing with their outdated schema.

Marxism is very beguiling to certain intellectuals because while it is a rigid narrative, it really does have a certain explanatory power. In the final analysis. it is very rigid and only a partial explanation of reality. This is destructive. Think of Plato's philosopher-kings come to life.
 
Last edited:

❤️ CLICK HERE TO JOIN SPN MOBILE PLATFORM

❤️ CLICK HERE TO JOIN SPN MOBILE PLATFORM

📌 For all latest updates, follow the Official Sikh Philosophy Network Whatsapp Channel:
Top