Unity or Uniformity - What Do We Really Seek?

This is a video of a wide-ranging, passionate and insightful speech elaborating the concept of Gurduara (Dharamsal).  I highly recommend it.  Kindly watch the video prior to reading my comments below.

Reviving the Gurduara from Sikh Research Institute on Vimeo.
Overall, I find great resonance with these views and have for years advocated for much the same.  But it does not serve learning to simply voice agreement.  Therefore, I shall share some concerns that arose during this impressive speech by Harinder Singh of Sikh Research Institute.  The comments below are not necessarily a criticism of his speech, rather it is a consideration of our propensities vis-a-vis collective action and progress.

First and foremost is the all-too-common problem of imposing uniformity (Nishan Sahib ~26^th min. of the video).  Harinder Singh asks us if a Nazi supporter would be allowed to speak from a Jewish stage, suggesting that, similarly, no purported defender of the Indian state should be allowed to speak from the stage of any Gurduara.  He contends that a Nishan Sahib represents that the institution is run under Guru Nanak’s system or the Guru’s rule, and not under the rule of any individual, or family, etc.

I agree with Harinder Singh's views on Nishan Sahib but not its implications.  In fact, I surmise that his implied selection, actually exclusion, directly contributes to  the problem - that our Gurduare are pakke (strong), while Sikhs are kachche (weak).  It is so with good reason.

No one really claims that Gurduare should be run under a system contrary to Guru Nanak's.  The problem is that people have divergent opinions about what Guru’s rule or Guru Nanak’s system implies.  But, more importantly, this problem is compounded when one seeks to silence dissenting views and to impose one’s view on others and, failing that, to exclude them for non-compliance.

For instance, hardly any voices seek to support Nazis or their genocidal policies.  But using the labels of "self-hating Jew" or "anti-Israel", etc. blind supporters of Israel (and of Israeli dominance of Palestine, illegal settlements' land-grab, etc.) have assailed and worked to silence dissenting and courageous Jewish voices of Norman Finkelstein, Amy Goodman and Noam Chomsky, etc.  Finkelstein had exposed the very influential Joan Peters "From Time Immemorial" as a hoax, and has since been assailed by the likes of Alan Dershowitz and the ADL for his criticism of Israeli heavy-handedness, up to losing his job and bid for tenure at DePaul University.  Both Chomsky and Finkelstein are rarely provided "Jewish" platforms, and for their out-of-the-mainstream views to be heard one has to seek alternative media like Democracy Now!

So, is the discussion regarding the merits and demerits of Israeli policies towards Palestinians, the security of both Israelis and Palestinians, as well as U.S. foreign policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, better served because these voices are rarely heard from Jewish platforms?  I would suggest that since an overwhelming amount of unapologetic American support for Israel, facts notwithstanding, arises from the Jewish-American community (where there is much less diversity of opinion regarding Israel, and dissenting views are tolerated far less than they are in Israel, where there is healthy debate), this debate would be best served if dissenting Jewish voices were able to consistently engage the Jewish-American community, which also happens to otherwise be among the most educated and progressive.  Labels are, therefore, reductive and do not inform us in a meaningful way.  And barring dissenting views is actually harmful to a robust understanding of issues of global import.

Similarly, pretty much everywhere I look, there is near-unanimous support for Unity along with an attendant demand for Uniformity.  How many intelligent people of influence peddle disunity?  Yet, most calls for unity are offered as inflexible positions and with contempt for “compromise” (which is really nothing more than a commitment to find a solution that will allow divergent views to unite, even if neither's preference is fully met).

Uniformity is to demand the same and to be invariable, while Unity is to act in concert, to come together while remaining free.  The two are not the same.  In fact, uniformity entails a loss of sovereignty.

I am sure that most would agree that they are for everyone having the right to express their views and to be free to disagree with each other; and, in a Sikh context, that a Gurduara is a place of learning.  Yet, when Harinder Singh emotes and raises his ire at supporters of the Indian government being allowed to speak at a Gurduara is he, albeit unintentionally, infringing upon our collective chance to learn (from a wider discussion) by limiting the scope of discussion to what is "permissible"?

Qualitatively, this approach is hardly distinct from the current Gurduara sevadars disallowing speech that challenges their positions or beliefs.  Although, Harinder Singh finds the behavior of the latter unhelpful in allowing the Gurduara to function as a center of learning, I hope that he isn't advocating for the same by wishing to control who can (or should) speak and what one can (or should) say within this “center of learning”.

The willfully blind ambition of seeking uniformity arises from a faulty assumption that one’s own (or group’s) understanding (read belief) is the only right one.  It is analogous to saying that one’s views are the true interpretation (of the Guru’s teachings, and the Way-To-Be), and that the rest of the so-called Sikhs simply need to come to that realization.  According to this view there is no room for dissenting voices.  Positions contrary to one’s own are routinely termed dangerous and an attack on one’s very existence.  There is a desire for one’s own interpretation to be hegemonic (imperial dominance over sub-ordinates).  Isn’t that the common theme in so many Gurduare today?  So, in fact, this uniformity does not offer a way out.  Rather, it just reinforces the status quo.

A way out of the current dilemma is possible by encouraging wide-ranging discussions and debates in every Gurduara.  If a Gurduara is to function as a place of learning, and not as a mere center of indoctrination, then diversity of views should be welcomed.  And especially those that make us uncomfortable.  When we meaningfully consider views that are very different from our own, we increase the likelihood of rising above and operating from a larger, and more inclusive, perspective.  This inclusion is essential for Unity.  By contrast, exclusion (which appears to be implied by Harinder Singh while discussing Nishan Sahib) leads to disunity.

Exclusions, even though clothed as reasonable propositions are a covert desire for uniformity.  Uniformity inspires willful blindness.  It leads us to ignore the obvious at our peril.  Uniformity infringes upon individual sovereignty (that each individual has value and is free to choose the course of his/her life).  Uniformity closes the door and is a product of myopia (lack of discernment or long-range perspective in planning).  Uniformity, I submit, is not a value that emerges from Gurmat (the universal principles - Satgur - and the Guru Granth).

Unity, on the other hand, is very desirable and achievable by being open to a wide diversity of views, and by allowing ourselves to learn, even though we may be uncomfortable by the dissonance they cause.  If we are to err, then it should be towards more openness.  If there is something to renounce, then it is surely our propensity to be right.  And if we are to stop something, then let us stop giving only part of our attention to views that we reject offhand.  Our energy and focus, if it is total and we are present to What Is So (and not our story about what we think it is), then we shall have understood the steps (Paurhi) on Listening (Sunai) and Deriving Value (Manai) in Jap(u) ji.  That, to me, is the Way of Nanak.

“Dasam” Granth - A Look At The Core Problems

By Gaurav Singh

Like so many other issues that contemporary Sikhs choose to deal with, this issue is contrived and, indeed, a red herring (in that, it is meant to divert attention). I largely agree with Sardar I. J. Singh’s take on things and would like to make some further distinctions that may help separate "the wheat from the chaff".

Rather than getting into minutiae, historical or otherwise, it is sometimes more helpful to understand the basis, the fundamentals, the core, the Tat of the issue under consideration. In my understanding the fundamentals under concern here are:

1) Who/what is Guru?
2) Who has the right to decide the status of what is and what is not Guru?
3) In light of the above, what is the status of the so-called Dasam Granth?

Sardar I. J. Singh has shed light upon this by exposing, quite simply, the hypocrisy practiced by those who believe in any real relation between Guru Gobind Singh and Hemkunt (as a historical GurAsthan). Of course, if Sikhs give no credence to the Hindu pilgrimages visited by Lehna ji (later became a Sikh, and then, Guru Angad) and Amar ji (later became a Sikh, and then, Guru Amar Das) in the same life which saw them first become Sikhs and then the Guru, then how can a GurSikh deign to validate an alleged previous life of Guru Gobind Singh?

The Gurmat here is that we are engaged with and get our guidance from the Guru, and the actions of Nanak II & III prior to their ascension to the status of the Guru do not have the sanction of (what I term) Guru-authority. So, any validity to an alleged previous life of Nanak X is beyond baffling and, certainly, not Gurmat.

Now back to the core. Who is the Guru?

The Guru existed prior to Guru Nanak and shall always exist, as long as there is existence, since the Guru is Shabad. This fact is also apparent because of the inclusion (within Guru Granth Sahib) of the Bani of Sheikh Farid and Bhagat Kabir, etc. who preceded Guru Nanak Sahib.

At this time, I should make clear the distinction between Guru and, what I term, Guru-authority. When Guru Nanak sanctioned Guru Angad as the Guru going forward, he himself lived for some time thereafter. No sane person would suggest that the Guru within Guru Nanak suddenly left him and went into Bhai Lehna. When Guru Angad becomes Guru it does not mean that Guru Nanak is not Guru. Guriai is not a zero-sum game. Rather, it is akin to a Jot (en)light(en)ing another Jot.

Therefore, what Guru Nanak passed onto Bhai Lehna was the Guru-authority. Bhai Lehna was, in fact, indistinguishable from Guru Nanak, hence his Ang(ad). What they had in common was the enlightenment from Shabad Guru!

So, at the same time in 1539 CE existed Guru Angad Sahib (Guru-authority) and Guru Nanak. In a smaller sense this could be understood through the concept of Presidency in the United States. Barack Obama is the President, while George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush and Carter are also Presidents. All but Obama, however, are not charged with the authority to make executive decisions for the 50 states in the union.

The difference here is that the de jure authority for Presidents is conferred by the constitution and, loosely speaking, by the people. Whereas, the Guru-authority is conferred upon Guru Nanak by the 1 and this authority is further recognized by the people with the ability to make that distinction – the Sikhs (and I would distinguish them from the “Sikhs”, for instance, Sain Mian Mir was a Sikh of the Shabad Guru, yet not a “Sikh”). The de facto and moral charge of the Guru is given by the people whose commitment is to themselves be transformed by the Mat of the Guru.

The transfer of Guru-authority continued 9 more times when it came to Guru Gobind Singh. It was Guru Gobind Singh’s charge, as it was of every Guru-authority before him, to decide what is and what is not Guru(bani). With this established, I shall point out a fact:

Not every word communicated by the Guru-authority, whether spoken or written, is Gurbani or Guru!

For instance, if the Guru (Nanak I-X) asked a mundane question – the address to someone’s home – it is not Gurbani. Only that which the Guru confers with the status of Gurbani is such. This is obvious, yet clearly not understood by many.

There is not a single word of Nanak VI-VIII in what was to become Sri Guru Granth Sahib (SGGS). Of course, in their lifetime each Guru Sahiban spoke and, no doubt, wrote words.

But mere words, no matter how powerful, do not Gurbani make!

Word(s) becomes Shabad Guru, only when it is given such status by the Guru-authority.

But more relevant to our issue, Guru Gobind Singh (who completed the authorship of what was to be SGGS) consciously chose to include Guru Tegh Bahadar Sahib’s Bani and also made a conscious decision not to include any of his own Bani within SGGS.

I ask for your patience in looking at further implications and urge the readers to keep their emotional responses and mental discomfort in check as they read on.

Whether one word or the entire so-called Dasam Granth is written by Guru Gobind Singh Sahib himself, it is not Gurbani or Shabad Guru, on its own. The Guru himself decided that by not including a single word of his own within SGGS.

So, are the supporters of the “Dasam” Granth then challenging the Guru by conferring the status of Gurbani to parts of the so-called Dasam Granth? Yes and No!

Yes: Because of the pervasive ignorance of the reasoning above, on its face – Yes, these “Sikhs” are in a way challenging the Guru’s decision. They are doing so under the garb of Sharda (faith), which is in fact Anni Sharda (blind faith). They claim to do so out of respect for the Guru. I say claim, because they do not respect the Guru sufficiently enough to accept the Guru’s Hukam.

Before I get to the "No", I want to clarify another matter. Just as Guru-authority was passed from Nanak I - X, in 1699 CE Guru Gobind Singh (Nanak X) passed Guru-authority to the Guru Khalsa Panth, when after administering the Khande-ki-Pahul to the Panj Piare he asked them to initiate him into the Panth Khalsa. At that moment, the Guru-authority was passed onto the Guru Khalsa Panth. Hence, by the reasoning presented above, the supporters of the so-called Dasam Granth may not be directly opposing the Guru.

No: Since, in part, the status of Gurbani or Shabad Guru can be conferred only by the Guru-authority, the Guru Khalsa Panth does presumably have the authority to confer the status of Gurbani or Shabad Guru. This is where some complexity arises.

The Guru Khalsa Panth, drafted a widely circulated document, the final draft of which, has henceforth been accepted as the “Sikh Rehit Mariada” and published by several organizations, including the SGPC’s Dharam Parchar Committee. In it are some Banis which are included in the Nitnem – Jaap, Sawaiye, and a carefully chosen portion of Chaupai. No other portion of the writings within the so-called Dasam Granth has been included in the Panthic Rehit, with the exception of portions in the beginning of the formal Ardas and the previously mentioned Bani as a part of Amrit Sanskar, or during administration of the Khande-ki-Pahul (initiation into the Khalsa collective).

The folks, whom I shall refer to as the ominous “they” going forward, who are now forwarding the legitimacy of the so-called Dasam Granth and some of whom are displaying it in parallel with SGGS are also generally opposed to the Panthic Rehit Mariada. They have two problems and neither of these problems is insubstantial.

If they say they call the writings within the so-called Dasam Granth "Gurbani" because they claim it is, in part or wholly, Guru Gobind Singh’s, then they dismiss the Guru’s own decision and Hukam that only that which is within SGGS is sanctioned by the Guru-authority as Shabad Guru or Gurbani. These people become Guru-dokhi (Detractors of the Guru)!

The other issue is that the Guru Khalsa Panth can and has already made decisions as the Guru-authority. But by disavowing or working actively to undermine the credibility and authority of the Guru Khalsa Panth, they (the blind supporters of the so-called Dasam Granth) become Panth-dokhi (Detractors of the Panth)!