The section of the chapter begins with a very successful explanation of the concept that the Sikhs had the social commitment since the day they were blessed by the teachings of Guru Nanak.
Being a historian by calling, Dr. Garewal tried to prove it through mustering the historic facts. However, the way the argument is developed leaves the student of history somewhat unsatisfied. After reading the section and the succeeding chapters, I am compelled to quote an observation of one very avid reader of history, John Simkin. I quote, "E. H. Carr once said that a historian is very much like an angler. Fish are like historical facts, the fish you catch depends on the bait you use and the place on the river where you decide to stand." (Check it at http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2777). Simkin had been discussing such aspects in his various articles while himself trying to study the role of ideology in search in history. At another place, he had categorically remarked that it would wrong to state that any historian could manage without ideology. The explanation which Dr. Garewal presents here just vindicate what he has emphasized along with some of other scholars who concur with him. Here, I intend to further qualify by saying that it is not only the ideology but also psychological mental frame of the historian while he intends to undertake some work of elaboration and thesis. It is something which Dr. V N Datta had been pleading in many of his articles and stated in his Semitic work on Madan Lal Dhingra his Ph.D. thesis. ( I will elaborate on this point under different heading. It also comes under the preview of Issues in History research, classification and analysis. Hence, an appropriate essay is required which I will soon present.)
Continuing with the work of Dr. Garewal, his explanation of social commitement of the Sikh community deserves highly appreciation. He writes, "The Sikh movement from its very inception was marked by a strong sense of social commitment." He has pointed out that the Sikh Gurus denounced renunciation. It was the reformist step of the Sikh gurus. Under this social ethic, a Sikh is expected to live a "life of worldly piety." It was under this social goal, they contributed to the common pool of the community. It proved an important practice which had historic implication. The Sikh community raised their own cities under the patronage of their Gurus. The Guru House did not need the support of the outer agency and could do without the administrative links. To quote Dr. Grewal, "With far flung local congrepations linked with the Guru through Masands, coupled with financial independence, the Sikh Panth tended to become ‘a state within the state’." The Sikh Panth managed to acquire this independence because the Gurus blessed that they did not have to fear any enemy. Such an enemy could have been the power of the time, that was, the Mughal administration. The Mughal administration under Jahangir undertook the first execution of Guru Arjun. It is in a way sanctification and imparting of divinity to the acts of the Sikhs for the Sikh Panth.
The explanation of the author is logical to this point. However, it is his thesis, and for that matter, it has been the approach and strong argument of the Sikh community and intelligentsia, that after the martyrdom of Guru Arjun, the circumstances extended the ethics of social commitment as taught by Guru Nanak to the field of politics also. It was under such process that Guru Hargobind raised the fort of Ramdaspur. Then he raised Akal Takht in the vicinity of Darbar Sahib Amritsar in which Adi Granth was already enshrined. This expansion of social commitment to the field of politics gave birth to the doctrine of Miri and Piri. Such a step was fully endorsed by Bhai Gurudas, who had been living throughout the transformation of Sikh community. It was continuity of this doctrine of temporal and spiritual commitment of the Sikh Panth that Guru Teg Bahadur gave the second sacrifice for "the freedom of human conscience".
What does this explanation present? It suggests that the martial interest of the Sikh Panth had a historic growth. But here, the dissatisfaction of a history student comes. The author has started with the premises that the Gurudwara Movement by Akali was started on the non-violent path which has the strength of moral force because it was result of a historic tradition. He has no where said that it was non-violent but this was also a fact. It impressed Gandhi because at Jaito Morcha, the way Akalis conducted themselves in the face of oppression proved a prelude to Salt sacrifice. It was rather the whole nation followed the moral courage of one community which had already set an example.
However, the Sikh scholars always adopt this interpretation and try to explain the genesis and core of the rise of Khalsa Panth. The baptism by double-edged sword and bearing of arms were the answer of Guru Gobind Singh to the oppressive challenge of the contemporary rulers. No doubt, it culminated in the rise of Sikh rule within a decade. The author, who had adopted ‘milieu approach’ in his another widely recognized work titled ‘Guru Nanak in History’, is here adopting a method of interpretation which is contrary to what he had done there. The rise of Sikh rule under Banda Bahadur can be explained by taking into the milieu in which it had taken place. A history student would like to consider the circumstances and status of the Mughal empire of that time also. There was Jat revolt, Satnami revolt and Mewati revolt also. As that is not the subject here, it is not required to elaborate here. But, it can be said that the situation of Mughal empire is also required to be considered before giving interpretation.
The concept of social commitment of Sikh community has roots in its times. The expansion of that social commitment to the political sphere is an interpretation that requires more deeper and wider explanations and mustering of facts. It is not done here and nor by other scholars. However, this has been the main argument of the Sikh scholars. They strongly object if some one comes with other interpretation. Here also, the author, who is a liberal historian, is describing the rise of a social reform movement which came with the goal of freeing the Gurudwaras from the elements who did not conduct their activity concurrent with basic ideology of Sikh religion. The understanding of historic background is required. It is being done. But, as the argument develops, somewhere, dialectic presentation becomes subdued under religious inclination of the author. Or, Can it be said, that even Dr. Garewal also does not want to risk it by going away from already established course of argument?
The concept of martial prowess of Sikh militia is concept which had been more propagated after 1857 by the British historians. It is a view that is accepted by many serious students of history. However, such an interpretation can be justified only on one ground. We have to accept a process as a historic fact. We have to accept that under the given circumstances, the social commitments acquire martial traditions and martial traits comes in forefront under such circumstance. If we accept it, then only, the interpretation as given by this author and the rest of the Sikh scholars can be justified. However, declaring of such generalization in history of such level is beyond the capabilities of my learning.
No doubt, in the last paragraph of this section, when the author was forced to identify that the Sikh misls had employed many non-Sikhs not only from Hindu community but also from the Muslim community of Punjab, this paradigm of social commitment versus circumstances resulting into martial tradition gasps for air and only verbal dialectics become the escape. But the author continue with argument and identify the next doctrine "Raj Karega Khalsa" as the result of the success of Banda Bahadur in raising the first Sikh rule.
Upto this stage, the author has explained the concept of the social commitment of Sikh religion and how it has worked in history. He has shown that social commitment expanded itself to political sphere because of historic circumstances. The link between the different historic events has been demonstrated. The Political commitment as it grew out of Social commitment gave rise to the doctrine of Miri and Piri. The founding of Khalsa Panth was logical progression of that doctrine and the rise of first Sikh rule under Banda Bahadur was the sequel.
Hence, from social commitment, the Sikh community got their political commitments. The author then explains the features of Political commitments as it developed after the rise of the Sikh rule after the founding of Khalsa Panth. He explains that social commitment provided for a united political activities. The cohesion in the political activities was achieved through three main agencies or process. The first main agency was the Panj Piaras. The second important agency was Sarbat Khalsa. The Sarbat Khalsa had force in their gurmatas. The third agency was Dal Khalsa.
The author has clearly differentiated between the status of misls and Dal Khalsa. He writes, "Whereas, the combination called misal was based on personal, kinship or local ties, the action of the Dal Khalsa was invariably based on gurmata adopted generally at the Akal Takht."
The author has ended his essay on social commitment of the Sikh community as the background tradition of Akali by making a remark, "Sikh rule was administered neither by nor for them alone." This has been commented above. The whole paragraph on the surface seems to be out of place. But the cause of rise of this paragraph can be understood in light of the statements given above. The Sikh political commitment as grown out of social commitment is thesis which lacks solid justification. That can be the only answer.
Up to this level, the author has identified, Shabad, Bani and Gurudwara, Sangat with the doctrine of ape-Guru-Chela, social commitment, doctrine of Miri and Piri and finally Raj Karega Khalsa as the major historic traditions which became the foundation of Akali movement.
From there, he moves to elaborate on the egalitarian social order which is claimed to be the soul of the Sikh Panth. It is highly debatable issue. Theoretically, it is true. But, is it true in reality?
From the third section, he has developed an argument to conclude that Sikh community had acquired a separate and distinct identity. It is now surveyed as follows.
____________________________
The third sections takes up the concept of the social egalitarian features of the Sikh community. It was enjoined upon the Sikh community by Guru Nanak that caste distinction would not have any meaning for the Sikh social order. However, this did not materialize. Even the author has been forced use the word Gotra in order to explain the new social order which was being organized as per the injunctions of Guru Nanak. To quote him, "All gurmukhs belonged to one and the same gotra."
Elaborating on the social constituent of the Sikh community, Dr. Garewal has included the names of the jatis which formed the Sikh community. They were Khatris with their numerous sub-castes, Jats like Randhawa, Khaira, Dhillon and Pannu etc. The Jats had also adopted Islam and till this day one can find these castes among muslims also which also claim to be an egalitarian society. He has also identified that there were Lohars, Nais, Chamars, Mistris, Sunars, etc who were the lower castes. Such castes had also adopted Islam during the same period. Hence, this social change was not that simple as it has been shown in this book. There were numerous other social processes which took place and transformation of the society had taken place. Hence, thesis of rise of an egalitarian society under the influence of Guru’s injunction is not a viable theory. Such changes took place due to numerous other factors. No doubt, we can read in them a process of Sanskritisation which became the cause of such changes. The author himself has adopted an argument by saying that "the occupation of a person did not necessarily change upon joining the Sikh Panth." The argument here is that it was the very basis of the caste system that the occupation which one has chosen as per his birth in particular family continued even after joining the Sikh community. With that all those social restrictions upon him continued. It is only after the economic changes which had taken place during the twentieth century, that the attitude of the society has changes. But under new constitution, the members of Sikh community also demand reservation as per the caste system. By joining Sikh religion the status of those caste communities has not changed. There is a strong contention by such castes against the dominant castes of the Sikh community.
Further, while elaborating on the rise of an egalitarian Sikh society, the writer has pointed out that on joining the Sikh community, the member of the community did not change his profession and matrimonial practices. They continued with the same profession which was enjoined upon him on being the member of a Hindu community. The author has written that, "there was no injunction against following the old patterns of matrimonial relations either, and little need was felt to change them. Therefore, traditional horizontal linkages among castes and occupational groups continued now as before." Now it is difficult to understand that how continuity of basis of matrimonial relations would not have not effected it. In caste relations it is not only the eating taboos but also matrimonial relations which have played a major role in the rise of the rigidity in caste system. That was also absorbed in the Sikh community and is prevalent till this day. Read any matrimonial column, there are separate sections on Jats, Arora Sikhs, Ramgrahia Sikhs and Gurmukh Sikhs. There are many reports and every day new reports are added about the honour killing. Such episodes take place not only in India but in every other country where the Sikhs had gone and settled. There is a case against one of the leading Sikh Akali leader on the same grounds. It is believed that the act of that leader concerning her own daughter has support of many members of the Sikh community. Hence, the thesis does not stand the test of verification of the actual realities which are continuing since antiquity.
Now if the economic status has improved in case of some castes, then there were some other factors which played their role. On the whole, in this section, the author has not been able to present the case in an effective manner. It is an issue of debate that whether Sikh community became really an egalitarian society. The ground realities of present are totally contrary to it. One has to read only numerous cases of honour killing in order to judge the validity of the contention against the theory given by the author. If the change is there it can only be explained on Marxian principles and not on religious principles.
The next important feature which has been identified by the author is the joining of the rural section in the Sikh community. The trend had started way back and increased during the Guru period of Guru Hargobind and Guru Har Rai. After the establishement of the Khalsa Panth, there was a period of severe political oppression against the Sikh community during the Subedari of Abu Samad and Zakaria Khan. It had continued during the period of Mir Manu. This period had seen the rise of the rural folk against the state power of contemporary period. The author himself has identified that if there were Jats, then there were leaders like Jassa Singh Ahluwalia and Jassa Singh Ramgarhia. Both of them belonged to lower castes and treated as such by the Jat leaders. It was the political situation which provided them opportunity to play their role. Hence, there were other factors which played role in creating a social character of the Sikh community. However, in caseo f Sidhus and Sandhus, the same thing can not be said for the period after 1800. It was so because, there were other factors which were playing. Therefore, it will be wrong to explain role of any community on the basis of the religion of that community. The Sikh Gurus definitely desired to raise a caste less society. They wanted to reform the society. But, it was the ground realities which dictated the course of the development and history of the community. Had the author adopted other prespectives in endeavour to find the historic traditions, then this book would have been a more useful work. The author has a stature of undertaking such an analysis but here he had done that.
The thesis of the author is that ‘idea of equality was extended to the realm of politics’. However, it was not simple as that. It was the politics which forced them to adopt the equality principle in the struggle for survival. Only argument in favour of this thesis can be that as the set of values which were bestowed upon the Sikh community by the Sikh gurus helped them to adjust it more easily. But there is no evidence to show till this day that such ethics became the core of the Sikh community. In Gurudwaras it is observed but in social life it is not there.
The author himself continue to shift in his argument in order to support his thesis. He writes, "Every Singh had equal right to fight and conquer. Actually, however, every Singh did not acquire political power. They who did conquer territories did not have the same kind of resources." Now this is the actual fact. This is not something which could have been decided by Sikh community collectively. These were the historic forces which historians like to point out. Hence, this sections lacks the strength of being a good theory. No doubt, he further writes, "In the process of state formation, social differentiation among the Sikhs went on increasing." Further he has written, "The gradations in between also became more numerous. Among the Jats, for example, there was all the difference between a Jagirdar and a peasant, while there were other grades of Jats in between."
Hence, finally it can be said that the institutions of sangat and langar survived and helped the Sikh community to maintain a brotherhood in face of the changing circumstances. This had, no doubt, helped the Akalis and Akali movement to have moral strength in their struggle of freeing the Gurudwaras. The rest of the thesis given in this section is not a tenable theory.
____________________
The section fourth is about the rise of a distinctive consciousness in the Sikh community that they have a separate identity as exclusive community with its own religion and history. This is the main argument of mostly all the Sikh scholars and leaders. This thesis however has benefited the political leaders of the Sikh community than the Sikh community as whole.
There is no doubt and it is an established fact that the Sikh community has their own "religious doctrine, distinctive worship, institution of langar, places of pilgrimage, exclusive sacred scripture and new rites." This has definitely given them a distinctive identity. The author has identified the divine blessing as the force behind making the Sikh religion as a separate religion. He has referred to one janamsakhi wherein Guru Nanak had blessed the Sikh Community with a future of a separate and distinct religion. He has not identified the janamsakhi. Here is a case wherein one feels the need of the footnote and references which the author has already claim that he is not intentionally doing it except for giving the bibliography at the end. He has also referred to Daistan-i-Mazahib in support of his argument that Sikh religion has acquired a distinctive identity before the rise of the Akali movement.
The author has given separate credit to rise of Khalsa Panth for imparting the distinct identify to Sikh religion. He dientified the practice of exclusive appearance of the baptized Sikhs. However, the wearing of headgears and keeping of hairs were the practiced which were observed in older days by most of the higher class people. It is a known fact among the elders from the villagers that it was considered disrespect to elders if some one came without covering his head. But this practice is being identified by most of the Sikh scholars as an exclusive practice of the Sikhs. But it was not so. However, the author has gathered numerous references in support of this factor. He has referred to Rahitnamas of the eighteenth century, writings of Kesar Singh Chhibber, Gurbilas literature of eighteenth century, opinion of British officers by claiming that they always saw Sikh as a separate religion. Similarly he has referred to the writings of J. D. Cunningham who wrote in 1840. The argument that the British officers always treated Sikh as a separate religion or for them they were a distinctive unit is a flimsy argument. The British officers always saw India a congeries of vested interest. They differentiated under numerous headings. Hence, such an argument is bit hollow to claim a distinctive feature for any community. The earlier claims cited in the beginning of this section are more forceful and do not need authentication of British officers for establishing the distinctive identify of the Sikhs. However, the author has also referred to Ratan Singh Bhangu, another authority who had given similar opinion about the distinctive identity of the Sikh community. But the exact reference is missing which should have appeared in the footnote.
The contention presented by me is vindicated when one reads the following lines of the author.
I quote: "This is not to suggest that the Sikh Panth in the early nineteenth century was a homogeneous, monolithic whole, or that there were no differences of religious belief and practice among the Sikhs."
One can only make one comment on above line. The historian in the author has taken better of him at this stage. He has been addressing to an audience but the historian in him is not convinced with what he is saying. Hence the above comment has come up.
He is able to discern a historic growth in the progress of Panth. He identifies that before Sikh Panth was a Nanak Panth and there was some dissension. There were Prithi Chand, and Miharban had raised Minas. They were followed by Dhir Mallia and Ram Raiyas. However, coming of Khalsa Panth set the Sikh Panth on a course which made is distinct from them.
With the rise of Khalsa Panth, the Sikh Panth then had Kashdharis and Sahajdharis. However, the Guruship was decided for all times to come. Guru Granth Sahib is true for them with any dissension. Hence, for Akalis, it is decided that who is the Guru for the Sikh Panth. However, the author has insisted and directed the attention towards the injunction of Guru Gobind Singh, "he wanted all his Khalsa to accept the pahul but on their own volition." However, a concluding remark of the author which says, "It is significanct, therefore, that the Sikh Panth in the early nineteenth century was dominated by the Sighs not only politically but also socially and numerically", does not fit in the argument as it has developed to this point. What does he want to say and declare?
In the concluding paragraph of this section of chapter, the author has underplayed the whole argument. Here he has touched upon an important development in the course of the Sikh history but winded it up in a hurried manner. It is an issue that Akali had faced while facing new situations which future always brings. But he has tried to wriggle out of it without taking up those issues. He hurridely tells that Harmandar Sahib and Akal Takht became the solid pillar of Sikh Tradition. The Sikh Panth saved those pillars in face of threat from Ahmad Shah Abdali because they were the most sacred for them. However, in case of role of Ranjit Singh towards of treatment of Sarbat Khalsa has not found much importance in the hands of Dr. Garewal. He has remarked, "He (Ranjit Singh) had great veneration for the Harmandar and also rendered the ‘service’ of its gold-plating. On behalf of the Khalsa Ranjit Singh managed the affairs of these two premier institutions of the Sikhs through one of his trusted Sardars. This was the position to which the British succeeded in 1849 without however being the representative of the Khalsa and without having any veneration for these institutions."
The most potent part of the above statement is that the British succeeded in 1849 to the position of having control over Harmandar Sahib without being representative of the Khalsa. Also, Ranjit Singh managed the affairs of the two premier institutions of the Sikhs thorugh one of his trusted Sardars on the behalf of Khalsa.
The author is discussing the Sikh traditions which became the foundation stone of the ideology of Akali movement and later the Akali political activities. He has identified sacred significance of Guru Granth Sahib, Guru Sangat, Social commitment of the Sikh traditions and Khalsa Panth. However, while winding up the discussion in the fourth section, he has passed a statement like a well read historian but not as historian who is surveying the Sikh traditions as they developed. He ends up by telling that the British was in control of those two sacred institutions and it was not representative of Khalsa. No doubt, this provides the justification to the Gurudwara Movement but Sarbat Khalsa, which became an important tradition after Dal Khalsa and its role that it played during the later part of the eighteenth century and how that had remained a part of the Sikh Panth before and after Ranjit Singh, all such historic aspects are not taken up. The next section begins with role of Singh Sabha Movement. Hence, the direct relation had not been traced and left the space open for making individual conclusion.
_____
The section fifth deals more with history and less with generalized discussion for explanation which had been carried out earlier.
In this section, the author has brought the concept of the pre-colonial Sikh tradition. It suddenly stare at face in the beginning of the section and leave you to think for a moment that what aspect of pre-colonial was there, that was being revived, reformulated sharpened and successfully propagated by the Sikh reform movement of the last two decades of nineteenth century.
However, the finer aspect of this section is that the author has really succeeded in giving a very brief but complete in itself a history of Singh Sabha Movement. It raises a desire on the part of the reader to learn more about the Singh Sabha movement in order to understand the reform activity of the Sikh community as achieved under Akalis in the period before 1947. But, in the later part of the section it has just borrowed one sided view presented by radical historians. The presentation leaves you with the same feeling that the Sikh scholars continue to enunciate particular view point before reaching the logical conclusions when they start in a very successful manner to present the logical growth of an argument. They just jump the gap to reach a conclusion at a stage when they have developed the argument and classified their data in scientific manner. They do not permit the progression of deduction in scientific manner and here it is another example in this section and the next new chapter. Only justification in their favour is the innate flaw in pursuing history writing. You start with a preconceived idea. You fish with a bait which decides the type of fish you catch. Or as one scholar has said that the philosopher or rather historians end up knowing only up to the tip of their fingers.
According to Dr. Garewal, the Singh Sabha was founded in Amritsar in in 1873. The next Singh Sabha was Lahore Singh Sabha founded in 1879. Soon after, every town had its own Singh Sabha. This raised the need of establishing a coordination among their activities because they aimed at the same aim of reforming the Sikh community. As a result, the Khalsa Diwan was established in 1883 at Amritsar and Lahore Khalsa Diwan was estbalished in 1886. The founding of Singh Sabhas continued during the period first world war.
In 1902, Chief Khalsa Diwan was established at Amritsar. This association received more affiliations and many Singh Sabhas and Diwans were affiliated to it.
Parallel to this coordinating activity, other types of associations also appeared. The prominent organizations were Gurmat Granth Pracharak Sabha of Amritsar, Gurmat Granth Sudharak Sabha olf Lahore, Khalsa Dharam Pracharak Saobha of Rawalpindi, the Khalsa tract Society, the Central Khalsa Orgphanage, the Sikh Education Conference and the Punjab and Sindh Bank. All such association appeared between 1890 and 1910. The author has identified them as allied and ancillary associations of Chief Khalsa Diwan or parallel activities of the Sikh Panth.
The history of rise of Singh Sabhas and finally Chief Khalsa Diwan have been shown as something which was exclusive to Sikh community. It is difficult to accept this interpretation if it is desired here. The period of phasing out of nineteenth century and coming in of twentieth century were important period of Indian history. There were a response on the part of whole nation. This type of interpertation if this desired here is bit similar to history as written under the influence of the Congress party. In that history, which is most prevalent form of history, it is mostly projected that it was congress and congress which was working for the raising of the national spirit in India. This view is highly contested by Marxist and Subaltern Historians. They have effectively countered their version by bringing in numerous research papers and articles in which they have successfully shown that how different local issues started by local people added up to make a movement which could have been called the national movement. Same argument can be found valid in the rise of the Singh Sabha movement. The author himself have found the need to suggest the activities of Brahmo Samaj, Arya Samaj, the Christian missionaries and finally the mutual conflict which emerged. Hence, if we take a wider view, then Singh Sabha Movements as a historic tradition on which the Akali movement found roots can be more nearer to reality explanation. Only one point can drive home the validity of this contention. The Sikh Education Conference and Punjab and Sind Bank can never be taken as exclusive activity of the Sikh community. Similarly, the objection to the conversion by the Christian missionaries was not exclusive to Sikh community. It was felt by all other communities also. This aspect has rather made the Sikh community to work in unison with other communities. If they were made to feel separate, it was the activities of some of the associations like Arya Samaj, which created the divide among the population of Punjab. That is something which cold only be discussed under different heading. To claim that the Sikh community was learning it separately, then, freedom of speech permits any body to say any thing but at least, in history, such presentation have no place.
The author has emphasized some major contributions of the Sabhas. He has steered clear of pointing to some contradictions among different Singh Sabhas and gave more balanced statement that in spite of the conflicts they aimed at religious reforms. They took up the issue of conversion by the Christian missionaries. The Sabhas had initiated their activities when they found that the Christian missionaries were gaining converts from the Sikh community. The most historic conversions were that of Maharaja Dalip Singh and Kanwat harnam Singh Ahluwalia. It is an important observation which may attract the attention of the students of Social History in India during the colonial period. It can be taken as the case studies to verify the theory that the social interference by the British entities had released the latent nationalistic tendencies. The rise of nationalism was not result of the British accultraization. It was rather raising of the giant which laid dormant due to long period of fusion between two cultures that were Indian and Islamic culture. Similarly, the community was also offended by the communal activities of Arya Samaj.
It is important to note here that the author has written that "the Sikh-Arya confrontation sharpened the issue of Sikh identity." It is a statement which is at least new to me. There is no doubt that Arya Samaj has a role in history which is not that bright. This statement that identity crises of Sikh community increased with the activities of Arya Samaj, needs further debate. In writing history of Punjab and Sikhs, this aspect should be fully debated and its national connotation should also be brought into the field of history discussion. It is also a fact that there is alienation of Sikhs which is very painful for many Sikhs and Punjabis. It is also a fact of eighties of twentieth century. It is on the record. But to believe, that Sikhs were all out of specific political demand, is a statement which does not have full support of the whole community. In the previous sections, the author has already touched social backgrounds of the Sikh community and many Sikhs just do not want to see themselves separate from that social heritage. It is because; this is what the Punjab is. There is Punjab and there are Sikhs. Both are true.
However, the author has presented his argument in a manner that suggests that the alienation started when the Arya Samaj started the shuddhi movement. He has not referred to the concept of Shuddhi. He states, "The Aryas tended to treat the Sikhs as ‘Hindu’. The Singh reformers were convinced of the distinct identity of the Sikhs." Now, this is a statement which has not explained the process of rise of that conciousness. It has assumed that it was already there and there was no historic growth but a fact which was basis of the history of the Sikhs. This theory is requires discussion and debate. The Sikh authors have been presenting it many a time. But, when confronted with the social realities of the Sikh community and the history of the region, they tends to present theories which could only be termed as the personal views and finally the biased views.
In giving an evidence for the consciousness among the Sikhs that they formed a separate and distinctive identity the present author has referred to the farewell address of Khalsa Diwan of Lahore to the Governor General in 1888. The officer in question was Lord Dufferin. The address asserted that "Sikhs should not be ‘confounded with Hindus but treated in all respects as a separate community’." It is difficult to accept here that Khalsa Diwan had the sanction of the whole Khalsa in presenting the view. Secondly, the Singh Sabhas had undertaken a movement against the conversion to Christianity. It difficult to justify the cause and effect factor here. No doubt, it was the feature of the social reform movement of nineteenth century that they sought the government support in correcting the vices of the society and the religious practices. But, the stance of the each social reform movement towards British government was nationalistic in nature and the national movement was built on that. Each region had their own issues. They addressed those issues to the local government which was British government. However, in no place, they were demanding recognisation from the British for their existence. It is the main thesis of the Cambridge School of history that in India there was no nation. It is a myopic view. The birth of India was the result of the efforts of all the Indians. It was not a single achievement of one Gandhi or one Congress party. That is other thing, that the role of those two identities is more dominating and discernable. But they form mere a part of whole story. Same was the case with the social traditions which became the force behind the Akali movement. But if we start with the theory that along with its background, the idea of separate identity was equally an established fact and that was even identified by the British government and the government of the time was apprised of the ground facts, then to seek the support of the Bipin Chandras thesis presented in Communalism in India, it can be said that it is mere a communal approach. The section of this chapter suffers from this idea of knowledge.
The author has then taken up the issue of inheritance of Dyal Singh Majithia property in the British courts. These two arguments and the role of the Arya Samaj in projecting Sikhs as Hindus had been taken to justify the book of Bhai Khan Singh of Nabha titled Ham Hindu Nahin. No doubt, the author is constraint to write, "The Singh reformers had to contend not only with outsiders but also with their fellow Sikhs. If some sahajdharis insisted that they were not Hindus some Keshdharis insisted that they were." The fact is that it was not an insistence of accepting or rejecting it. It was a social fact of background of Sikh community which is real. The response of many Sikhs to this fact is of two types. Some Sikhs accept it and also accept that they are the followers of Guru Nanak and Khalsa Panth. Other Sikhs just refuse to accept it only to say that they are the Sikhs. They are merely treating a social and cultural reality in two different ways. Now this was the more important social tradition or the Sikh tradition and the moral force behind the Gurudwara movement by the Akalis. The presentation of the author can only by marked by the theory of Bipin Chandra mentioned above. No doubt, the author belongs to the first set of Sikhs who fully understand the background of the Sikh community. He states, "there was a time when ‘Hindu’ was identical with Indian, but now it was increasingly acquiring religious connotation." Very true but true in some specific contexts only.
Next major contribution of Singh Sabhas movement which is identified is the use of journalism for social reform and its legacy for the Akali movement. The main topics of the print material by them were the return to the teachings of the Gurus, abstaining from the practice of idol worship, discontinuing the practice of fasts, overlooking auspicious and inauspicious days etc. The Chief Khalsa Diwan also came with a Sikh code called Gurmat Parkash Bhag Sanskar in 1915. Similarly, there were also a voice against some the contents which were identified in Dasham Granth. In addition to that the topics on theology also received much attention in the publications of such associations.
Another major feature of the social reform by Singh Sabhas were their support to English school system and study of western science and technology. They have many similarity in this field with other social reform movement of Brahmo Samaj and Arya Samaj on the issue of use of language. However, they are shown as the dissimilarities with other social reforms movements. This again the proves the point that it is the anglers preference where he wants to fish. You may call it similarity with the other social reform movements or disimilarities but the core of these movement was same. They were opposed to the social activities of the western rulers but they favoured forward looking changes with their local perspectives. If Singh Movements stressed upon use of Punjabi then Raja Rammohun Roy also insisted on getting literature in Bengali language. He was big votary of English as a medium of learning. He did not insist on using Hindi. Hindi was given preference by Arya Samaj only. It is not true in case of other social reformers. Hence, the biased approach again reveals itself here also.
The most concrete work in field of journalism came in form of Khalsa Samachar. This paper brought the issue of transfering the management of Gurdwaras to the representative committees of the Sikh Sangat. This became the background of the Akali movement. The author has also identified other topics which were taken up by this paper. They were obviously about the conversion issues, the stress on using Punjabi and Gurumukhi, the stress on Sikh rites and legal status to Anand Marriage with it gained in 1909.
However, it is difficult to adjust the paragraph on David Petrie, a British intelligence officer, in this chapter. The purpose of this reference and its placement here is not clear. What does this paragraph try to prove here?
The chapter is concluded by referring to nature to the activities carried by Chief Khalsa Diwan. It is pointed out that it worked for ‘the political rights’ of the Sikhs. It supported only constitutional methods in presenting the demands of the Sikh communities. iT did not approve the agrarian movement voilence of 1907. Similarly it did not support the activities of Ghadarites. After 1909, the Diwan tried to give full cooperation to the government. After the Lucknow Pact of 1916, the Chief Khalsa Diwan also made the issue of separate electorate for Sikhs as their demand. But this chapter ends adruptly.
The final view and conclusion:
The absence of foot notes continue to make their absence felt throughout this chapter and the rest of the book. The traditions which became the force behind the Akali movement are nicely identified and emphasized. However, the tinge of one sided and preconceived conclusion break the continuity of the argument.
This chapter can be termed as an ideological survey in the Short history of the Akalis.
Posts
