Sanatan sikhs vs Mainstream sikhs?????

[Guest]

All,

I didn't know that terms like Fanatic Sikhs, British brainwashed Sikhs exist within Sikhism. I would like to get the feedback on this topic with historical evidence, references.

I want to get the good feedback on Mainstream Sikhs vs. Sanatan Sikhs.

I've read about "Sanatan Sikhs" already through sarbloh.info now I want to see the "mainstream Sikhs" part of Sikhism.

I'll appreciate if members will explain this by providing proper references to this discussion. Please, don't take part in this discussion if you want to express your personal comments because main purpose of this post is to see the truth with proper evidences and references.

Only enter if you have historical evidence, references to prove your points. NO personal comments in this discussion.

[Guest BikramjitSingh]

Narsingha

I assume if you consider Giani Gian Singh Nirmala's works as being of dubious nature, then do you also consider the following line as being incorrect?

"Aageya Pey Akal Kee Tabey Chalayoh Panth, Sabh Sikhan Koh Hukam Heh Guru Maneyo Granth"

I did not say that everything that Giani Gian Singh wrote is incorrect. I said that we need to use the touchstone of Gurbani and also rational argument before we accept each and every story from Giani Gian Singh.

As for the 'Agya Bhai Akal ki..' dohra, this is accepted by the Panth because there is considerable other historical evidence for the fact that Guru Gobind Singh passed the Guruship to the Guru Granth Sahib. Works like Sri Gur Sobha which was written a few years after Guru Gobind Singh verses 18-41 to 18-43. On being asked by the Khalsa who will be the Guru after him, the Gurus states-;

Baksh dio Khalis ko jama ( 18-41 )

I have given the Khalsa my ( physical ) frame.

Satgur hamara apar apara shabad bichara ajar jaran ( 18-43 )

My True Guru is the eternal and limitless word spoken with the Lord's light.

The logical outcome of the compilation of the Guru Granth Sahib was that it would become Guru after the tenth Guru. Verses from Gurbani such as;

Bani Guru Guru hai Bani

Just to prove just how difficult it can be accept everything that a scholar like Giani Gian Singh has written is his treatment of the Kukas. Giani Gian Singh tells the sakhi of Guru Gobind Singh appearing to Baba Balak Singh the supposed 11th Guru and telling him that Baba Ram Singh was his (Guru Gobind Singh's ) incarnation. So, I ask you if you accept everything that Giani Gian Singh has written, do you then accept the Kuka 'gurus' as the successors of Guru Gobind Singh ?.

Gurfateh

Bikramjit Singh

[Narsingha]

Giani Gian Singh Nirmala's writings with regards to the Naamdhari movement was to document the oral tradition of the time, and to write down what the Naamdharis considered to be true according to their traditions. It is not for a historian to decide what is Gurmat or not...that is for the philosopher.

A true historian documents events around him/her without prejudice and bias. What is done with this knowledge and how it is interpreted depends upon what the agenda is. There are many aspects of Giani Gian Singh Nirmala's writings that the Akali Nihangs do not agree with, but it is common knowledge that Giani Gian Singh Nirmala was not a big fan of Akali Nihang Singhs (....this is common knowledge thru Akali Nihang oral tradition..whether you accept this or not is your wish).

Within Sanatan Sikhi, perception of Gurbaani (and hence its transiliteration and interpretation) is dependend on one's intellect as Akali Nihang Guru Gobind Singh ji explains in Dasam Guru Durbar. We must all appreciate that we are all different beings, and hence our interpretation may not sit well with others....however, we also need to learn not to enforce our beliefs onto others..

I ask you Bikramjit, how much of the websites do you actually agree with?

[tSingh]

Narsingh,

Giani Gian Singh openly acknowledged that one of his key sources was an Akali Nihang.

[Narsingha]

There are many aspects of Giani Gian Singh Nirmala's works that do not entirely tally with the Akali Nihang oral tradition. However a comparative study will be revealed on the websites in future for all to read....they can draw their own conclusions...

Many authors use sources and end up writing against the views of thier sources...such is reality.

[tSingh]

Somewhere I have a list of the names of the key sources he used, including amazingly Bhai Addan Shah, the third Sewapanthi mahant.

[Guest Javanmard]

I believe in the religion of Love, whatever direction its caravans may take, for Love is my religion and my faith - Ibn 'Arabi

[Guest BikramjitSingh]

Narsingha

I think you are agreeing with my point that every writer is subjective and this is the case with Giani Gian Singh. But I disagree with your point that with regard to the Kukas, Gianiji was just presenting the Kukas beliefs. It is common practice that in order to point out that one is just presenting the views of others one should qualify the line with 'Kukas/Namdharis/they believe...'. Gianiji has not done this in his writing on the Kukas and in any case it does not do his credibility much good when the person who gave us the 'Agya bhai Akal ki..' dohra then writes a story about the appearance of Guru Gobind Singh stating that Baba Ram Singh is his incarnation.

Lalleshvari

I disagree with your view that the four sampradiyas are the orthodoxy of Sikhism. All religions undergo periods of decline and revival. The Singh Sabha revival was an attempt to counteract the influx of popular religion into the lives of Sikhs. Sikhism by the time of the British occupation had expanded from about a few lakhs to over 18 lakh in just under a few decades. Many people had become Sikhs solely to be associated with the religion of the rulers. These people brought into Sikhism their own beliefs in popular religion. The Singh Sabha which was split into the two brances of Lahore and Amritsar. The Amritsar branch accepted popular religion as being an integral part of Sikhism no matter how opposed these beliefs were against the teachings of the Guru Granth Sahib. The Lahore branch which eventually became the predominant group believed that the essence of Sikhism was contained in the Guru Granth Sahib. If any of the rites of popular religion were not endorsed by the Guru Granth Sahib these were to be rejected.

Also I find your attempt to transpose the protestant attitudes to Sikhism naive. I assume you believe that without the British and their 'protestant' ideas, Sikhism today would consist of just the four sampradiyas listed by you ?. Such a view is naive because it ignores the attempts at reform of Sikhism which were going on prior to the British occupation. In fact the reform movement which can be viewed as the most 'protestant' before the Singh Sabha, the Nirankari movement was founded before the British occupation and in an area far removed from the British frontier and their 'protestant' ideas.

Your ideas on the imposition of sexual repression, anti-mysticism, and anti-intellectualism in the interpretation of the Guru Granth Sahib make no sense. None of the Singh Sabha ideas goes against any of the above. In fact the Singh Sabha was the first native movement to concentrate a significant part of it's resources on the setting up of girls schools. I do not understand how sexual repression can come into the intrepretation of the Guru Granth Sahib. There is nothing in the Singh Sabha ideology that decries mysticism or intellectualism in the interpretation of the Guru Granth Sahib. I would wecome an elaboration from you in this regard.

In all movements aimed at revival, the emphesis is always on going back to the central text rather than rely on the subjective analysis of commentators. As the Guru Granth Sahib is the only religious text to have been authenticated by the founders of that religion then it is natural that the Singh Sabha reformers went back to that text to challenge the influx of popular religion in Sikhism.

Your other views also seem contradictory. On the one hand you accuse 'neo-Sikhs' of following a totalitarian agenda and then you also accuse them of allowing anyone who has a view no matter how ignorant to give katha on Gurmat. Surely, the main distinction of a totalitarian discourse is the acceptence of only those who share it's views.

I agree with your reference that Guru Arjan had asked Sikh's to utilise the works of Bhai Gurdas as the key to Gurbani. But this does not mean that Sikhs need to also use the commentaries of other writers many of whom as you should are aware disagree amongst themselves. Should a Sikh utilise the commentaries of Baba Anandghan ( Udasi ) which is coloured by the writers acceptence of Sagun Bhagti or Bhai Santokh Singh's ( Nirmala ) commentaries which have the colouring of Vedanta. Although the Singh Sabha reformers brought forward their own commentaries, their is contrary to what you write no totalitarian edict that Sikhs should solely use these commentaries.

Your other opinions comparing Sikh youth camps to 'hitler youth camps' underlines your extreme bias against anything that your have convinced yourself is not in tune with your 'favourite' sampradiyas. Your linking of domestic violence to Sikh 'totalitarianism' makes good rhetoric but without any solid facts, it remains just that.

The Administrator who began this thread has asked for references to back up any views. Since your views about the orthodoxy of the four sampradiyas would naturally make the Singh Sabha a heresy. Could you post details of any of 'neo-Sikh' beliefs which do not have a basis in the Guru Granth Sahib or which is against the teachings of the Guru Granth Sahib ?.

Yours makes a good theory.. perhaps even a conspiracy theory but where are the facts ?. Just blaming the British and protestant attitudes is not evidence.

Gurfateh

Bikramjit Singh

[fatehsingh]

Dear BiranjitSingh,

Fateh Singh Di Fateh Bullai Parvaan Karniji.

I think you are agreeing with my point that every writer is subjective and this is the case with Giani Gian Singh. But I disagree with your point that with regard to the Kukas, Gianiji was just presenting the Kukas beliefs. It is common practice that in order to point out that one is just presenting the views of others one should qualify the line with 'Kukas/Namdharis/they believe...'. Gianiji has not done this in his writing on the Kukas and in any case it does not do his credibility much good when the person who gave us the 'Agya bhai Akal ki..' dohra then writes a story about the appearance of Guru Gobind Singh stating that Baba Ram Singh is his incarnation.

I'd like to point out a few things:

a) Gianni Gian Singh's original Panth Parkash does not have 'Agya Bhei Akal Ki'. This was only later added after the Khalsa Tract society had already bought his rights. This is also mentioned in the newer Panth Parkash where something like 'Gurmukh Singh Agya Mohe Dini..' is written with the 'Agya Bhei Akal Ki..' where the name of Prof. Gurmukh Singhji of the Singh Sabha Lahore is mentioned.

'Agya Bhei Akal Ki..' is not Gurbani. Bahadur Bhai Kahn Singh ji Nabha has also written so in the Mahan Kosh while defining the word 'Prehlad Singh'.

c) The Kabits about the Kukas were later taken out without the consent of Gianiji and only 'Agya Bhei Akal Ki..' was left. I am not sure from which edition, printed in which year, you are quoting from.

d) Gianni Gian Singh ji didnot wholeheartedly approve of the meddling with his works. This can be found in his small booklet called 'Bhupendranand' in which he had scornfully called the members of Khalsa Tract Society as 'Naam Singh Yed Dil Ke Chore' : Their Names are Singhs but they are thieves at heart.

e) Gianni Gian Singh ji stayed at Gurdwara Sri Bhaini Sahib for about 20 days and had presented his works before the Sangat. He had also undoubtedly received Naam as he himself writes something like 'Jo Kehtay Kalaam Sub Koorh. Ham Paykhia Ajmai Kay': Those who say the Kukas reveal Kalaam is all trash-talk. I have tested it myself.

f) Here it might also be useful to shed some light on the truth and get rid of the propaganda made by recent non-Namdhari writers who claim that Namdhari Sikhs were 'tied to cannon' and blown away. As if they were afraid of death. This is NOT TRUE and as Giani Gian Singhji has also written in Panth Parkash, the Singhs were fighting each other to be the first to stand before the cannons. Gianni Gian Singhji was an eye-witness to the martyrdom of Singhs who attacked Malerkotla so there is absolutely no doubt regarding his authority on this issue.

g) Many Namdhari websites also offer a translation of the Kabits about Namdhari in Panth Parkash that were later taken out by the Khalsa Tract Society, a branch of Singh Sabha, such as http://namdhari-world.com and the entire 28 Kabits may be found there.

I do not wish to get involved in any discussion or debate about whether or not the Namdharis are Sikhs or about the succession of Guruship which never leads to any positive resolution. But as you have mentioned both the Namdhari Panth and Gianni Gian Singhji, who did receive Naam and can be technically called a Namdhari, I decided to share what I know about them for certain.

Fateh Singh

[Guest BikramjitSingh]

Fateh Singh

Thank you for your input. I agree that discussing whether the Kuka leaders were 'guru's is best left for another time.

One point I would like to comment on is your claim that Giani Gian Singh was 'technically' a Namdhari. Although you have stated that Giani Gian Singh received 'naam' in Bhaini but my question is that if a person receives 'naam' from the kukas at one point in their lives but spends the rest of my life not publicising the fact that he is a kuka can he still be 'technically' a kuka ?. Had Giani Gian Singh lived as a kuka for the rest of his life, I have no doubt that the british would have kept a file on him and also kept any eye on his activities. Does one exist, I know that Nahar Singh publicised a list of the most important kukas using the british records, can you confirm that Giani Gian Singh's name features in this list ?.

There is no doubt that a large number of Sikhs in their initial enthuasm for Baba Ram Singh and his teachings declared themselves Kukas but when the prophecies of Baba Ram Singh did not come to fruition they stopped declaring themselves to be kukas. I don't know whether this was the case with Giani Gian Singh but for this was the case for literally thousands of Sikhs.

Gurfateh

Bikramjit Singh

[tSingh]

Gurfateh

Giani Gian Singh was a reknowned Nirmala, not Namdhari. His teacher was the famous Nirmala, Pandit Tara Singh Narotam. He also authored a classic text on the Nirmala Sampradaa, titled 'Nirmala Panth Pradeepka'.

His other writings bear out a balanced and unbiased approach to many groups including main sampradai, along with ram rais, niranjanis, gulabdasias, hiradasias, gangushahias, etc. His kabits therefore are not evidence of his being a Namdhari, more evidence of his balanced scholarly interest in understanding panthic diversity.

[fatehsingh]

jtsingh,

Fateh parvaan Karni,

You are entitled to your beliefs but I have shown clearly what Gianiji himself has written and his relationship with the Namdhari Panth. Please spend some time reading my post without jumping to conclusions.

Fateh Singh

[fatehsingh]

Bikramjit Singh,

Fateh Parvaan Karni

Giani Gian Singh received Naam and that's pretty much it. If someone reads his Kabits about Namdhari Sikhs in Panth Parkash there is no much doubt that he probably did believe in Guru Ram Singh as the incarnation of Guru Gobind Singh be cause he wrote that he has written whatever he has 'seen'. He was a much respected figure and everyone wanted him to be on their side. Why else would the Khalsa Tract Society force him to sell his rights and change his works? If he had declared himself a Kuka, what kind of pressure and harrassment he would have had to go through I think you can probably guess.

It is also unfortunately true that many Namdhari Sikhs were forcefully converted to the mainstream Sikhism and many also became so due to the harrassment and tortures they received from the mainstream Sikhs. It's one thing to be harrassed by Muslims or Christians who have a totally different faith. But to be harrassed and tortured by those who look very much like you and believe in the same basic principles and Banis, it is absolutely heart-breaking. Even the great and mighty Banda Bahadur fell when he saw his own brothers of faith fighting against his army. You may not know this but some of the mainstream Sikhs used to do things so 'low' (humanly speaking) as sending their dogs after any Namdhari Sikh or group of Namdhari Sikhs that they see walking in the neighborhood. There is a well known Sakhi of one Namdhari Sant, Sant Takhat Singh ji, who was also once forced to be converted but he refused and after being detained inside a house for sometime became mastana and broke loose without anyone being able to stop him.

But just for your knowledge Gianni Gian Singh did repent on what the Khalsa Tract Society had forced into his mouth by taking out the Kabits about Namdhari Sikhs and putting 'Agya Bhei Akal Ki' instead, that's why he wrote 'Bhupendranand'. But also he was an old man then, what could he have possibly done? Nevertheless this may be a sign of his loyalty towards Namdharism or maybe just the frustration he felt knowing his hard work was tampered with. Nirmala or Namdhari is up to the Guru to know.

Also to let you know, there have been several Namdharis in the past that are pretty much 'Premis': The lovers and admirers of Gurus. There have been Nihang Namdharis, Muslim Namdharis, Budhist Namdharis etc. These people acknowledge Satguru Ram Singh to be the Avatar of God, Allah, Akal or whatever they believe in. They receive the Gurmantra and recite the Gurmantra but do not partake Amrit and become 'Sant Khalsa'. Just imagine the case of Bhai Nand Lal. In fact there were many muslim-Namdharis who performed Asa Di Waar in the Darbar of Sri Bhaini Sahib and yet they had a request made to the Guru that when they die they be buried and not burnt. So if you think Gianni Gian Singh did not live as a 'Sant Khalsa' or a pure Kuka, then he might have been what may be called a nirmala-Namdhari: A person who lives mostly within the rules of Nirmala panth but has received, and recites with Sharda, the Naam.

Fateh Singh

There is no doubt that a large number of Sikhs in their initial enthuasm for Baba Ram Singh and his teachings declared themselves Kukas but when the prophecies of Baba Ram Singh did not come to fruition they stopped declaring themselves to be kukas.

Which prophecy of the Guru did not come true? I do not know of any prophecy made by Guru Ram Singh that did not come true. Namdhari Sikhs believe in the prophecies of Sau Sakhi, which unfortunately has been tampered by the British and its supporters later on by changing dates etc., which is directly attributed to Guru Gobind Singh.

There is also quite a lot of false propaganda going on that the Guru 'realized' he was not Guru when he reached Rangoon and informed the Sangat via Hukamnamas etc. This is all BIAS that has been published by one anti-Kuka Dr. Ganda Singh with the help of an ex-Namdhari that was kicked out of the panth. Together they got hold of certain Hukamnamas and forged many of their own for their own benefits. What they have done is that they have published bits and pieces of the Hukamnamas and interpret its meanings to fit their needs. Where the Guru had ordered the Namdhari Sikhs to do Ardaas saying 'Guru Gobind Singh Ji Sub Thai Hoy Sahai', Dr. Ganda Singh had made up stuff that the Guru was actually saying he was not the real Guru but Guru Gobind Singh was! Similarly in places where the Guru tried to stop his Sikhs from endangering their lives and travel so far to Rangoon and said that he was not worth as a Guru for them to risk their lives to meet, Dr. Ganda Singhji has interpreted and transcribed only the part where the Guru said he's not a Guru and tried to use it as some kind of valid proof! If I was to take a certain part of Gurbani that can be missinterpreted without reading the full verse and try to fool people to believe it, will that be a justified act?

Also another big propaganda that was launched by the British and is carried on till today is that their claim of Guru Ram Singh dying in 1885. This has been rightly answered at http://namdhari.faithweb.com/1885.htm and that should solve the mystery I guess.

I have made my points crystal clear and I don't think anything needs to be clarified further. I rest my case unless there is any other point that has not been answered.

Fateh Singh

[Guest BikramjitSingh]

Fateh Singh

This thread was set up to discuss the sanatan Sikhism sites like shastarvidya.com.

If you would like to discuss Namdharis and their beliefs in relation to mainstream Sikhism then I have set up another thread on this forum. The url is-;

http://www.sikhawareness.com/sikhawareness...php?p=4742#4742

Gurfateh

Bikramjit Singh

[fatehsingh]

Fateh Bullai Parvaan Karni

It seems I got a bit confused and made a mistake when I said Gianni Gian Singhji wrote 'Bhupindranand' to protest the KTS. It was 'Ripudman Parkash' in which he protest the Khalsa Tract Society NOT 'Bhupindranand'. Bhupindranand was written by Gianni Gian Singh as well but it sheds light on the invention of Anand Maryada which, according to Gianniji's and also the Namdhari Sikhs' belief, was invented by Guru Ram Singh and not the Nirankaris or any other. Again this is what we believe, and assured by Gianni Gian Singh in that book, since Satguru Ram Singh Ji's own Anand was conducted by reading from Vedic verses as it was the custom back then for all Sikhs.

Fateh Singh

[tSingh]

Gurfateh

Bhupindranand is actually a text about Maharaja Bhupindera Singh of Patiala, published in 1917. Ripudaman Prakash is a text about Maharaj Ripudaman Singh of Nabha wa also published in 1917. The Maharaj of Patiala was fond of the Nirmalae, and Giani Gian Singh, who spent his last days living in Patiala by the Maharaja's request.

[fatehsingh]

Gurfateh

Bhupindranand is actually a text about Maharaja Bhupindera Singh of Patiala, published in 1917. Ripudaman Prakash is a text about Maharaj Ripudaman Singh of Nabha wa also published in 1917. The Maharaj of Patiala was fond of the Nirmalae, and Giani Gian Singh, who spent his last days living in Patiala by the Maharaja's request.

As for Bhupindranand, if you have one please open page 30 and see if what I say is true or not. I am uncertain about the page of Ripudman Parkash at this moment. But they do contain the information nevertheless.

Fateh Singh

[nogroup singh]

DISKUS Vol.3 No.2 (1995) pp.43-58

Problems of Defining Authority in Sikhism

Dr. Sewa Singh Kalsi

Dept. of Theology and Religious Studies

University of Leeds

Leeds LS2 9JT

UK

--------------------------------------------------------------

ABSTRACT

The paper explores the locus of authority in Sikhism. Areas covered include the authority of the human gurus, the transfer of guruship and the position of Harmandir Sahib (Golden Temple), disputes over authority in the post-Khalsa period and the Sarbat Khalsa, Sikh authority under British rule, the Singh Sabha movement, the Punjabi Sikh Gurdwara Act of 1925 and the formation of the SGPC, the Sants, and especially among diaspora Sikhs the roles of sangat, caste, panj-pyarey.

--------------------------------------------------------------

According to the normative view, Sikhism may be described as a guru-shishya (teacher-pupil) oriented tradition which was evolved and developed by ten human Gurus over a period of two hundred and thirty-nine years. At his death in 1708, the tenth Guru, Gobind Singh, is believed to have transferred his personal authority to the Adi Granth (Sikh scripture) and the Khalsa Panth. This paper aims to examine the development of authority in Sikhism with a view to understanding the process of change from the role and status of the human Gurus to that of the doctrine of the Guru Granth Sahib and Guru Panth as a living Guru. It intends also to locate answers to these issues by examining various sources of authority which emerged within the Sikh tradition over a period of five hundred years, i.e. human Gurus, the Guru Granth Sahib, the sangat, the Khalsa Panth, panj-pyarey (five initiated Sikhs) and the British Raj. The paper further endeavours to analyse the complexity of the nature of authority as perceived and experie

nced by the Sikh generation born and brought up in diaspora.

Sikhism is an integral part of the Indic cultural tradition, originating in the Punjab in the 15th century. Its founder, Nanak Dev, was born in 1469 in the village named Talwandi near Lahore. He was popularly known as Guru Nanak. At the outset it is vital to look at the etymology of the term 'Sikhism' for understanding the origin of authority in the Sikh tradition. The term 'Sikhism' has been applied to the Sikh tradition by British administrators and Western scholars whereas the people of Punjab use the terms 'Sikhi', 'Sikh dharm' or 'guru-mat'. Sikhi means the Sikh way of life, comprising both belief and practice. 'Sikh dharm' denotes the religious, social and moral code of discipline of the Sikhs, and 'Guru-mat' literally the mind or the intention of the Guru or the teachings of the Guru.

Now we are confronted with two most significant terms at the heart of Sikhism, i.e. Guru and Sikh. Reflection on the origin of these terms is essential for understanding the historical link of the Sikh tradition with the centuries-old Indian institution of guru-shishya. The terms 'guru' and 'shishya' originated in Sanskrit: 'gu' means darkness and 'ru' means light; a guru is one who dispels darkness and enlightens his/her pupils. Likewise, the word Sikh has its origin in the Sanskrit term 'shishya' meaning a disciple, a learner or a student. According to S.S. Kohli, the guru-shishya tradition is very old in India and goes back to the Upanishadic period (Kohli, 1990).

The institution of guruship is fundamental for understanding the Indic religious and cultural tradition. In traditional India, the guru performed various functions connected with rites of passage. He was a vidya guru (one who imparted secular and religious knowledge); craft guru, who was responsible for teaching technical skills; kul guru (family guru, called prohit) who officiated in various rites of passage in the family; and raj guru (royal teacher) who was entrusted to advise the king and officiated in the crowning ceremony called tilak. According to The Method of Enlightening the Disciple:

"The guru is one who is endowed with the power of furnishing arguments pro and con, of understanding questions and remembering them, one who possesses tranquillity, self-control, compassion and a desire to help others, who is versed in the scriptures and unattached to enjoyments both seen and unseen, who has renounced the means to all kind of actions, is a knower of Brahman and established in it and who is devoid of shortcomings such as ostentation, pride, deceit, cunning, jugglery, falsehood, egotism and attachment." (Quoted in Survey of Hinduism by K.L. Klostermaier, 1989:193)

The role and the status of a guru is intimately linked with the doctrine of varnashramadharma which is fundamental for understanding Hinduism. The ashramas (four stages of human life) begin with brahmchariya ashrama (studentship) when a Hindu boy is entrusted to his guru for studies before he embarks on the second ashrama, that is the householder. It can be argued that at the heart of the Indic tradition lies the institution of the guru who is revered as a deity by his disciples. Lord Buddha, Mahavira, and Shankara for example were great gurus of their disciples and traditions. Likewise, the Indian craftsmen worship Lord Vishvakarma who is regarded as their craft deity. The notion of be-gura (without a guru) highlights the importance of the institution of guruship in Indic culture. The Punjabi term 'be-gura' is regarded as most abusive. It is applied to someone who has no moral principles and lacks the guidance of a guru; it is also used for those craftsmen who perform shoddy workmanship. It also implies the

state of awagaun (cycle of life and death) for the be-gura, as mukti or moksha (liberation from the cycle of life and death) can only be achieved by the grace of guru.

Authority under the Sikh Gurus

The fundamental institutions of the Sikh tradition bear the seal of human Gurus who displayed extraordinary creative power and self-sacrifice for the development of Sikhism in India. For example, Guru Nanak established the institution of guruship by appointing one of his disciples as his successor at a ceremony which followed the traditional Indian model. Guru Nanak placed five coins before Lehna and touched his feet; this was symbolic of the transfer of his personal authority to his disciple who was declared by him as Guru Angad (His own limb). This tradition was followed by virtually all Gurus except Guru Hargobind, Guru Teg Bahadur and Guru Gobind Singh.

It was the fifth Guru, Arjun Dev who compiled the Sikh scripture (Adi Granth) and built the Harmandir Sahib (central place of worship of the Sikhs) in 1603/4. It was he who installed the Adi Granth in the Harmandir Sahib. Guru Arjan Dev was accused by the Moghal emperor Jehangir of using derogatory language against Islam and was tortured to death. As a matter of fact, the Adi Granth contains the compositions of Muslim and Hindu saints alongside the writings of the Sikh Gurus. According to Sikh tradition, one of the important factors in the introduction of the concept of miri-piri (temporal and spiritual authority) <1> in Sikhism by the sixth Guru, Hargobind, was the martyrdom of his father, Guru Arjun Dev.

It is important to examine the difficulties and confusion which emerged concerning the transfer of guruship after the death of the eighth Guru, Hari Krishen. He became Guru at the age of five. The Moghal emperor Aurangzeb was not happy about this appointment and summoned the young Guru to Delhi, where he died stricken with small-pox at the age of eight. It is believed that before his death Guru Hari Krishen declared: "My successor is at the village of Bakala". It is a mystery that the Guru did not name his successor, who was his grandfather's half-brother. According to Sikh tradition twenty-two claimants declared their right to the guruship and set up their headquarters at the village of Bakala.

The episode of 'Guru ladho rey' (I've found the Guru) is significant for our discussion concerning the solution of the transfer of guruship to the ninth Guru, Teg Bahadur. According to the tradition one devout Sikh, Makhan Shah Lubana, found the true Guru at Bakala. After examining the credentials of false claimants he met Guru Teg Bahadur and made the declaration: 'Guru ladho rey'. The people of Bakala were pleased to meet their true Guru who had been living at their village for a long time. The pronouncement of 'Guru ladho rey' has an historical significance for understanding the continuity of the line of human gurus and the issue of authority in Sikhism. In this case, it can be argued that a devout Sikh, Makhan Shah, was endowed with the authority to nominate the successor to the eighth Guru, Hari Krishen. Although the Adi Granth (Sikh scripture) and the doctrine of 'bani guru - guru hai bani' (Word is guru and Guru is Word) were available to the Sikhs, the dispute concerning the transfer of guruship was n

ot resolved by taking guidance from the Adi Granth. It suggests that the concept of bani guru - guru hai bani had not emerged as the predominant institution within the Sikh tradition by that time.

After having been declared the rightful successor to the guruship, Guru Teg Bahadur proceeded to pay his homage to the Harmandir Sahib. He was not allowed to enter the Golden Temple by the custodians, who happened to be his close relatives; they refused to acknowledge his authority as the legitimate successor to the eighth Guru. Guru Teg Bahadur did not assert his authority as Guru to enter the temple. Instead he established his headquarters at Anand Pur. The sociological significance of this episode lies in the fact that the issue of authority within the Sikh tradition remained extremely confused during that period.

Guru Teg Bahadur had the attributes of a visionary leader and a true Guru. As the ninth Guru he made an invaluable contribution to the development of Sikh tradition during the most trying period of state oppression against the Hindus. He was publicly beheaded in Delhi for pleading the right of worship for everyone according to his/her faith, and refused to convert to Islam. He was succeeded by his nine year old son, the tenth Guru, Gobind Singh. Guru Gobind Singh introduced some fundamental innovations within the Sikh tradition which had a far reaching impact on the future development of Sikhism. These included the founding of the Khalsa and khandey di pauhal (a new style initiation ceremony). He also introduced a new code of discipline for the initiated Sikhs and gave them a corporate name of 'Singh' and 'Kaur'. He created the first nucleus of initiated Sikhs popularly known as panj pyarey (the five beloved ones) who afterwards initiated the Guru into the newly formed Khalsa brotherhood and gave him the name

of 'Singh'. By so doing the Guru implicitly merged his authority with the Khalsa Panth; it can be argued that the founding of the Khalsa was the beginning of the doctrine of Guru Panth.

Now we will reflect on the significance of the absence of the ninth Guru, Teg Bahadur, from the Harmandir Sahib which is regarded as the most sacred shrine of the Sikhs. After the incident of 22nd November 1664 when Guru Teg Bahadur was refused permission to enter the Golden Temple, he did not put his foot in Amritsar. Not only that, but his son the tenth Guru, Gobind Singh, also paid no visit to the Harmandir Sahib during his life-time. Harmandir Sahib remained under the control of the descendants of Prithi Chand, elder brother of the fifth Guru, Arjun Dev. As a matter of fact they used their control of the Harmandir Sahib to claim their right to the guruship and operated as a parallel centre to that of Anand Pur where the ninth and tenth Gurus established their headquarters. According to Madanjit Kaur (1983), the Harmandir Sahib remained under the complete control of Sodhi Harji, grandson of Prithi Chand, for fifty-seven years. It is evident that the issue of authority continued to pose serious problems for

the Sikh community and the Sikh Gurus for a long period. No wonder the tenth Guru, Gobind Singh, abolished the institution of masands (guru's nominees). It had been established by the third Guru and flourished under successive Gurus till it became highly corrupt. It was the human Guru who used his authority to disband one of the important institutions set up by his predecessors.

[nogroup singh]

continued from PART 1

Authority in the post-Khalsa period.

According to the Sikh tradition, Guru Gobind Singh died at Nander in 1708. Before his death he is believed to have transferred his authority to the Adi Granth and the Khalsa brotherhood. Shortly before his death he also nominated Banda Singh Bahadur to lead the Sikhs in the Punjab against the Moghal rulers. Banda Singh Bahadur was a great military genius; within two years with the support and loyalty of the Punjabi Sikh peasantry he established Sikh rule in the Punjab. Some Sikh scholars claim that he was revered by his followers like a guru and this created disunity and confusion among the Sikhs, which resulted in the emergence of two factions within the ranks of Banda's followers; Tat Khalsa and Bandai Khalsa. Bandais were those Sikhs who refused to accept the authority of the Guru Granth Sahib as the Guru of the Sikhs and revered Banda Singh Bahadur as their eleventh Guru (Madanjit Kaur, 1983:33). Commenting on the rivalry between the Tat Khalsa and the Bandai Khalsa, Madanjit Kaur writes:

"The atmosphere was highly charged and both the rival groups seemed ready to come to blows. But the situation was saved and a settlement was reached through the intervention of Bhai Mani Singh. The dispute was settled by casting lots. Two pieces of paper with the slogans of the factions inscribed thereon, were floated in the Holy Tank at a place known as Har Ki Pauri. The slip containing the slogan of Tat Khalsa (Fateh Wahguru ji ki) kept floating while the other sank down. So, the decision was given in favour of the Tat Khalsa." (1983:36-37)

Analysis of the manner of settling the dispute between two contending factions, only a few years after the death of the tenth Guru, Gobind Singh, clearly demonstrates that the doctrine of the Guru Granth as a living Guru had not emerged as the final source of authority within the Panth. In fact, the dispute was settled by casting lots through the intervention of Bhai Mani Singh, the nominee of Guru Gobind Singh.

After the death of Banda Bahadur twelve misls (armed bands) of Sikhs emerged in the Punjab. The leaders of these misls evolved a new institution called the Sarbat Khalsa (literally, the whole Khalsa Panth) to resolve their differences. In practice it was composed of the leaders of all the misls gathered at the Akal Takhat, who would approve resolutions called gurmata (guru's intention) in the presence of the Guru Granth Sahib. It seems to be the first indication of the beginning of the doctrine of Guru Panth in Sikhism. In 1799, after Maharaja Ranjit Singh captured Lahore and laid down the foundation of the Sikh rule in the Punjab he liquidated all the Sikh misls and brought them under his control, disbanding the institution of the Sarbat Khalsa and taking all decisions personally. In 1805 he captured the city of Amritsar, took over the control of the Harmandir Sahib and appointed his own administrators to manage the Temple affairs. As Sikh ruler of Punjab, Ranjit Singh exercised both political and religious

authority. This implies that the institution of the Sarbat Khalsa did not last long and was killed in the embryo by Maharaja Ranjit Singh, who exercised de facto authority over Sikh affairs.

Authority in Sikhism under British rule.

In the 1850's, two important sects emerged within the Sikh movement; the Nirankaris and the Namdharis. Despite other differences they strongly believed in the authority of the living guru. Most importantly, the Namdhari Sikhs dispute the incidence of the death of the tenth Guru, Gobind Singh, at Nander. They claim that he survived to live one hundred and forty-eight years, operating under the name of Ajapal Singh. According to Namdhari tradition, Guru Gobind Singh transferred guruship to Baba Balak Singh of Huzro who appointed Guru Ram Singh as his successor. Ganda Singh says that:

"Ram Singh preached the faith of Gurus Nanak - Gobind Singh and brought back large number of lukewarm people to the Sikh faith with rejuvenated enthusiasm. With the zeal of new converts, thousands of people gathered around him and attended his congregations both at his village and at the fairs and religious centres visited by him." (1984: xi).

For our discussion the emergence of the Namdhari and Nirankari movements raises another issue of authority in Sikhism; it suggests that the status of the human Guru remained predominant within the Sikh tradition. The leaders of these two movements did not interfere with the control of the Harmandir Sahib; they established their headquarters at their own villages. Their decision can be compared with the actions of the ninth and tenth Gurus who also established their headquarters away from Amritsar. It suggests that the human gurus had the ultimate authority in Sikhism; they could establish their headquarters wherever they wished. Moreover, the control of the Golden Temple was not regarded by them as a necessary pre-requisite for legitimising their authority.

After the annexation of the Punjab in 1849, the Harmandir Sahib came under the control of the British authorities. The Deputy Commissioner of Amritsar had complete authority over the management of the Golden Temple; he formulated the rules and regulations and appointed a committee of loyal Sikh Sardars (chiefs) to carry on the day-to-day management of the Temple. As a matter of fact authority over all Sikh affairs passed into the hands of the British administrators who controlled the Sikh community with the support of Sikh collaborators. In the absence of the human Guru, there was virtually no central authority in Sikhism apart from the British Government.

The Role of the Singh Sabha Movement

In 1872, the Namdhari leader Guru Ram Singh was exiled to Burma by the British government. The Namdhari movement was brutally suppressed by the British; sixty-eight Namdhari Sikh activists were blown by the guns without any trial. In this climate a new organisation called Singh Sabha was formed by loyal Sikhs in 1873 to propagate the teachings of the Sikh Gurus amongst the people of the Punjab, particularly emphasising the significance of the Khalsa Brotherhood. The Singh Sabha leadership vehemently rejected the notion of the continuity of the line of human Gurus after the tenth Guru, Gobind Singh. They made an exceptional contribution towards promoting the doctrine of the Panth Khalsa and the Guru Granth Sahib and also challenged the traditional leadership of the two main Sikh gurdwaras, the Harmandir Sahib and Nankana Sahib Gurdwara. They began to re-define Sikh rites of passage, promoting a distinct Sikh identity by distancing themselves from the traditional Sikh universe.

One of the unique features of the organisational structure of the Singh Sabha was the British model of organising social and welfare associations. The Singh Sabha had a constitution based on democratic principles, i.e. it provided a proper membership criterion, a membership fee and the election of office bearers. One could argue that the democratic structure of the Singh Sabha went a long way towards acknowledging, at least in theory, the authority of the sangat (Sikh congregation) in Sikhism.

In the 1920s, the Sikhs under the leadership of the Akali Dal (political party of the Sikhs) launched a mass movement for the control of major historical gurdwaras then under the control of hereditary Mahants (custodians) who traced their ancestry to the Sikh Gurus. Attached to these gurdwaras was a lot of land which had been donated by Sikh royalty and others. Moreover, these shrines were a major recipient of income donated by Sikh pilgrims. The Sikh leaders argued that the gurdwaras and their income belonged to the Sikh community and therefore should be controlled and managed by the Sikh community as such. Initially, the British Government supported the claim of the hereditary Mahants who were political allies of the British, but as a result of prolonged agitation the government agreed to the demands of the agitators and passed a piece of legislation called the Punjab Sikh Gurdwara Act, in 1925.

The significance of the control of historical gurdwaras for the British administration is evident from the following report sent by the Lt. Governor of Punjab to the Viceroy of India on August 8, 1881. He wrote:

"I think it would be politically dangerous to allow the arrangement of Sikh temples fall into the hands of a committee emancipated from government control, and I trust your Excellency will assist to pass such orders in the case as will enable to continue the system which has worked out successfully for more than thirty years.

(Quoted in Law of Religious Institutions: Sikh Gurdwaras. Kashmir Singh, 1989:60)

Commenting on the above-mentioned report, Kashmir Singh writes that "The British Government regarded and used the Sikh shrines as a powerful channel for an indirect control of the Sikhs" (1989:60). It is evident that the real authority in Sikh affairs was exercised by the British Government through the Mahants.

The Punjab Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925

The Punjab Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 (PSG) brought a new dimension to the issue of authority in Sikhism. In the absence of the human Guru, the Sikhs had been struggling to agree on an appropriate authority. Although, at least in theory, the doctrine of the Adi Granth as the Guru had been in vogue since the death of the tenth Guru Gobind Singh, it did not resolve the fundamental question of central authority in Sikhism which had once been exercised by the ten human Gurus.

Let us examine some of the salient features of the PSG Act in order to understand the nature of authority in Sikhism in the twentieth century. Apart from its impact on Sikh affairs, the Act made an extraordinary contribution to the introduction of the principle of universal suffrage in India. It enfranchised all adult Sikhs for the purpose of electing their 'Religious Parliament' called the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC; Supreme Management Committee of the Gurdwaras).

According to the PSG Act, the SGPC is composed of 160 members, of whom 140 members are elected by Sikh voters while 20 are co-opted by the elected and ex-officio members. Another interesting feature of the structure of the SGPC is that out of 140 seats, twenty are reserved for scheduled caste (low caste) Sikhs. It implies that the presence and practice of caste was legally authorised and accepted by the Sikh community. The most significant aspect of the Act was its definition of a Sikh person for preparing voting lists. It says a person shall be deemed a Sikh for registration as a voter if he makes the following declaration in a Government prescribed proforma:

"I solemnly affirm that I am a Sikh, that I believe in the Guru Granth Sahib, that I believe in the Ten Gurus and that I have no other religion."

(Section 2 [9])

The definition of a Sikh as provided in the Act raises some fundamental questions concerning the identity of a Sikh person. Firstly, it does not exclude Sahejdhari (those who do not wear outward symbols) Sikhs from participating in the election of the SGPC. It suggests that the Sikh leadership in the 1920s was more liberal than now and that they accepted the definition provided in the Adi Granth: 'He who calls himself a Sikh of the True Guru should get up in the early hours of the morning and remember the Name of the Lord ... Nanak begs for the dust of the feet of that Gursikh who not only contemplates himself but also makes others contemplate the name of the Lord'. (Adi Granth, 305-6). Secondly, it does exclude those Sikhs who believe in the living Guru, i.e. the Namdhari Sikhs, Nirankari Sikhs and Radhasoami Sikhs. As a matter of fact, the Act reflects the political and religious ideology of the Singh Sabha Movement, which had endeavoured to reform and re-define Sikh tradition since its inception in 1873.

Another interesting feature of the definition of a Sikh in this Act is the inclusion of the declaration that 'I have no other religion'. This definition, which still applies today, implicitly rejects the teachings of Sikh Gurus. For example Mardana, the lifelong companion and first Sikh of Guru Nanak was a Muslim minstrel. This part of the definition clearly indicates the impact of Western and Judeo-Christian tradition as opposed to the traditional Indic culture which is based on the principle of inclusivity rather than exclusivity. It is interesting to note that the PSG Act was passed by the Punjab Legislative Assembly which was composed of Sikh, Hindu and Muslim legislators including members nominated by the British Government. The Bill became an Act on 29th July 1925, when it obtained the formal assent of the Governor General of India. It may be argued that the central body of the Sikhs, the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) constituted under the PSG Act, 1925 was originally created by non-Sik

hs (Muslims, Hindus and Christian administrators).

The PSG Act exposed another dilemma faced by the Sikh community in the 1920s. The Act was applicable only within the British empire; Sikhs living in the Sikh Princely States were excluded from taking part in the election of their central body, the SGPC. On the other hand Sikh rulers were empowered to nominate their representatives for the SGPC. It shows that authority concerning Sikh affairs in the Sikh States was still exercised by the Sikh rulers. Moreover, the jurisdiction of the SGPC was not universal; it was restricted to the historical Gurdwaras located in the British Punjab only.

Some interesting remarks on the PSG Act

In the final stages of the agitation for the control of gurdwaras both parties made some remarks which proved to be of historic significance. For example Malcolm Hailey, then Lt. Governor of Punjab, made the following remarks: "Why delay the bill and let the Government get the blame. Give it to them, and also their Gurdwaras. They will then quarrel among themselves" (Kashmir Singh, 1989:148). Reflecting on the remarks of Mr. Hailey, Kashmir Singh wrote in 1989 that "The remarks of Hailey proved to be prophetic and the Akalis [sikh leaders] behaved exactly in the manner anticipated by him after the passing of the Act" (1989:148-149).

[nogroup singh]

Other sources of authority

The Sant syndrome

The role of Sants (holymen) in the development of the Sikh tradition in the post-Guru period has been remarkably significant. The status of a 'Sant' was highly praised by the fifth Guru, Arjun Dev, in his celebrated hymn 'Sukhmani Sahib'. A Sant is an individual (almost always a male) who develops a reputation for piety or pedagogical skill and thereby attracts an informal following of disciples (McLeod, 1992:102). A Sant is regarded as a holy person by the Sikhs and is believed to have been endowed with divine power by God. Most Sants claim to have been commissioned by Guru Nanak to preach his mission. Some of them have established deras (religious headquarters) which are regularly visited by the disciples for their darshan (glimpse). The Sant-oriented gurdwaras are another source of authority; the words of a Sant are perceived as sacred utterance by his disciples.

Within the Sikh community in the twentieth century a number of Sants emerged who became deeply involved in Sikh political affairs. Some of them held high office in the Akali Dal (political party of the Sikhs). For example, in the 1960's Sant Fateh Singh took over the leadership of the Akali Dal from the veteran Sikh leader Master Tara Singh and went on a hunger strike for the attainment of Punjabi Suba (Punjabi speaking state). He introduced the ritual of self-immolation in the Sikh tradition and got constructed an agan-kund (brick structure for burning alive) in the vicinity of the Golden Temple complex. The concept of suicide was alien to the teachings of the Gurus, who regarded human life as the gift of God and condemned killing. Sant Fateh Singh was advocating suicide to achieve political objectives by exercising his authority as the supreme leader of the Sikhs. The government of India saved the situation by accepting some demands of the Sikhs. Ironically, Sant Harchand Singh Longowal who in 1980 became l

eader of the Akali Dal was assassinated by Sikh militants for entering into negotiations with the central government after the military action on the Golden Temple complex by the Indian army in 1984.

Another charismatic Sant, Jarnail Singh Bhinderanwaley, emerged in the 1980s as a powerful religious/political leader within the Sikh community. He took over control of the Golden Temple complex by force and fought a pitched battle with the Indian army in 1984. He attracted a large number of young Sikhs who volunteered to sacrifice their lives for the mission of Sant Jarnail Singh, and was the leader of the Khalistan movement in the Punjab. Although Sant Jarnail Singh was killed during the army action, his followers believe that the Sant is alive and well and that he will appear in public one day. He is revered as a martyr, and photographs showing him battling with the Indian army are hung in many gurdwaras in the U.K.

Another important source of authority is the Jathedar (head) <2> of the Akal Takhat. He is perceived to have inherited his authority from the historical figure of Bhai Mani Singh (1644-1734). According to Sikh tradition, Bhai Mani Singh was appointed as Jathedar of the Akal Takhat by Guru Gobind Singh in 1699 (Madanjit Kaur, 1983:197). Theoretically, the Jathedar of the Akal Takhat is regarded as an independent person who is responsible for the exposition of religious matters. Ironically, he is appointed by the SGPC like all other Jathedars of four Takhats and in practice he is controlled by the ruling faction of the SGPC. At present there are three main contenders for this office. After the army action on the Golden Temple complex in 1984, a section of the militant Sikhs called a meeting of the so-called Sarbat Khalsa and appointed Jasbir Singh Rodey as Jathedar of the Akal Takhat, rejecting the claim of the official Jathedar who had been appointed by the SGPC. In 1982 a Sikh militant named Ranjit Singh, who

is serving life imprisonment for killing the Nirankari leader Baba Gurbachan Singh, was appointed Jathedar of the Akal Takhat by the SGPC while in prison. The present Jathedar is called Acting Jathedar by the SGPC; he is the nominee of the SGPC.

There has been a lot of factionalism within the Akali leadership in the past ten years. The Akali Dal split into many factions, each accusing others of being agents of the central government. Eventually, the president of the SGPC entrusted the current Acting Jathedar of the Akal Takhat with the task of uniting all Akali factions in order to form a united Akali Dal. He gladly agreed to the suggestion, and using his authority summoned leaders of all factions to appear before him at the Akal Takhat. Many prominent Sikh leaders challenged the authority of the Jathedar to undertake this mission. They argued that the Jathedar of the Akali Dal is the spiritual leader of all Sikhs, therefore he should not involve himself with the party politics of various factions of the Akali party. He was accused of being a puppet of the President of the SGPC who has a reputation of supporting some groups within the Akali Party. This episode demonstrates the problem of identifying the central authority in Sikhism.

Authority in the Sikh diaspora

Sikhs began to emigrate overseas in the late 19th century and early 20th century. Wherever they went they established their gurdwaras for religious and social purposes. Mainly they migrated to countries within the British empire, i.e. Canada, Australia, East Africa and the U.K. An overwhelming majority of the pioneer Sikh migrants belonged to the Jat Sikh caste group (agriculturists). The dominant group of Sikh migrants to East Africa however were skilled craftsmen popularly known as Ramgarhias (carpenters, blacksmiths and bricklayers). The organisational structure of their gurdwaras is based on the British model of organising social and welfare associations. All gurdwaras have duly approved constitutions for electing the management committee. These gurdwaras are totally independent from outside interference; they are controlled by the local sangats (congregations) through their elected representatives.

Although most pioneer Sikh migrants removed their outward symbols in order to gain employment and avoid racial discrimination, their commitment to the Sikh tradition was undiminished. This is evident from their dedication in establishing gurdwaras. In Canada, many Sikh migrants used to go to the gurdwaras without covering their heads, as in the churches (Bains and Johnston, 1995). In the 1950's and 60's a large number of Sikhs from the Punjab migrated to Canada. They were mainly kesdhari (with outward symbols) Sikhs, who strongly questioned the behaviour of pioneer Sikh migrants. There has been a number of serious disputes between the mona (clean-shaven) and kesdhari Sikhs concerning the control of earlier gurdwaras, in most cases both parties going to the courts for adjudication.

Although the institution of sangat is highly respected in Sikhism, in practice it has no real authority. Moreover, it is a very vague structural entity. Who constitutes the sangat is most problematic to define. During the normal congregation, everyone present is supposed to be part and parcel of the sangat and theoretically empowered to take any decisions. In practice, they do not have any such authority. All gurdwaras in the UK and Canada, like other community-based gurdwaras, are managed by committees which are elected annually by the approved membership according to the constitution. Different factions of Sikhs make every effort to control the gurdwaras through these annual elections. In the case of disagreement, use of physical force is frequently employed; the local police are invited to intervene in the fights and disputes are taken to the courts. Usually, such disputes and fights take place in the main congregation hall where the Guru Granth Sahib is installed. It may be argued that the real authority

lies in the capacity of a faction to muster large number of voters at the annual elections and the backing of a hard core of supporters.

In the 1970s a new strategy was evolved by the kesdhari Sikhs to gain control of the gurdwaras. For example, the original constitutions did not make any distinction between amritdhari (ritually initiated), kesdhari and mona Sikhs; all were eligible to become members of the management committee. Firstly, the constitutions were amended to exclude mona Sikhs from holding important positions on the management committee. At present, most constitutions in UK explicitly state that only amritdhari Sikhs are eligible for membership of the management committee. Ironically, mona (clean-shaven) Sikhs are eligible to become members and exercise their right of vote for amritdhari and kesdhari candidates.

In certain cases, when it became difficult to hold annual elections due to the danger of physical violence amongst various factions, the board of trustees adopted another novel method, called parchian paa lao (election by picking slips, like a raffle). Interested candidates were asked for nominations; a parchi (slip) was prepared with the candidate's name and put in a box which was placed in front of the Guru Granth Sahib. A child was invited to draw slips corresponding to the number of candidates eligible for the management committee. In this case, it is rather problematic to identify the source of authority. No wonder a losing faction would challenge the election and the situation remain confused and unresolved.

At present a number of Sant-orientated gurdwaras have emerged in Britain; they are managed by the trusted followers of the Sants who are the de facto heads of these institutions. For example, Sant Puran Singh Karichowaley came from East Africa and established a number of gurdwaras popularly known as Guru Nanak Nishkam Sewak Jatha Gurdwaras. These gurdwaras are managed by the appointees of the Sant. Before his death in June 1993, Sant Puran Singh nominated his successor. His funeral was attended by more than ten thousand people who walked behind his body which was carried in an open carriage. The funeral procession was led by panj-pyarey in their traditional dress; they carried nishan sahib (Sikh flags) in their hands. The ritual of carrying nishan sahib is particularly observed when the Guru Granth Sahib is taken out in a procession at the time of gurpurbs (anniversaries of Sikh Gurus). The sociological significance of the role of panj-pyarey in the funeral procession of Sant Puran Singh highlights the signif

icance of the status of Sants in Sikhism.

Caste and authority in Sikhism

The presence and practice of caste among the Sikhs raises another problem in ascertaining the source of authority in Sikhism. Although the Sikh Gurus rejected the doctrine of varnashramadharma, the Sikhs continued practising the caste system. It is clearly manifested in the system of arranged marriages based upon the rules of caste endogamy, Jat Sikhs marrying Jat Sikhs and Ramgarhia Sikhs marrying Ramgarhia Sikhs. In Britain, a number of disputes in the gurdwaras originated between various caste groups striving for control of the management committee. Consequently some caste groups, depending upon their numerical and financial power, opted for establishing their own caste gurdwaras, i.e. Ramgarhia Sikh Gurdwara, Bhatra Sikh Sangat Gurdwara and Ravidas Bhawan/Gurdwara.

The nature of worship at the caste-based gurdwaras is a photocopy of other gurdwaras. For example, they celebrate the main Sikh festivals and strictly observe the rituals of akhand-path and sahej-path. Ironically, they also celebrate the festival of Baisakhi, which is associated with the founding of the Khalsa, as enthusiastically as other gurdwaras. It is important to note that the tradition of the founding of the Khalsa rejects the notion of caste while promoting the concept of a casteless Sikh brotherhood. An outside observer is easily misled and confused by the religious services held at the caste-based gurdwaras. In fact, the fundamental difference lies in the constitution of caste-based gurdwaras, e.g. only Ramgarhia Sikhs are eligible to become members of Ramgarhia gurdwaras, though other Sikhs are not debarred from attending the service. This shows that the decision-making mechanism of caste-based gurdwaras is totally under the control of respective caste groups and participation in the caste-based gu

rdwaras naturally promotes caste loyalty and the caste consciousness which apparently contradicts the teachings of the Gurus.

The panj-pyarey

Another source of authority in Sikhism is the institution of panj-pyarey (first five initiated Sikhs). This has its origin in the tradition of the founding of the Khalsa by the tenth Guru, Gobind Singh, in 1699. The institution of panj-pyarey holds a unique status within the Sikh Panth. The panj-pyarey were the first amritdhari Sikhs, who are believed to have received Guru's authority by virtue of the act of offering their lives to the tenth Guru to create the Khalsa brotherhood. The significance of the institution of panj-pyarey is evident from the way it is respected within the Sikh tradition. For example, after the culmination of the service, karah-parshad (blessed food) is first served to five amritdhari Sikhs ritually representing the panj-pyarey.

Occasionally, the panj-pyarey are asked to resolve disputes among members of the management committee. As there is no prescribed method of selection of the panj-pyarey, sometimes their verdict is not accepted by everyone and the process of resolving differences through the intervention of panj-pyarey is frustrated. Recently, at the opening ceremony of a purpose-built Gurdwara in London, the officials of the Gurdwara appointed five male panj-pyarey and five female panj-pyarey to perform the opening ceremony and lead the sangat to the main congregation hall. A serious controversy developed over the appointment of female panj-pyarey. Many orthodox Sikhs questioned the appointment of female panj-pyarey and their eligibility to perform the conventional role of panj-pyarey. In the absence of a universally accepted central authority in Sikhism the issue remained unresolved, thus creating more confusion.

Conclusion

I have shown that the Sikh tradition is basically guru-sikh oriented, in which the ten human gurus had a unique role and status. All fundamental institutions of the Sikhs were created by human gurus, e.g. gur-gaddi (guruship), Adi Granth, Harmandir Sahib, Akal Takhat, the Khalsa, amrit, sangat and the panj-pyarey. Moreover, the act of terminating the line of human gurus is also attributed to one of the ten human Gurus, Gobind Singh. In the absence of the authority of the human Gurus, the Sikh Panth developed innovative institutions for resolving religious and intra-community disputes, namely the Sarbat Khalsa and gurmata. Ironically, it was the Sikh ruler of Punjab, Maharaja Ranjit Singh, who disbanded the institution of Sarbat Khalsa and usurped the control of the Harmandir Sahib. Similarly, the British administrators took over the control of the Harmandir Sahib after the annexation of Punjab in 1849 and they exercised virtually complete authority in Sikh affairs. The role of the British Government in preser

ving and promoting the distinctive Khalsa identity during the post-guru period is exceptional. For example, the British army approved the following regulation concerning the sanctity of the outward symbols of Sikh soldiers. The regulation states:

"The paol, or religious pledges of Sikh fraternity, should on no account be interfered with. The Sikh should be permitted to wear his beard, and the hair of his head gathered up, as enjoined by his religion. Any invasion, however slight, of these obligations would be construed into a desire to subvert his faith, lead to evil consequences, and naturally inspire general distrust and alarm. Even those, who have assumed the outward conventional characteristics of Sikhs should not be permitted after entering the British army, to drop them."

(Khushwant Singh, 1966:112-13)

I have demonstrated that the British government played a key role in creating the institution of SGPC (supreme body of the Sikhs) and was instrumental in enfranchising the Sikh community by enacting the Punjab Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925. Moreover, the institution of sangat began to observe the principle of universal suffrage for electing the management committees of the gurdwaras. I have further argued that the Sikh Sants are filling the void created by the absence of human gurus. Jogi Harbhajan Singh, founder of the 3HO (Happy, Holy and Healthy) Movement in the USA. and Canada provides a unique example of the role of Sants in Sikhism. He is the only Sikh religious leader who has attracted a large number of non-Punjabi American whites to the Sikh fold. He describes himself as "Chief Religious and Administrative Authority for the Sikh Dharma in Western Hemisphere and the spiritual guide to some three thousand young American and Canadian Sikh converts belonging to the Healthy, Happy and Holy Organisation (3HO)" (D

usenbery, 1989:90-91).

The presence and practice of caste is clearly evident from the establishment of caste-based gurdwaras in the Sikh diaspora. It has been discussed in order to highlight the continuing problematic nature of the notion of authority in Sikhism.

--------------------------------------------

NOTES:

1. Miri-piri: Doctrine of temporal and spiritual authority introduced by the 6th Guru, Hargobind. He built the Akal Takhat for discussing social and political affairs of the Sikhs and trained his followers in military skills to defend the Sikh community.

2. Jathedar: Literally, leader of a group or military detachment. Jathedar is the title given to the appointed head of one of the takhats (thrones) such as the Akal Takhat. He is a paid official appointed by the SGPC.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Bains, T.S. and Johnston, H. (1995) The Four Quarters of the Night: The Life-Journey of an Emigrant Sikh. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press.

Cole, W.O. (1982) The Guru in Sikhism. London: Darton, Longman and Todd.

Dusenbery, V.A. (1989) 'Of Singh Sabhas, Siri Singh Sahibs and Sikh Scholars: Sikh Discourse from North America in the 1970s' in N.G. Barrier and V.A. Dusenbery (eds.) The Sikh Diaspora: Migration and the Experience Beyond Punjab. Delhi: Chanakya Publications.

Kohli, S.S. (1990) Sikhism and Guru Granth Sahib. New Delhi: National Bookshop.

Klostermaier, K.K. (1989) A Survey of Hinduism. Albany: State University of New York.

Kalsi, S.S. (1992) The Evolution of a Sikh Community in Britain. Department of Theology and Religious Studies, University of Leeds.

Kalsi, S.S. (1993) 'Sacred Symbols in British Sikhism' DISKUS Vol.2, No.2 (1994)

Kaur, M. (1983) The Golden Temple: Past and Present. Amritsar: Guru Nanak Dev University.

McLeod, W.H. (1989) Who is a Sikh? The Problem of Sikh Identity. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Singh, Harbans. (1973) 'Origins of the Singh Sabha', in Ganda Singh (ed.) The Singh Sabha and other Socio-Religious Movements in the Punjab: 1850-1925. Patiala: Publication Bureau Punjabi University.

Singh, Kashmir. (1989) Law of Religious Institutions - Sikh Gurdwaras. Amritsar: Guru Nanak Dev University.

Singh, Khushwant. (1966) A History of the Sikhs. Vol.2, 1839-1964. London: Oxford University Press.

[tSingh]

Gurfateh

Yes, Kalsi's alright. He's done some good research into the local Sikh community. He's not a highly recognised scholar on Sikhism though, and his sources referenced for this article are secondary.

For good research into the specifics of the Singh Sabha movement read N. G. Barrier's writings.

[Niranjana]

Narsingha, under the Nirmala origin thread, stated that many Hazoori Singhs and Nihangs viewed Nirmalas as the origin of the 'satoguni', sattvic 'sant-culture' that is wide spread amongst Sikhs today and with it brings the move away from Shastardhari Singh Khalsa to a more pacifist and sterile religious group.

Harjot Oberoi, in his infamous text, also states that Sanatan Sikhism was a 'priestly' religion with many intermediaries acting as Sants through to Gurus in addition to and often, over and above the Guru Granth Sahib.

Sanatan Sikhs of the UK, tend to colour this judgement with talk of Isht-Dev, Gur-Dev and other such rankings, however this in reality does appear to be too vague for it is evident, that perhaps with the exception of the Nihang Singhs of old, who were the trusted guardians of the Gurdwaras and steadfast to Gurbani and the Guru Granth Sahibs.

It is clear however, that amongst the Nirmalas and Udasis in the main, and the Sanatan Sikh sangat following these sant-institutions, that this was not the case and room for additional human gurus was permissable.

Whilst many Udasis and Nirmalas today may for 'political' reasons be Amritdhari and cite names of famous Nirmalas and Sevapanthis who have in the past been Amritdhari, the truth remains that these sampradhyas, as indicated on www.sarbloh.info were in fact non-Khalsa (i.e. not-Amritdhari and hence not Singhs).

The late Gyani Gyan Singh, maybe cited as an example of a Nirmala who took on Singh-Saroop, however it is also worth noting his inititation at the hands of Namdharis at Baini Sahib.

The origins of all the non-Khalsa "sampradhyas" are questionable as has been raised by the moderators under the 101 discussions and others.

[challenge_everything]

It shouldn't be sanatan versus mainstream...

when will the walls of deceit fall... lets love!

[Dynamic_Banda]

love and respect.. makes the fire burn and all the friend come together and the evil be send to the darkness of the hell that is the only true end..

sing the above chorus in a ragga style and it shall all make sense..