Issue 41 Vol II, June 15, 2007

H I S T O R Y

Akalis and Khalistan- 1

IN the north west of India from the 16th century onwards Sikhism has played a central role in shaping society’s religious, social and cultural ethos. It has impacted politics too. Noted historian Professor J.S. Grewal whose research and writings have shaped generations of scholars traces some of the aspects of Sikhism and its influence in a five part article.

The Shiromani Akali Dal was founded towards the end of 1920, soon after the formation of the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee.  The primary purpose of both these organizations was to take control of the Gurdwaras associated with the Sikh Gurus and Sikh martyrs, and to manage their affairs as representatives of the Sikh community.

The Sikh concern for their sacred spaces can be appreciated if we realize that Gurdwara was by far the most important institution of the Sikhs since the days of Guru Nanak.1 There was a time when the Sikh sacred space was known as dharmsal. It was the place where congregational worship was held, sacred food (parsad) was distributed, and community meal (langar) was prepared and eaten. It was also the place where matters of common interest to the local community could be discussed from time to time. The dharmsal where the Guru was personally present was regarded as the premier institution, like Kartarpur (Dera Baba Nanak), Khadur Sahib, Goindval, Ramdaspur, Kiratpur and Anandpur. The emergence of the idea that the Guru was present in the sangat, added a new dimension to the sanctity of the dharmsal. The equation of bani with the Guru reached its culmination with the doctrine of Guru Granth. The presence of the Granth in the dharmsal enhanced its sanctity to that of the premier dharmsals of the days of the Gurus. Gradually, the name dharmsal was dropped in favour of Gurdwara,  literally the door of the Guru, because of the presence of both the sangat and the Granth.  The change in the name given to the Sikh sacred space was an index of its enhanced sanctity in the eyes of the Sikhs. Understandably, the leaders of the Singh Sabha Movement attached great importance to the Gurdwara.

What enabled the Akalis to put forth the claim to control the Gurdwaras and to manage their affairs was the doctrine of Guru Panth. Personal Guruship had been abolished by Guru Gobind Singh before his death in 1708, with the enunciation that the office henceforth was vested in Shabad-Bani and the collective body of the Khalsa. This idea remained operative in the eighteenth century. With the establishment of Sikh rule, individual rulers began to exercise power in the name of the Khalsa, and the doctrine of Guru Panth was relegated to the background. It was revived by the leaders of the Singh Sabha Movement in the late nineteenth century.  By now the historic Gurdwaras were under the direct or indirect control of the British administrators, and the custodians of the Gurdwaras were not much concerned about their traditional role. The intrinsic importance of Gurdwaras and the doctrine of Guru Panth inspired the Singh Sabha leaders to demand their control and management on behalf of the Sikh Panth. The pursuit of this objective resulted in the formation of the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee and the Shiromani Akali Dal.

Inevitably, the Akalis came into conflict with the British government. All through their anti-British struggle from 1921 to 1924, they received sympathetic support from the leaders of the Indian National Congress. However, they refused to merge their entity with the Congress. The Sikh Gurdwaras Act of 1925 gave constitutional recognition to a Central Board for the control and management of historic Gurdwaras.  Its elected members gave it the name of Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee to identify it with the body formed in 1920. The Shiromani Akali Dal became an independent political party, basing its politics on a distinct Sikh identity.

There is a general but erroneous impression that the leaders of the Singh Sabha Movement started insisting all of a sudden that the Sikhs were not Hindu. The book entitled Ham Hindu Nahin [We Are Not Hindu] is often referred to in this connection. However, the relevant question to ask is why in the late nineteenth century for the first time some people started arguing that the Sikhs were ‘Hindu’. There was a time when the term Hindu referred vaguely to the people of India.  This, for instance, is the usage in Alberuni’s Kitab al-Hind. With the coming of the Turks, the term Hindu tended to be used increasingly for ‘Indians’ who were not  Muslim. It was used in two other senses during the medieval period: first, for the socio-religious system represented and upheld by the Brahmans and second, for the upper caste non-Muslims. These connotations were not suddenly discarded in the nineteenth century, but the religious connotation steadily gained greater currency.  The presence of the Christian missionaries and the movements for socio-religious reform under colonial rule had much to do with this development. Even in the late nineteenth century several different meanings were attached to the term ‘Hindu’.  One question began to be posed rather sharply: whether or not Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, Kabir-Panthis, the ‘untouchables’, and the tribal groups were to be included among the Hindus. Already before the end of the nineteenth century some of the Hindus and Sikhs of the Punjab had given the answer that Sikhs were ‘Hindu’.

Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha’s Ham Hindu Nahin, which has turned out to be a classic statement of Sikh identity, was initially written in Hindi, indicating the audience for which it was primarily intended. He is quite explicit on the point that he wrote in response to the claims being made that Sikhs were Hindu.  As a literary device, he reproduces the arguments put forth by the ‘Hindu’ participant in the debate.  Bhai Kahn Singh’s arguments are quite comprehensive in scope, relating to scripture, religious doctrines, the mode of worship, the code of conduct, the rite of initiation, rites of the passage, the character of the Sikh Panth, and consciousness of a separate identity. It is interesting to note that most of the time Bhai Kahn Singh invokes Sikh writings of the precolonial centuries in support of his arguments, covering a wide range and a strikingly large volume of Sikh literature.  What is remarkable about this book is that, though his preference for the Khalsa or Singh identity is quite clear, he regards the Sahajdharis (who did not take pahul and, therefore, did not necessarily keep their hair uncut or bear the epithet Singh) as an integral part of the Sikh Panth.  The implication is extremely important. A distinct Sikh identity did not start with the Khalsa: it had already emerged during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

Indeed, one has to trace Sikh identity back to the time of Guru Nanak. To be a Sikh was to be a follower of Guru Nanak. He told his followers what to believe and what to do, not only through his sermons in prose but also through his poetic compositions. These compositions were used by his followers for worship in congregation. He told his followers that this mode of worship was the most efficacious for attaining to liberation, and for them it was the only way. His successors wrote their own compositions, in the name of ‘Nanak’. All these compositions were put together in the Granth compiled by Guru Arjan. The compositions of Guru Tegh Bahadur were added to it later. It is now known as the Adi Granth, and regarded as Guru Granth Sahib. The adoption of new beliefs, practices and institutions made the Sikhs conscious of their identity quite early in their history. The institution of the Khalsa by Guru Gobind Singh appears to be a great landmark in this process precisely because it made Sikh identity unambiguously conspicuous.

There is a long historiographical tradition in which the Khalsa figure as a community distinct from both Hindus and Muslims. In the eighteenth century Sikh literature itself the Khalsa are presented as different from both Hindus and Muslims.  They represent ‘the third panth’. There is hardly any doubt that the Khalsa identity was the most dominant identity among the Sikhs of the early nineteenth century.  The colonial rulers were quick to recognize this fact. The change introduced by the Singh Sabha leaders has to be understood in terms of differences of degree, coherence, magnitude, and insistence on conformity. All this was made possible by the new means of communication, including education and the press.

Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha had no objection to the Sikhs being called Hindu if the term meant simply Indian, without bringing in any religious dimension. The crucial question about the Hindu-Sikh debate is why at that particular juncture so much importance came to be attached to religious identity. A part of the answer is provided by Bhai Kahn Singh.  He is keen to establish that the Sikhs were a distinct quam (earlier, panth), like Hindus and Muslims. To recognize this was to recognize that the Sikhs were a political community, a nationality.  This recognition should lead to their worldly progress. To be an appendage of another qaum was to remain at a perpetual disadvantage. To say this was not be unpatriotic. The Sikhs were prepared to struggle for the common interests of all Indians, shoulder to shoulder with the other ‘nations’ like Hindus and Muslims. Overarching all of them was the Indian Nation. In a sense, Bhai Kahn Singh subscribed to the idea of communitarian nationalism.

BACK