Sikh Information Centre Hits Hard At Gandhi’S Grandson For Distortion Of Sikh History

[amar_jkp]

Lathrop, CA, USA (November 17, 2013): Bhajan Singh Bhinder, Founding Director of Sikh Information Centre, issued the following statement about Punjab: A History from Aurangzeb to Mountbatten (2013), a new book by Rajmohan Gandhi:

“Rajmohan Gandhi Perpetuates Propaganda in Grandfather’s Footsteps”

Rajmohan Gandhi

In his purported history of the Punjab, Mohandas Gandhi’s grandson, Rajmohan Gandhi, has invented history in much the same way as his grandfather used to imaginatively retell facts. In the book, Rajmohan libels an Indian cultural treasure, Guru Gobind Singh Ji, by describing him as a mansabdar (a mercenary, essentially) for Mughal Emperor Bahadur Shah during his occupation of India, a fabricated detail which has never before been included in any biographical sketch of the guru.

At a time when an iron-fisted conqueror ruled India from Delhi, Guru Gobind Singh empowered the common man to be a sovereign individual. When he founded the order of “Khalsa,” meaning “Pure” or “Sovereign,” he launched a life philosophy which intends each man as a king who alone rules himself and who rules himself alone.

When he founded the Khalsa in 1699, Guru Gobind initiated the first five people who voluntarily offered their lives in service of truth. He christened them each a “Singh” so they would share the same name of nobility to erase social divisions. After this baptism, Guru Gobind bowed before the five and asked them to initiate him also as a Singh.

Then Guru Gobind Singh taught a doctrine of universal human equality in the eyes of one true God. Man, he taught, is subservient to God, and to God alone belongs the victory — “Waheguru ji ka Khalsa, Waheguru ji Ki Fateh” (Khalsa belongs to God; victory belongs to God). He condemned rituals as hollow; instead, he taught a life of self-sacrifice and respect for other human creatures as the best way to worship God. He particularly emphasized honorable treatment of women as of equal value to men, remarking:

From now on, you have become casteless. No ritual, either Hindu or Muslim, will you perform nor will you believe in superstition of any kind, but only in one God who is the master and protector of all, the only creator and destroyer. In your new order, the lowest will rank with the highest and each will be to the other a brother. No pilgrimages for you any more, nor austerities but the pure life of the household, which you should be ready to sacrifice at the call of Dharma. Women shall be equal of men in every way. No veil for them anymore, nor the burning alive of a widow on the pyre of her spouse. He who kills his daughter, the Khalsa shall not deal with him.

After he founded the Khalsa in 1699, he faced down the heaviest of odds to preserve the spark of liberty in South Asia by resisting the oppression of invading Muslim hordes. For years, he defended against the control of Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb before finally making peace with his son, Bahadur Shah, who then betrayed the peace agreement by sending assassins against Guru Gobind Singh. Perverting history by interpreting the Guru’s dissent against oppression as hiring his sword to a tyrant is outlandish and insults a man who gave his life to liberate others.

Rajmohan Gandhi’s baseless assertions are best understood in context of the ancient historical conflict between the two dominant ideologies of India — of the Moolnivasi, or indigenous people, and of the Aryans, who invaded India from the northwest.

Aryanism crafted the caste system and its foundational texts like Manusmriti (The Laws of Manu) to institutionalize the rule of a few over the many. This self-perpetuating system of social tyranny is kept in place by the ignorant cooperation with their subjugation of the approximately 85% of India’s population who constitute Moolnivasi, many of whom have never been educated about the evils of the caste system or of their right not to cooperate with it. Gandhism’s chief contribution to this system has been to further manipulate people into seeing evil as good.

Gandhi hid himself in broad daylight by painting his public image as messianic. Meanwhile, the devilish truth behind the smoke and mirrors was Gandhi’s life, from his early days as an attorney in South Africa to his death in his 70s, involved promoting racial segregation and social division, enthusiastic participating in aggressive colonial warfare, sexually molesting his teenage relatives, and playing political games that resulted in India’s partition and the deaths of millions.

As a scholar and even a biographer of his grandfather, Rajmohan has failed to bring these facts to light, which is hardly surprising considering the Gandhi family’s denigration of Guru Gobind Singh, as well as of Sikh traditions, is an old habit. In 1925, Mohandas called the guru a “misguided patriot.” [1] On another occasion, he declared: “So far as the Sikh kitchen is concerned, it is a menace.” [2]

It is decades past time the Gandhi family ended its tired tirade against the Moolnivasi people of India and their emancipatory heroes. India remains a land of oppression in need of defenders. For instance, we now see Narendra Modi, CM of Gandhi’s home-state of Gujarat and orchestrator of the 2002 Gujarat Genocide in which thousands of Muslims were massacred, poised to become Prime Minister.

While the world still sees Mohandas Gandhi as a virtual deity, he is worshipped in India, his picture is on the wall of every government office in India and even in the U.S. President’s office, and his philosophy is being taught even to primary school children, the sad reality is the fruits of his legacy are visible in an India where architects of genocide presently reign.

Although Gandhi boasted about spending his life “experimenting with truth” instead of simply searching for it, at least one statement of his was true: “An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.” Indeed, no matter how frequently or for how long the Gandhi family propagates errors, their lies will never become the truth. The truth is that the Gandhi family has served as chief apologists for the Indian State since before its founding in 1947.

Propagandists like Gandhi, often cloaked as religious icons, are invaluable to tyrannies, as explained by political theorist Murray Rothbard:

Throughout history, as we shall see further below, despots and ruling elites of States have had far more need of the services of intellectuals than have peaceful citizens in a free society. For States have always needed opinion-moulding intellectuals to con the public into believing that its rule is wise, good, and inevitable; into believing that the “emperor has clothes. Until the modern world, such intellectuals were inevitably churchmen (or witch doctors), the guardians of religion. It was a cozy alliance, this age-old partnership between Church and State; the Church informed its deluded charges that the king ruled by divine command and therefore must be obeyed; in return, the king funneled numerous tax revenues into the coffers of the Church. [3]

Instead of speaking out to demand justice for the innocent and prevent oppressors from terrorizing the land, Rajmohan Gandhi is publishing a book with false facts which injure the sterling reputation of one of India’s greatest defenders, Guru Gobind Singh Ji. Like his grandfather before him, Rajmohan appears to be demonizing a pioneer of liberty to cloak his own support for the social division of caste. Rather than addressing real and pressing social issues which daily result in discrimination and even death, the Gandhi family has spent the past century spreading an ambiguous philosophy which openly enshrines the caste system as a supposed social good.

This was obvious in 1933, when Mohandas Gandhi declared: “The caste system, in my opinion, has a scientific basis. Reason does not revolt against it. It has disadvantages. Caste creates a social and moral restraint — I can find no reason for their abolition. To abolish caste is to demolish Hinduism. There is nothing to fight against the Varnasharma. I don’t believe the caste system to be an odious and vicious dogma.” [4]

This was preceded in 1920 by Gandhi’s attempt to turn logic on its head in arguing that caste (a system which is by its very definition founded on inequality because it breaks society into four increasingly-degraded categories) does not create inequality. He stated: “I am certainly against any attempt at destroying the fundamental divisions. The caste system is not based on inequality.” [5]

Logically, of course, as well as morally, social division is irreconcilable with social equality. As a contrast in philosophies, Guru Gobind Singh Ji declared centuries before Gandhi: “All human beings are the reflection of one and the same Lord. Recognise ye the whole human race as one.” The absence of this attitude in Gandhism, as illustrated both in Gandhi’s philosophizing and his personal relations, is leading to its intense critical analysis.

George Orwell said: “He who controls the present, controls the past.” Reclaiming the truth of history and preserving it for perpetuity is the most important task an intellectual may undertake. Theirs is a greater responsibility, though, for they are tasked with telling truth.

Anything less than the truth is a lie, and lies are useful only for propaganda. Experimenting with the truth produces the results we see in India today, which is why the Hollywood Gandhi remains so useful to the Indian State as propaganda.

The truth is that the Indian State spots the globe with Gandhi statues as a deliberate propaganda strategy. On November 10, 2010, Indian MP Magunta Sreenivasulu Reddy placed a formal question to India’s Ministry of External Affairs: “Does the Indian state assist in placing statues of Gandhi around the world?” Their response: “Yes.” The state bureaucracy in charge of this is the Indian Council for Cultural Relations, which placed 65 state-funded statues and busts of Gandhi around the world between 2001 and 2010.

As Rajmohan Gandhi continues to spread the myth of his grandfather while fabricating lies about Guru Gobind Singh Ji, intellectuals like women’s rights activist Nannette Ricaforte are awakening to the truth of Gandhi’s history and recognizing just how many people were harmed by his legacy. In October 2013, Ricaforte wrote:

Spiritual leaders like Gandhi procure a mass following whose reverence for him blinded them to the truth. He was a sexual predator while he espoused non-violence in fighting for the independence of India. Yet his ideology was enough for the majority of his supporters to disregard his immoral acts.

In my work as an abolitionist, fighting for the rights of sexually exploited victims, I can’t minimize the facts I’ve learned about Gandhi. It’s unsettling, to say the least.

I’ve met young victims of human trafficking, child labor, and the sex trade, stripped of their dignity by men in positions of power. Their degradation meant nothing, marginalized because the community revered the perpetrators. There are no words to express the depth of rage and helplessness I’ve felt when confronted with these reactions. [6]

South Asian women’s rights activist Rita Banerji, founder of the 50 Million Missing Campaign to expose female foeticide and infanticide, drew similar conclusions in another October 2013 article about Gandhi’s “dark side,” where she wrote:

Compared to our reactions and responses today, the people in Gandhi’s time seemed to be far more progressive! They not only recognized that he was abusing his position and power in a way that was unethical and depraved, but they outright condemned it, confronted it, and eventually forced him to stop!

On 16th March, 1947, Nirmal Kumar Bose, one of Gandhi’s closest associates wrote a letter to Kishorlal G. Mashruwala, another of Gandhi’s close colleagues, saying, “When I first learnt about Gandhi’s experiment in which a girl took off her clothes and lay under the same cover with him and he tried to find out if any sexual feeling was evoked in him or his companion, I felt genuinely surprised. Personally, I would not tempt myself like that and more than that, my respect for [women] would prevent me from treating her as an instrument in my experiment…” [7]

Rajmohan Gandhi, who has made his career on the coattails of his grandfather’s fame, seems blinded to the truth. His 2007 biography, Mohandas: A True Story of a Man, His People and an Empire, is nothing but a stale, melodramatic retread of the typical Gandhi myth — Mohandas as a messianic figure who not only led the country to independence but the people to enlightenment. Objective modern biographers are telling a completely different story, as I mentioned earlier: Gandhi was racist, sexist, and casteist.

Unlike what history has shown us in the Sikh tradition, where individuals are liberated and mass emancipation is taught as the key to social progress, Gandhism preaches evil cloaked as good — war as peace, hate as love, segregation as unity, subjugation as equality, and tyranny as liberty. Guru Gobind Singh sacrificed his family, his wealth, and eventually his life to free India, and Rajmohan Gandhi’s decision to build on the false legacy of his grandfather by besmirching one who sacrificed himself for others is truly disgraceful.

Real heroes of human unity like Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar, who began studies at Columba University in the United States of America in 1913, worked to erase caste barriers through the simple act of encouraging people from separate castes to eat together, drink together, marry one another, and in spirit to recognize the same universal human equality and casteless society taught by Guru Gobind Singh Ji.

It has been said the victors write the history books. Brahmins, the ruling elite of India, never stopped being the victors because the system of social division established by caste has placed them at the top of the ivory tower for eons. Brahmanism has no interest in transmitting true history detailing the heroics of Guru Gobind Singh Ji or those, like Dr. Ambedkar, who worked peacefully for real social uplift.

No doubt Dr. Ambedkar receives no hearing from the ruling elite because he took the risk of warning the world that Gandhism was just a cynical political ploy for control:

I am sure many have felt that if there was any class which deserved to be given special political rights in order to protect itself against the tyranny of the majority under the Swaraj constitution it was the depressed classes. Here is a class which is undoubtedly not in a position to sustain itself in the struggle for existence. The religion to which they are tied, instead of providing for them an honourable place, brands them as lepers, not fit for ordinary intercourse. Economically, it is a class entirely dependent upon the high-caste Hindus for earning its daily bread with no independent way of living open to it….

There have been many Mahatmas in India whose sole object was to remove Untouchability and to elevate and absorb the depressed classes, but everyone has failed in their mission. Mahatmas have come, Mahatmas have gone but the Untouchables have remained as Untouchables. [8]

As for Gandhi’s use of untouchability as a political issue, Dr. Ambedkar stated in 1955:

All this talk about Untouchability was just for the purpose of making the Untouchables drawn into the Congress. That was one thing. Secondly, he wanted to make sure that Untouchables would not oppose his movement of Swaraj. I don’t think beyond that he had any real motive of uplift. He wasn’t like Garrison in the United States, who fought for the Negroes. [9]

We must be cautious. Whatever history we have is being systematically chipped away, stripped away, and twisted into lies accepted as truth. Rajmohan Gandhi is but the latest member of his family to play a part in this assault on truth. India’s history, therefore, proves the tragic tale of the sufferings of many minorities at the hands of powerful proponents of falsehood.

Rajmohan’s work continues to spread lies. If he is to find redemption, we insist he begin by penning a letter of apology to the world regarding his grandfather’s behavior towards women, blacks, Sikhs, Dalits, and the many others he victimized and subjugated. Rajmohan ought to surrender himself in servitude to the downtrodden of India to atone for the damages caused by his family to the people of South Asia.

Finally, we appeal to universities and booksellers to ignore Rajmohan Gandhi’s book, Punjab, especially as long as he refuses to speak the truth about his family deliberately hidden dark secrets. The world no longer has any excuse to remain gullible about Gandhi’s past in the face of so much information exposing his exploitation of the vulnerable. The myth is Gandhi as savior but the truth is Gandhi as predator and so, it seems, Gandhism must be rejected completely.

[OnPathToSikhi]

I may not agree with Gandhi on various issues and he definitely had a flawed personality

This is your problem, right here. You see Gandhi as flawed personality and yet look up to him.

[aksantali]

knew billi was going to complain LOL

[tonyhp32]

Gandhi was never popular among Sikhs. The Sikh leadership even in the 1920s considered him to be a wily Hindu Lala and they were proved correct in their assessment. The flaws in his personality included racism against blacks. If you tell most people about his racism they will think you are mad. The reason that most people consider him as some kind of saint is due mainly to the Indian govt's partially financed propaganda film Gandhi.

The film glosses over his racism, the part where he is in South Africa and 'appears' to be fighting for equal rights was in reality his fight to get the Indians in South Africa better rights than the blacks, He wasn't interested in equal rights for everyone.

His other flaws included giving sleeping naked with young girls to test his brahmacharya oath.

[tonyhp32]

Flaws in a Mahatma?

[Genie Singh]

Gandhuu's books of fiction will probably be appreciated by the masses more then ought to

[Premi]

M Gandhi will be forgotten about in a hundred years

[Jonny101]

Gandhi goes against his own religion by preaching Ahimsa. He would hold a copy of the Bhagawat Gita, but forget it was recited on the battle field of Kurukshetra in which untold amount deaths occurred. He worshiped Ram, but Ram was a warrior who had no problem using violence in order to defeat evil. Gandhi preached against British imperialism in India but had no problem with racism in South Africa against the blacks. He was a walking talking contradiction.

[tonyhp32]

So Gandhi justified violence. So why did he advise the Jews to commit mass suicide? Why did he advise the British to not resist an invasion of the Britihs Isles? A Gandhi justifying violence will be news to some of his blind followers around the world.

The Gandhi myth is a creation of west which was then taken over by the Indian govt and hence the reason why they part funded the propaganda film Gandhi.

His strategy could only work when the colonial masters were aware of public opinion. He would not have lasted a second had the masters been the Nazis or the Japanese.

[amar_jkp]

Gandhi and Sikhs

My first biases of Gandhi arose from the fact that, throughout his lifetime, Gandhi expressed many anti-Sikh views, ranging from attacking the symbols of the Sikh faith to encouraging Sikhs to abandon parts of their culture and religion in favor of re-absorption into Hinduism.

From the onset of his arrival in India, Gandhi insisted on referring to Sikhs as "Hindus" even though the vast majority of Sikhs at that time expressed their belief that they were a distinct religion and that referring to them as a part of Hinduism was offensive. His insistent comments that the "Sikh Gurus were Hindus" and that Guru Gobind Singh was "one of the greatest defenders of Hinduism" (Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi Vol. 28 pg. 263) deeply hurt Sikh sentiments, but that never deterred him making such statements throughout his life.

Gandhi was so adamant in his view of Sikhism being a part of Hinduism that he went to the extent of condemning the conversion of Untouchables to Sikhism if Sikhs continued to assert their not being a sect of Hinduism. At that time, led by Dr. Ambedkar, over 60 million Untouchables desired to convert to another religion in order to free themselves from their enslavement in the Hindu caste system. Dr. Ambedkar had a very strong interest in the conversion of the Untouchables to Sikhism, to the extent that he even had his own nephew baptized into Sikhism.

Gandhi found this possible conversion to be intolerable in the light of Sikhs viewing themselves as not being Hindus. Gandhi wrote: "I don't mind Untouchables if they do desire, being converted to Islam or Christianity" (CW, Vol 48, pg 98), he insisted that conversion to Sikhism by these Untouchables was "dangerous."

"Today I will only say that to me Sikhism is a part of Hinduism. But the situation is different from a legal point of view. Dr. Ambedkar wants a change of religion. If becoming a Sikh amounts to conversion, then this kind of conversion on the parts of Harijans is dangerous. If you can persuade the Sikhs to accept that Sikhism is a part of Hinduism and if you can make them give up the separate electorate, then I will have no objections to Harijans calling themselves Sikhs" (CW, Vol 63, pg 267).


A particularly offensive comment of Gandhi made it clear that he harbored the belief that Sikhs should disown the institution of the Khalsa Panth established by the tenth Guru, Guru Gobind Singh. He said, "I read your Granth Sahib. But I do not do so to please you. Nor shall I seek your permission to do so. But the Guru has not said anywhere that you must grow your beards, carry kirpans (swords) and so on" (CW Vol. 90, Pg. 80).

Gandhi failed to acknowledge that a Guru had established such symbols for the Sikhs. In particular, Gandhi attacked the kirpan on many occasions. He showed a critical misunderstanding in the beliefs and responsibilities surrounding Guru Gobind Singh's commandment that his Sikhs should wear kirpans. This misunderstanding gradually turned into a general intolerance, with Gandhi often mocking those Sikhs who wore them.

Gandhi attacked Gurmukhi. In a letter to a friend, Amrit Kaur, he wrote: "I wish you would persuade enlightened Sikhs to take the Devnagri script in the place of the Gurmukhi" (CW Vol. 64. pg 41).

It is important to realize that Gurmukhi is not the language of the Punjab, but rather the language of the Sikhs. The Sikh Gurus created Gurmukhi and it is the script used in the Guru Granth Sahib. It wasn't as if Gandhi asked Punjabis (who are Sikhs, Hindus, and Muslims) to give up the Punjabi language, but rather Sikhs in particular to give up the language of their Gurus. While I respect Gandhi's desire to have some sort of united language, he failed to realize that by making such statements he was in essence asking Sikhs to disown their culture, their heritage and the Guru Granth Sahib by abandoning their mother tongue in favor of a composite language.

In conclusion, from his various comments, it appears that Gandhi wished for Sikhs to renounce the parts of their religion and culture that he felt prevented them from being reabsorbed into Hinduism. Two of the main obstacles to such an objective were the different language of the Sikhs and the institution of the Khalsa Panth.

Gandhi was particularly fond of making broken promises to the Sikhs, promises that to this day have come back to haunt them. He would never hesitate to appease them by saying: "We have not done justice to the Sikhs" (CW Vol. 38 pg. 315). But this would only translate into promises that were never kept.

During the 1920's and 1930's, the British had acknowledged three main groups that would receive power after they left India - the Hindus, the Muslims and the Sikhs who ruled the last kingdom that was annexed by the British. There was talk amongst Sikhs about creating such a country, Khalistan, for themselves.

In order to help persuade Sikhs to join Hindu India, Gandhi made many comments and promises that, looking back at history, seem to have been aimed at deceiving and coaxing them. The first of such promises was when he said: "No Constitution would be acceptable to the Congress which did not satisfy the Sikhs" (CW Vol. 58. p. 192).

This promise was quickly broken right after independence. To this day, not one Sikh has ever signed the Indian Constitution, which goes out of its way to declare that Sikhs are indeed a part of Hinduism (Article 25 of the Constitution).

Then came the promise that was used as a justification by some Sikhs in taking up arms against the Government of India after 1984. Gandhi invoked the sacred name of God and said:

"I venture to suggest that the non-violence creed of the Congress is the surest guarantee of its good faith and our Sikhs friends have no reason to fear betrayal at its hands. For the moment it did so, the Congress would not only seal its own doom but that of the country too. Moreover, the Sikhs are a brave people; they will know how to safeguard their right by the exercise of arms if it shall ever come to that." He further continued: "Why can you have no faith? If Congress shall play false afterwards you can well settle surely with it, for you have the sword. I ask you to accept my word. Let God be witness of the bond that binds me and the Congress with you" (CW Vol. 45 pg. 231-33).

These were just more appeasement tactics. The mention of "Sikhs are a brave people" and the "exercise of arms" were attempts to mislead the Sikh masses considering the fact that Gandhi did not support any such "exercise of arms". How ironic was it that the Congress party that Gandhi had declared as having a special bond with the Sikhs was the first to betray them. This was firstly accomplished by depriving them of a linguistic state and a capital after independence and then by massacring thousands upon thousands of Sikhs in and after 1984.

There was no "non-violence creed" displayed by the Congress, only barbarianism that would put the likes of Aurangzeb to shame. The fact remains that more Sikhs have been killed under fifty years of Indian rule than under the one hundred years of British rule. Gandhi's promises were left unfulfilled and it was the Sikh people who were left to pay for such treachery.

At this point, I wish to elucidate that these statements alone are not the reasons why I am not enthusiastic about Gandhi. I can accept the fact that perhaps M. K. Gandhi just had a deep misunderstanding of Sikhism and that I am just being overly critical of a few comments he made. Perhaps I am just exposing my own inadequacies by blaming him for the actions of those who came after him as well. In either case, the reasons I cited above are not enough to warrant a total dislike for all the accomplishments that Mohandas Gandhi achieved in life. Despite what he achieved though, I disagree with his principles and methods.

A LOOK AT NON-VIOLENCE

Even before Gandhi came to India in 1915, the Sikhs had been peacefully protesting for the right to run their Gurdwaras (after the Sikh kingdom had been annexed, the Gurdwaras had been turned over by the British to Brahmin Hindus to run). Gandhi was very critical of the 'Sikh way' of civil disobedience. He said:

"The Akalis (Sikh Warriors) wear a black turban and a black band on one shoulder and also carry a big staff with a small axe on the top. Fifty or a hundred of such groups go and take possession of a gurdwara; they suffer violence themselves but do not use any. Nevertheless, a crowd of fifty or more men approaching a place in the way described is certainly a show of force and naturally the keeper of the Gurdwara would be intimidated by it." (Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol. 19 pg. 401).

This is where I do not understand Gandhi's teachings. On the one hand Gandhi did not believe non-violent resistance should be "passive," but rather that it should be, in essence, a "force". On the other hand, he criticized Sikhs for practicing non-violent civil disobedience in seeking control of their Gurdwaras. Their methods were even praised by British leaders. Reverend C. F. Andrews wrote: "The vow (of non-violence) they (the Sikhs) had made to God was kept to the letter. I saw no act, no look, of defiance."

As far as the spirit of the suffering they endured, the Reverend said "It was very rarely that I witnessed any Akali Sikh, who went forward to suffer, flinch from a blow when it was struck. The blows were received one by one without resistance and without a sign of fear."

Still, Gandhi could not reconcile this manner of civil disobedience, for he decided that the Sikhs participating in it harbored "hatred in their hearts" and thus never gave his blessings to such forms of agitation. Gandhi could not understand why Sikhs would peacefully protest while wearing arms. To him, this constituted cowardice, that one carries arms while walking in peace.

I completely disagree. Gandhi failed to realize the differences between non-violence of the weak, and non-violence of the strong. The importance of carrying arms was to show that they were indeed brave enough and capable of using them, but that they were instead consciously choosing not to. It is a discipline that only a few select can conquer. A coward who is weak and scared will never wear arms and walk in peaceful protest because, as soon as the first signs of oppression arise, he will be scared and use his weapons in haste. Similarly, the weak and the scared will never have the capacity to make non-violence their way of life. To them it will only be something useful when they are helplessly bound in shackles.

To be able to wear arms and to not retaliate or show the slightest bit of anger or attempt self-defense against someone who is attacking you is the highest form of non-violent protest. It implies a complete resignation to peaceful ways and an absolute belief in the power of non-violent protest despite the ability of the protestor to respond violently. It is one thing to walk in peaceful protest that is born out of a feeling of helplessness and quite another to walk peacefully, inviting oppression and suffering upon himself despite being fully armed, while totally being able to fight back. The first constitutes cowardice, the second a force.

I can't help but think that the sort of non-violence practiced by Gandhi's followers in India was that of the weak, that of the helpless. I believe that most did not truly understand the principles of non-violence in the manner in which Gandhi preached it. Rather they just thought they would be unable to win independence through other means. I come to this conclusion because of the history of Indians both before and after Gandhi.

An obvious fact is that Indians as a race have been oppressed for the last several hundred years by the Moguls (and later on by the British). Many of them never uttered a word of protest against the atrocities that were committed against their kith and kin, atrocities which were much worse than those perpetrated by the British. Even fewer actually took up actions against the Moguls (the major exception of course being the Marathas in the south).

It was quite common for invaders such as Abdali and Nadir Shah to invade India, take Indian jewelry and Indian women and head back to Afghanistan. Yet there were very few strong voices that opposed this. This was because of fear. This fear is what stopped them from participating in any course of action besides submitting to their oppressors. It seems like over time most Indians have developed a "learned helplessness". Following Gandhi's ideas arose from this feeling of helplessness. Indians followed Gandhi's beliefs not because they thought non-violence was a superior weapon in dealing with social problems, as Gandhi had preached, but rather because they felt they had no other alternative. This in itself defeats the whole purpose of non-violence.

It was quite common for Indians to one day be peacefully protesting and the next day to form lynch mobs. The only conclusion I can come to in order to reconcile these two thoughts is that they had no idea what the real essence of non-violent agitation was. The simple fact that after Gandhi his philosophy of non-violence has been completely abandoned by the people of India at large seems to point toward this conclusion.

To me, Gandhi came across as being an uncompromising extremist. A non-violent extremist, but an extremist nevertheless. His letters to the British people during World War Two encouraging them to "allow yourself, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered" by "peacefully surrendering" to the Nazis in order to further his fanatic ideas of non-violence is a perfect example (CW Vol. 72 pg 229 231, CW Vol. 72 pg. 177). When pressed even further, he went to the extent of calling Guru Gobind Singh, the Maratha Shivaji and George Washington "misguided patriots" for taking up arms in defense of their people (CW Vol. 26 pg. 486-492).

Had Gandhi lived under the likes of Aurangzeb, in almost all likelihood he would have been arrested and hanged for even showing the slightest bit of defiance to the Mogul Empire. His non-violent ways worked because the British were not total tyrants, rather just concerned with exploiting Indians for their own economic gain. The aim of the British was not to annihilate them, as Aurangzeb and Hitler had attempted to do to their subjects. Thus the situation was ideal for the implementation of non-violent agitation.

According to Gandhi, only "evil and violence" came about from those who use violence. He seems to totally disregard the idea of a "noble cause", basing his ideas of whether a movement was right or wrong on his narrow view of whether or not non-violence was being used. No doubt history has shown that those who used violence for the sake of unworthy causes ultimately did perpetuate violence and evil upon themselves. But, at the same time, those who used violence because of noble causes (as in defense of their people), the rule did not apply.

There is a certain undeniable beauty in watching or reading about others who are fighting for noble and legitimate causes. Perhaps one of the best examples I can bring up is reading about the American Revolution. There is certain magnificence, certain holiness, about those people fighting for their rights. The fact that they used arms to achieve their freedom did not discount the righteousness of what they did.

FALLING SHORT OF TRUE GREATNESS

There are a few situations where I question Gandhi's approach to dealing with a problem. Take fasts, for example.

In his lifetime, Gandhi fasted for many issues ranging from stopping mob violence to preventing Untouchables from having separate electoral ballots. It seems that his fasts unto death were just a method of coercing others into obeying him. There was no "teaching someone the error of their ways", but rather people ceded to Gandhi's demands because they realized they had more to lose if he died as a result. Seeing how this "moral enlightenment" obviously wasn't occurring, I don't see what the difference would have been had the army been sent in to stop the rioting by force. In either situation, the people would not have been any more enlightened to the error of their ways, except in the latter situation less people may have died.

One problem I see is that Gandhi had no peers, only followers. In essence, Gandhi's words became the "Rule of Law" in India during that time. That's why I believe his influence on most Indians died with him. Though Gandhi may have lived with the underprivileged, there wasn't anyone that stood as his equal, not even Jawaharlal Nehru or Vallabhai Patel. There wasn't anyone who was in any position to question Gandhi's beliefs or authority. They were basically forced to follow what Gandhi said, whether agreeing with it or not. Thus after he was assassinated, there was a vacuum and India was once again left as a nation of followers.

For me, this is what separates Gandhi from rising into the realm of great people in history. Great leaders seek to free their people from the chains of mental slavery. They voluntarily give up their political power and their ultimate authority in order to give their kith and kin a sense of empowerment, something Gandhi did not do.

Gandhi may have asked Indians to spin their own thread, but he was always a level above the average Indian. This is what prevented him from ever truly leading Indians down a path of self-empowerment and self-determination. The inferiority complex, which has always been at the root of the problem, was thus never eliminated. Contrast this to the examples laid by the Sikh Gurus, such as that of Guru Gobind Singh in raising the Khalsa.

Despite being a Guru and the word of God to his followers, Guru Gobind Singh repeatedly lowered himself to the level of his followers in order to instill in them a sense of power, authority and sovereignty. It was the flame of self-respect and empowerment that he spent his entire life inculcating in his people that sowed the seeds of a nation that would prosper.

Upon initially baptizing the first five Sikhs into the Khalsa Panth in 1699, the Guru himself bowed before his own followers and begged them to baptize him into their own way of live, to in essence accept him as one of their own. It was at this point that he became a Guru only in name. He chose to give up his absolute authority as Guru and take on the path of a disciple, something that a being in his position had never done before.

Guru Gobind Singh voluntarily gave up his total say in matters related to Sikhi and, instead, entrusted his Sikhs to take up such issues in his place. There are many instances in Sikh history where Guru Gobind Singh was ordered to do something by the Khalsa. There was even such an occasion that he was fined by other Sikhs for what they felt constituted a "waiver of faith".

Here was a situation where his own followers were fining a head of a faith, a prophet, for what they thought violated an article of the faith. The Guru happily obliged and paid his dues, happy at the sense of empowerment that had grown amongst his Sikhs. By the end of his life, Sahib Guru Gobind Singh had dispersed all of his power to his people, for his people.

By sacrificing everything he had for them, Guru Sahib gave his Sikhs a sense of dignity in his own physical lifetime; something Gandhi never had the privilege of seeing.

If we take India to be the microcosm of Gandhi's teachings and influence, I don't see how we can come to any other conclusion except that Gandhi's ways are a complete failure, even after only fifty years of his death. Gandhi preached non-violence. Non-violence was totally abandoned in India. Gandhi preached self-empowerment, yet the average Indian is no more empowered before Gandhi than after Gandhi. Gandhi preached peace, yet India is constantly drifting toward war in one form or another. Gandhi wanted his people to "love the British" who were oppressing them. That was the foundation of his beliefs in the power of non-violence. Yet the fact remains that "love" was the last way to describe the way in which Indians viewed Britain, even despite the fact that India was created without a war.

In conclusion, though I may not have a strong admiration of the man himself, there is a profound appreciation of what Gandhi preached. I am a full-fledged believer in non-violent civil disobedience. It has many practical uses today and most definitely in the future as well. At the same time, I do not believe in the extremism that Gandhi did, which makes it impractical and thus lays the seeds for it to be abandoned in the future, as it has been in India today.

[SAadmin]

"I read your Granth Sahib. But I do not do so to please you. Nor shall I seek your permission to do so. But the Guru has not said anywhere that you must grow your beards, carry kirpans (swords) and so on"

He was spot on! Show me one verse in SGGS which asks Sikhs to grow hair or even justifies such external features. Panj kakkars is something which Tat Khalsas have forced on ALL Sikhs. Forget what Gandhi has said, SGGS (and Dasam Granth) does not have the word KHALSA (as in Sikh Khalsa) in it. Having said that I am not saying Khalsa has no position in Sikhism. They were the warriors Guru sahib created to resist the Muslim atrocities.

Sri dasam guru granth its fairly clear to grow hair, and have 5 ks.

I always find it ironic you find example of shastardhari snatan dharmis again pretty much all keshadharis and shastardharis all across bhagvad gita- mahabharta and ramayana acceptable, yet get your knickers in a twist when khalsa carries 5 ks to uphold dharma, propagate and defend dharma not just its own but defend overall dharma and weak in general.

Didn't all the previous avtars- ram chandar ji, ram krishnan ji and hanuman, arjuna and whole sena grow kesh and were shastardhari.

Show me ahinsa (jain pacificsm) is authentic part of sanatan dharma- ramayana/mahabharat? Hell they are even puratan buddhist orders who are keshadharis/ shastardharis and you seem to bias and issue towards khalsa- sant-sipahi which is meant to carefully strike a balance between sant and sipahi.

Khalsa is kaum of sant-sipahi which means sipahi nature should naturally spontaneously arise from sant (peace, compassion, contenment, advait-one non dual vision for whole humanity) after bhramgyan not enforced or induced

Bir ras of Sipahi of Khalsa: Warrior spirit of self defense- stopping an individual to do further damage, fight against oppression but more importantly- bir ras is not on its own, its naturally born, nurtured and controlled by sant aspect of one's life- dya (compassion), sat(truthful), sabar( patience), santokh(contentment), sam/advait dristhi (non dual one vision impartial perception of humanity).

Found a right word/description for bir ras its spontaneous natural force coming out naturally which does not have ego/pride,anger, revenge, vegenance, jealously vices/perception attached to it, its totally nirlaip from maya... its not only conceptual those who are serious into meditation knows and can relate to this spontaneous natural force as they have experienced it.

For eg- its as natural as one is walking/running, when one walks legs move naturally its spontenous thing, there are *NO* anger behind it or having any kind good or bad attributes behind it, its just action,reaction ...just is .!!

hopefully that helps..

[Jonny101]

Sri dasam guru granth its fairly clear to grow hair, and have 5 ks.

I always find it ironic you find example of shastardhari snatan dharmis again pretty much all keshadharis and shastardharis all across bhagvad gita- mahabharta and ramayana acceptable, yet get your knickers in a twist when khalsa carries 5 ks to uphold dharma, propagate and defend dharma not just its own but defend overall dharma and weak in general.

Didn't all the previous avtars- ram chandar ji, ram krishnan ji and hanuman, arjuna and whole sena grow kesh and were shastardhari.

That's just the thing. The Indians of the previous Yugs were Dharmi people who were Kesadharis. But today's Kalyugi Hindus have taken on Kalyugi traits by cutting their Kesh, abandoning Kshatriya Dharm and Bhagti Marg. But Khalsa has maintained all of these qualities. Khalsa is the rightful inheritor of the legacy of those ancient people of India, not today's Kalyugi Hindus.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Jonny101

[Amarjeet Singh_1737]

Sri dasam guru granth its fairly clear to grow hair, and have 5 ks.

I always find it ironic you find example of shastardhari snatan dharmis again pretty much all keshadharis and shastardharis all across bhagvad gita- mahabharta and ramayana acceptable, yet get your knickers in a twist when khalsa carries 5 ks to uphold dharma, propagate and defend dharma not just its own but defend overall dharma and weak in general.

Didn't all the previous avtars- ram chandar ji, ram krishnan ji and hanuman, arjuna and whole sena grow kesh and were shastardhari.

Show me ahinsa (jain pacificsm) is authentic part of sanatan dharma- ramayana/mahabharat? Hell they are even puratan buddhist orders who are keshadharis/ shastardharis and you seem to bias and issue towards khalsa- sant-sipahi which is meant to carefully strike a balance between sant and sipahi.

Khalsa is kaum of sant-sipahi which means sipahi nature should naturally spontaneously arise from sant (peace, compassion, contenment, advait-one non dual vision for whole humanity) after bhramgyan not enforced or induced

Bir ras of Sipahi of Khalsa: Warrior spirit of self defense- stopping an individual to do further damage, fight against oppression but more importantly- bir ras is not on its own, its naturally born, nurtured and controlled by sant aspect of one's life- dya (compassion), sat(truthful), sabar( patience), santokh(contentment), sam/advait dristhi (non dual one vision impartial perception of humanity).

Found a right word/description for bir ras its spontaneous natural force coming out naturally which does not have ego/pride,anger, revenge, vegenance, jealously vices/perception attached to it, its totally nirlaip from maya... its not only conceptual those who are serious into meditation knows and can relate to this spontaneous natural force as they have experienced it.

For eg- its as natural as one is walking/running, when one walks legs move naturally its spontenous thing, there are *NO* anger behind it or having any kind good or bad attributes behind it, its just action,reaction ...just is .!!

hopefully that helps..

My friend you know as well as me there are three Granths. The Sarbloh Granth extensively defines the Khalsa in Guru Ji's own eyes. Now how would Gandhi know that???? A cursory or even a dedicated scanning of descriptions and histories of the Khalsa does not provide any specific perceptions into it's psyche and tenets. So how can the latter provide any theological justification? Now of course Sher can argue whatever merits and de-merits he wants, but the truth remains Gandhi was no expert on the Khalsa ethos and nor did he prove to be an effective leader in the long run. Each human had flaws, but those like Gandhi who veil their flaws with religious veils are nothing more than hypocrites; and hypocrisy is the worst flaw of all.

[SAadmin]

That's just the thing. The Indians of the previous Yugs were Dharmi people who were Kesadharis. But today's Kalyugi Hindus have taken on Kalyugi traits by cutting their Kesh, abandoning Kshatriya Dharm and Bhagti Marg. But Khalsa has maintained all of these qualities. Khalsa is the rightful inheritor of the legacy of those ancient people of India, not today's Kalyugi Hindus.

I Can't say all hindus as there are many various orders and many hindu sadhus have kept long hair..however, those who claim they are upasakhs of kshatariya dharam yet have shaved heads and yet have audacity to point finger at those who kept ancient traditions. Unbelievable.. even hanuman ji had a kachera , keshadhari and was shastardhari.

[SAadmin]

My friend you know as well as me there are three Granths. The Sarbloh Granth extensively defines the Khalsa in Guru Ji's own eyes. Now how would Gandhi know that???? A cursory or even a dedicated scanning of descriptions and histories of the Khalsa does not provide any specific perceptions into it's psyche and tenets. So how can the latter provide any theological justification? Now of course Sher can argue whatever merits and de-merits he wants, but the truth remains Gandhi was no expert on the Khalsa ethos and nor did he prove to be an effective leader in the long run. Each human had flaws, but those like Gandhi who veil their flaws with religious veils are nothing more than hypocrites; and hypocrisy is the worst flaw of all.

Totally agree.

[SAadmin]

Why yogis and swamis have long hair and beard?

[SAadmin]

[tonyhp32]

The stupidity of some people knows no bounds. Gandhi knew the 5 k's aren't in the Guru Granth Sahib and for the most part the so-called Mahatma was baiting the Sikhs. The Khalsa was created by Guru Gobind Singh and he gave us the 5 k's. It doesn't matter whether the requirement is within the Guru Granth Sahib or not. It was the injunction given by the Guru who then gave the Guruship to the Guru Granth Sahib. Only the enemies of the Sikhs or fools will ask where the requirement for the 5 k's are in the Guru Granth Sahib. Going by the logic of the 'Hindu' Sher, why do the his people refer to themselves as Hindus, show us where the word Hindu is mentioned in the Vedas, Upanishads or even Bhagavad Gita?

[SAadmin]

Going by the logic of the 'Hindu' Sher, why do the his people refer to themselves as Hindus, show us where the word Hindu is mentioned in the Vedas, Upanishads or even Bhagavad Gita?

I already asked him this question, he had no answer...hindu is demographic name have no religious spiritual connotations let alone organized religion or religion in abstract form.

[amar_jkp]

Thanks for quoting Gandhi to support your argument.

"I read your Granth Sahib. But I do not do so to please you. Nor shall I seek your permission to do so. But the Guru has not said anywhere that you must grow your beards, carry kirpans (swords) and so on"

He was spot on! Show me one verse in SGGS which asks Sikhs to grow hair or even justifies such external features. Panj kakkars is something which Tat Khalsas have forced on ALL Sikhs. Forget what Gandhi has said, SGGS (and Dasam Granth) does not have the word KHALSA (as in Sikh Khalsa) in it. Having said that I am not saying Khalsa has no position in Sikhism. They were the warriors Guru sahib created to resist the Muslim atrocities.

I. FAITH

Reason 1: Because the Gurus Said to Keep Long Hair.

• “When you have faith, you don’t need any absolute reason for doing anything. The Gurus said to keep long hair, so I do. I don’t question it,” someone once told me.

II. LINK WITH THE GURU

Reason 2: Because the Gurus had Long Hair

• According to Trilochan Singh in The Turban and Sword of the Sikhs, Sikhs live in the physical image of the Guru, and since the Gurus kept long hair, so do Sikhs. This may be as a tribute to the Gurus’ life or as a way to live in line with the Gurus’ lifestyle.

Reason 3: Physical Connection to Gurus

• Long hair can help a Sikh feel connected to the Guru. It is a physical commonality a Sikh shares with his/her Guru and thus, can serve as a reminder that a Sikh can be Guru-like and must strive to embody qualities the Gurus had.
• Long hair is regarded as the seal of the Guru, (Manasukhani, Gobind Singh). Typically, a seal authenticates a document or is placed on package holding valuables. In this light, kesh is the Guru’s seal authenticating the Sikh as a disciple, or long hair can be considered the emblem upon the valuable mind/soul contained within the body.
• One author believes that long hair symbolizes the spiritual link a Sikh has with the Guru’s power, (Manasukhani, Gobind Singh).

Reason 4: Orders

• Another theory is that keeping kesh honors Guru Gobind Singh’s 1699 Vasakhi Hukam (command/order) that amritdhari Sikhs, must wear the 5Ks, one of which is kesh.
• In June of 1699, after the first Sikh Vasakhi, Guru Gobind Singh Ji issued a hukam nama for the sangat of Kabul specifically according to the Bikrami calendar, Jeth 26, Sammat 1756. In this hukham, Guru Ji refers to kesh several times, ” Keep your hair (Kesh) uncut – this is the seal of the Guru….Look after your hair and comb (Kanga) it twice a day….Never have any connection whatsoever with those who…celebrate the cutting of children’s hair,” (Guru Gobind Singh, 1699).
• Some point to the rehatnama (code of conduct) written by Bhai Daya Singh Ji, a contemporary of Guru Gobind Singh Ji, that states, “The hair resides on the body, forsake cutting it,” (Singh, Nihang.).

• The Damdami Taksal Rehat Maryada also indicates the importance of kesh, “Unshorn Hair
 From your head down to your toes all hair is to be kept unshorn and your hair is to be tied
 and complemented with a turban,” (Damdami Taksal).
• Almost all other rehatnamas lay special emphasis on the maintenance of unshorn hair, (Khalsa, Sukhmandir).

III. SPIRITUALITY

Reason 5: Saintliness or Holiness

• In ancient India, it was a general practice with Hindu sages and ascetics to keep long hair tied in a knot on top of their head and keep a long beard. Gurdev Singh hypothesizes in his paper, Respectives on the Sikh Tradition, that Guru Gobind Singh wanted his Sikhs, despite being householders, to also be karma yogis, or practical saints.
• In India, kesh is a symbol of saintliness or holiness, (Manasukhani, Gobind Singh).
• Long hair serves as a reminder for Sikhs to behave like the saints and Rishis of the past, (Sidhu, GS).
• G. A. Gaskell writes, “Hair of the head is a symbol of faith, intuition of truth, or the highest qualities of the mind.”

Reason 6: Devotion

• Another theory is that the head of a devout Sikh is an offering to the Guru and long hair is proof of the Sikh’s devotion and a sign of a Sikh’s commitment and devotion to his/her Guru, (Manasukhani, Gobind Singh.
• Others say that kesh indicates a life decided to the services of God and humanity, (Singh, Gurdev).
• Some say that kesh is a mark of dedication to the Guru, (Sidhu, G.S.).

Reason 7: Truth

• Writer Sukhmandir Khalsa says that keeping kesh honors truth. Hair, like truth, continually asserts itself despite whatever measures are taken to deny it. Whether plucked, shaved, or curled, or colored hair, the hereditary disposition and condition of hair cannot be changed or concealed, for hair always returns to its original genetic growth pattern, (Khalsa, Sukhmandir).

• Khalsa also says that keeping kesh benefits the body and soul. “Hair is prayer and kesh acts as a subtle spiritual antenna. One who keeps kesh intact, practices meditation and achieves humility comes to know the benefit of kesh which can never be realize if hair is severed,” (Khalsa, Sukhmandir).

IV. INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT

Reason 8: Hair Makes a Person Whole

• Another reason a Sikh may keep long hair is that long hair establishes a complete and natural person. When the body is whole, it represents a whole spirit, a spirit unlimited by worldly consideration, (Wylam, Pamela Margaret).

Reason 9: Sikh Sovereignty

• Sikhs do not conform to time-bound, secular fashion trends; Sikhs are not attached to the world. Thus, Wylam says, long hair indicates a freedom from socially deemed fashionable haircuts, (Wylam, Pamela Margaret.) The Sikh is sovereign from social standards of beauty and only behaves in accordance with the Gurus’ standards.

Reason 10: Discipline

• Personal discipline is central to Sikhi and some feel that keeping long hair, combing it every day and washing it, develops disciplines, (Singh, Gurdev).

Reason 11: Vanity

• Some writers feel that keeping kesh vanquishes vanity. Keeping hair intact is a constant reminder to make conscious choices when facing the challenges of confronting ego, (Khalsa, Sukhmandir).

Reason 12: Self-esteem

• Keeping kesh builds self-esteem, in another point of view. Keeping hair intact allows one to experience courage, conquer fear, and realize unconditional love, (Khalsa, Sukhmandir),

Reason 13: Eliminates Duality

• The Sikh eliminates the duality in the mind that may come with cutting hair; that Waheguru made the human perfect but somehow the Sikh is not perfect and thus must cut the hair. Bringing thoughts and actions in line with each other can help establish inner peace.

V. PANTHIK DEVELOPMENT

Reason 14: A Common Denominator

• Since every practicing Sikh keeps long hair, it is the common denominator between all Sikhs. It helps connect everyone mentally, reminding Sikhs that they are all striving to reach the same religious, spiritual, social objective, together, (Wylam, Pamela Margaret). Long hair across the panth psychologically connects Sikhs to their fellow Sikhs.

[amar_jkp]

Reason 15: Collective Consciousness

• GS Sidhu in his paper, A Brief Introduction to Sikhism, writes that long hair across the panth builds a collective consciousness among Sikhs; it is a mark of dedication and group consciousness.
• A Sikh collective consciousness is a set of shared beliefs, values, history, ideas and moral attitudes which serves as a unifying force within the panth. It plays a role in uniting Sikhs to achieve communal goals and overcome obstacles. “The totality of beliefs and sentiments common to the average members of a society forms a determinate system with a life of its own. It can be termed the collective or creative consciousness,” (Durkheim, Emile).
• The contents of an individual Sikh’s consciousness are shared in common with all other Sikhs within the panth, creating solidarity through mutual likeness. Such solidarity facilitates the advancement of Sikh interests, objectives, and standards within the panth and also, beyond it.

• Furthermore, according to Mary Kelsey’s theory (sociology lecturer at UC Berkeley) collective consciousness brings Sikhs together as a dynamic group to share resources and knowledge.
• Lastly, collective consciousness in the Sikh context can endow the Sikh panth with unique agency: it contributes to an individual Sikh to think and act in a way that reflects the Panthik values. This often promotes positive behavior and deters negative behavior. For example, many Sikhs are highly visible (with the beard, long hair or turban) and thus may think twice about stealing since it reflects poorly on all other Sikhs and “gives them a bad name.” As Burns and Egdahl state, those in collective consciousness “can be considered to possess agential capabilities: to think, judge, decide, act, reform; to conceptualize self and others as well as self’s actions and interactions; and to reflect.

Reason 16: Kinship

• Long hair forges an association of the Guru’s disciplines as equals, says Gurdev Singh in Respectives on the Sikh Tradition, decided to the services of God and humanity.

VI. HISTORICAL CONNECTION

Reason 17: Kesh Psychologically Connects Sikhs to their History

• As Sikhs in history kept long hair, keeping long hair in the modern era can help connect contemporary Sikhs with the Sikh Panth of the past, keeping history alive and giving Sikhs strength, (Singh, Trilocan).

VII. WILL OF GOD

Reason 18: It’s a Gift from God

• Some Sikhs believes that hair is provided by God, with its peculiar distribution over the body, and it should be respected, (Manasukhani, Gobind Singh).
• For some, hair is the symbol of love for God and the respect.

Reason 19: God Made Us This Way

• Another reason some Sikhs keep long hair is to live in harmony with the will of God, (Manasukhani, Gobind Singh).
• Trimming or shaving only emphasize the futility of human effort, when opposing the natural law, (Manasukhani, Gobind Singh).
• Kesh indicates a Sikhs acceptance of God’s will, (Sidhu, GS.).
• Keeping kesh intact honors the creator’s intention. Hair is a birthright inherent in the creator’s design, (Khalsa, Sukhmandir).
• Others say that kesh is just like any other part of the body and as one would not cut or mutate an arm, for instance, one should not do that to kesh either.

VIII. UNIFORM

Reason 20: Sikh Identity

• The Sikh Coalition asserts that kesh is a part of the daily uniform of a Sikh; kesh forms an external identity for a Sikh, (Sikh Coalition).
• Keeping kesh identifies one as a Sikh. Hair is a visible identifier, which distinguishes the Sikh from all other religions and walks of life. Keeping hair intact encourages and gives support to fellow Sikhs, (Khalsa, Sukhmandir).

Reason 21: Fierce Image

• Gurdev Singh proposes the idea that long hair was to create a fierce and bold, warrior appearance within the Khalsa. The warrior tribesmen of the historic North West Afghan frontier kept long hair, though trimmed, and perhaps the Gurus wished the Sikhs to have a similarly impressive and alarming appearance, thus mandating the keeping of Kesh, (Singh, Gurdev).

Reason 22: Inexpensive

• Kesh contributes to the Sikh’s uniform and it is an inexpensive, impressive, permanent uniform accessible to all, (Singh, Gurdev.) Regardless of how poor you are, because kesh costs no money, anyone can have at least this one article of faith connecting him/her to the Khalsa.
• Kesh is a natural uniform (Manasukhani, Gobind Singh).

IX. RELATION TO OTHER FAITHS

Reason 23: Long Hair as the Antithesis of Hindu Renunciation

• Some Hindu saints, those who practiced asceticism (abstaining from worldly pleasures with the aim of pursuing spiritual goals) would shave their heads to proclaim their detachment from the world. Sikhs, according to Uberoi, keep hair to take a stand against this practice; to renounce renunciation, to indicate that they could be part of this world and still pursue spiritual goals. This Sikh practice fused together the householder/common citizen with the renouncer/spiritual ascetic, (Uberoi, J.P.S.).

X. EQUALITY

Reason 24: Reduce Sexual Dimorphism

• When Singhs adopt the stereotypically “feminine” characteristic of long hair, sexual dimorphism between Kaurs and Singhs is reduced. (Sexual dimorphism is the presences of physically obvious differences between the male and female of the species.) It has been scientifically observed that the lower the sexual dimorphism in a species, the more the social equality. My personal belief is that, the sharing of a physical characteristic (long hair) between Kaurs and Singhs can foster greater social equality and cross-gender empathy.

XI. PHYSICAL HEALTH

Reason 25: Protein

• According to some Sikhs, hair is the most potent, purest form of protein in the world. The very root of the hair has the oil of the protein. This oil is enough to support your brain through any activity. Hair is the pranic antenna. It is energy, pure protein, (Khalsa, Gurumustuk Singh).

Reason 26: Vitamin Provider

• Hair’s purpose is to work on the brain, as stated by Gurmustukh Singh Khalsa. The brain needs vitamin D, energy, phosphorus, and metals. The number of units of vitamin D that these hairs provide immediately to the brain is unbelievable, (Khalsa, Gurumustuk Singh).

Reason 27: Power of the Rishi Knot

• Some Sikhs believe that it is very positive for a woman to wear her hair tied on top of her head on the solar center in a rishi knot.
• Furthermore, some believe that men tie a rishi knot where the soft point on the skull is when he was a child. “A woman’s hair is supposed to be tied exactly at the solar centers. Because of the waning and waxing of the moon, she has to protect her solar centers more powerfully than the male,” (Khalsa, Gurumustuk Singh).
• Khalsa states that, “…when a woman’s hair is loose, her identity to submit becomes a hundred times greater. In old times it was a custom that when a woman went to her husband in intimacy, she let her hair down. Unfortunately, now, during the day, everybody has their hair loose. Understand this action in the light of the downfall of sexual values,” (Khalsa, Gurumustuk Singh).

Reason 28: Magnetic Field

• Most women in America shave their legs and underarms. As per some Sikh writings, this may negatively affect one’s magnetic field. “Perhaps if they realize that by cutting the hairs under the arms they are affecting their magnetic field and the sympathetic nervous system and that by shaving the leg hairs they are altering the electromagnetic field of the lower spine, they might think twice about shaving. Women do not understand what those tiny, tiny hairs on their legs do for them. They only know they are bad things. You know how the legs move, right? On both sides of the legs there are hairs. Those hairs create an electromagnetic field, which balances the movement of the pituitary. You shave it and it is your problem; they say it can make you insane,” (Khalsa , Gurumustuk Singh).

Reason 29: Pranic Life Force

• “Some Sikhs believe that when you allow your hair to grow to its full length and coil it on the crown of the head, the sun energy, pranic life force, is drawn down the spine. To counteract that downward movement, the Kundalini life energy rises to create balance,” Khalsa. In Yogi Bhajan’s words, “Your hair is not there by mistake. It has a definite purpose, which saints will discover and other men will laugh at,” (Khalsa, Gurumustuk Singh 2).

XII. CONCLUSION

There you have it. 29 reasons people have proposed as to why Sikhs keep kesh. I hope you find one, or many that resonates with you.

[amar_jkp]

KIRPAN (THE SIKH SWORD)

Author : Unknown

The sword has a special place in the history of various religious, cultures and nations. For a Sikh, "Kirpan" is an article of faith. For an initiated Sikh, wearing of a Kirpan is obligatory. An initiated Sikh, not wearing a Kirpan, would be in breach of his faith.

Although its form has undergone several changes, sword has been part of the history of the world since pre-historic periods. References pertaining to sword can be found in the history of the Jews, the Christians, the Muslims, the Sikhs, the Japanese, and other national and religious groups.

Jesus Christ has been quoted by Matthew as saying, " I have come not be bring peace but sword." Hazrat Mohammed considered the sword to be sacred to Islam. The Hindu goddess Durga is shown carrying several weapons but a raised sword in her right hand, is the most striking feature of her pictures.

The Sikh kirpan, however, is different from the sword of Christianity, Islam or Hinduism. Christ's sword is an alternative for peace; Prophet Mohammed advocated the use of sword for achieving political and religious objectives and Durga's (the Hindu) sword is a weapon to kill the enemy. In all these cases, the sword is used as a weapon, for offensive action. On the other hand, The Sikh Kirpan is essentially "defensive." The Sikh Kirpan is not to be carried raised in the right hand. It is required to be worn in a Gatra (a belt) on the left side of the body, with the humility of a saint.

Kirpan was granted the status of "article of faith" on March 29, 1699 by Guru Gobind Singh Sahib at Anandpur Sahib. However, it does not mean that Kirpan was not sacred to the Sikhs before 1699. Right from Guru Nanak Sahib, Kirpan was a part and parcel of a Sikh's being. Commenting on Mogul invasion on the Sikh Homeland, Guru Nanak Sahib had given the message to the Sikhs to be prepared with a defending kirpan.

The Sixth Nanak, Guru Hargobind Sahib, wore two Kirpans, one representing the temporal and the other transcendental domain of the Sikh cosmos. While he asked his followers to wear defending kirpan, he issued strict directions forbidding the use of Kirpan for an offensive purpose.

Maubad Zulafqar Ardastani (formerly believed as Muhsan Fani), in the seventeenth century acknowledged the Sikh position with regard to Kirpan and confirmed in his book Dabistan-e-Mazahib, that the Sikh Gurus never used their Kirpan in anger.

A Hindu teacher, Samrath Ram Das (guide of the Maratha ruler Shivaji) once met Guru Hargobind Sahib and wanted to know the reason why Guru Sahib had chosen to wear Kirpan etc. Guru Sahib told him that the Sikh Kirpan was required for the protection of the weak, the poor, the downtrodden and the oppressed from the tyrant and the cruel aggressor.

On March 29, 1699, Guru Gobind Singh Sahib revealed Khalsa, the sovereign people. Khalsa, being the direct subject of the Almighty, owes its spiritual and temporal sovereignty to Waheguru (the Almighty). The Khalsa (of the Almighty) was granted five "articles of faith": - Kes (unshorn hair), Kangha (the Sikh Comb), Kara (the Sikh bracelet), Kachhehra (the Sikh shorts) and Kirpan (the Sikh sword). Although these five articles were already a part and parcel of a Sikh's life, but since March 29, 1699, these five became an integral and inseparable part of an initiated Sikh's being. From the moment of initiation until death Khalsa has an obligation not to part with any one of these five articles of faith, at any time.

It is remarkable to note that Guru Gobind Singh Sahib declared a Kirpan and not dagger, sabre, rapier, scimitar, gun or pistol as an article of faith. Kirpan is a combination of two words: Kirpa (mercy/blessing) and "aan" (honour). Thus the term Kirpan means "an article to be used with mercy, for protection of honor/life." The other meaning which one can derive is : "an article which blesses honor." In both cases, the motif is that the Sikh Kirpan can be used only for defense and not for offence. It can not be used in the cases of ordinary fighting for non-sacred purposes. Guru Gobind Singh Sahib did not grant status of "article of faith" to gun. (The Guru, however, did not prohibit the use of these weapons in case of necessity).

In the Sikh religion Khanda (double-edged sword) enjoys a great significance. It is used for preparation of Amrit (nectar for the Sikh initiation). Although Khanda is scared in Sikhism, it is not an article of faith to be carried always on person.

Sword has also been a part of social and cultural traditions of many different communities. The practice of giving a sword as a mark of respect or in recognition of one's exceptional contribution towards the society is as old as the sword itself. This practice is shared by people living in the United States, England, the Sikh Homeland among others. In the United States, the custom of presentation of sword was very popular until the later part of the nineteenth century. Interestingly, some swords were awarded "by vote" in "lotteries," during the US Civil war. These presentation swords are usually richly crafted and vary in sizes.

In the Sikh history and traditions, Kirpan has enjoyed a very special place contribution for the Sikh nation, is honored with the award of a kirpan. Unfortunately, this noble tradition has been corrupted by few opportunist politicians, who, for the sake of political expediency, arranged with their sycophant followers, to be the recipients of such undeserved honors. They might succeed in their nefarious designs to confuse the unknown people in the western countries but the Sikh community is too well aware of their manipulations to be taken in.

Attacks on the Sikh ideology, their cherished traditions, and even the articles of their faith, have often required them to fight protracted battles, to enjoy the basic rights, taken for granted by most other people. Sikh Kirpan is one such item. At one time, the ruling British Government in India was called upon to establish the legal status of the Sikh kirpan. The British Governor General of India issued a notification, making a clear ruling on the issue. It said : "No restriction of shape, length and size of a Kirpan is prescribed for the Sikhs."

An order of F.C. Taylor, Deputy Inspector General of Police (Letter No. 3879 dated November 1, 1936), finally resolved the question of kirpan. It said: "Government has recently issued orders that prohibition and directions of Section 13 of the Indian Arms Act, shall not operate in the case of the Sikhs carrying kirpan; from this it follows that Kirpans are not arms within the meaning of that section. Sikhs can, therefore, carry any number of any size of Kripans."

For a Sikh, kirpan, is an essential article of faith. It is not a symbol. It is strictly obligatory and not optional. A replica of Kirpan can not be used. Kirpan reminds a Sikh of one's duty to be the right action; to defend the poor, the weak, the oppressed and the persecuted; to always remain prepared to the call of the nation, the society and the humanity. The Sikh Kirpan stands for self-esteem; justice, honor, righteousness and readiness for duty and sacrifice.

[Genie Singh]