Monopoly religion & Public Comments

Pratap Bhanu Mehta Posted: Tuesday , May 26, 2009 at 0945 hrs IST
New Delhi:
It is deeply sad that a most gloriously inventive, radical and genuinely pious religious community like the Sikhs now seems to be frequently hostage to a regime of internal intolerance. Not only was this tradition founded on the premise of an astonishing synthesis; it allowed an amazing internal diversity as well. In the nineteenth century, there were a large number of traditions with which Sikhs identified: Khalsa, Nirmala, Udasi, Nanak-Panthi, Nihang, Kalu Panthi, Ram Dasi, Kuka, Nirankari, etc. Now it is fair to say that over the course of the twentieth century this diverse tradition has also succumbed to the cardinal sins any religious tradition can commit: establish a coercive set of monopolies.

The roots of the current conflict that took a murderous turn in Vienna will, in due course be traced to contingent causes. On the face of it, both the violence in Vienna and the violent response in Punjab will turn out to have political overtones. But underlying this conflict is the fact that Sikh identity has been transformed over the course of the twentieth century, often in the direction of internal intolerance.

Some of its followers have succumbed to the idea that there can be only one authoritative interpretation of the tradition, there can be only one authority pronouncing over temporal aspects of the religion, and that both of these monopolies will also be tied to a territorial imagination. The attempt is to monopolise the master narrative of Sikh tradition, to eviscerate its diverse imaginings, and to concentrate power in organisations like the SGPC. You take all of these aspirations, and align them with religious politics and you will get the combustible mix that we are seeing in Punjab.

The blunt truth is that the drive to standardise Sikh identity is the root cause of so many of these troubles. It is not often discussed in public, but there is no getting away from the fact that organised groups within Sikhism, including the SGPC, have served to silence internal criticism within the tradition. Openly challenging authority has become a risky business, and a number of Sikh intellectuals feel under pressure not to challenge the insidious monopolies that are putting the liberal imagination within Sikhism at great risk.

It is a truism that the conditions for generating an enlarged and liberal outlook are less a function of the doctrine of a religion, but more a product of the fragmentation of authority. When any tradition is comfortable with the idea that there is no monopoly over authority, over interpretation, it is more likely to be comfortable with internal dissent. The fragmentation of authority is important for the intellectual vitality of any tradition. But the move in organised Sikhism has often been in the reverse direction: to uphold monopoly over authority and homogeneity of identity at all cost. Unless the tradition comes to terms with this increasing internal intolerance it will remain hostage to violence.

Many religious identities see themselves under siege in the modern world, and are inventing new abstract identifications that do away with the richness of traditions. In that sense Sikhism is not exceptional. But in the Indian context the fact that so much of its authority has been closely linked to politics, complicates its character. Political parties, let alone unfriendly powers, will not hesitate to fish in this political cauldron. It is important that this conflict be contained, and justice done, before it acquires dangerous proportions. And it is important to learn the lesson that monopolies within any religion are dangerous: they generate more conflict. One can only hope that the religion will return to the eternal and limitless verities of the sabda, and not be hijacked by the narcissism of so many little selves.

Comments
Post comment
21 Comments |
Even youngstersBy: emmarcee | Wednesday , 27 May '09 21:51:43 PM Reply | Forward Very good column. You are 100 percent right. I think that Sikhs are taught a version of "infalliability" of Granth just like Quran (or Vatican in yester years). Nobdoy can question what is written. Recently in one of the blogs I found rather laughable assumption that the Historicity of Rama should be true since Grantha/ Guru Nanak said so. One young Sikh was chiding the other for saying Rama could n't have been. Where is the free thought?
Wondeful articleBy: Anshuman Singh | Wednesday , 27 May '09 20:47:20 PM Reply | Forward This article hits the nail on the head. Sikhism was created to be a movement of people of any confession of faith to subscribe to a doctrine of diversity in the path to salvation and universalism. It seems incomprehensively sad to me that a religion that was founded on the concept of in the eyes of God, "there is no Hindu, there is no Muslim" is now trying to define what exactly is a Sikh. A Sikh is any person who professes belief in the Almighty, remembers to make his actions and thoughts pious and truthful, who does not forget his responsibility to those around him regardless of origin, and does not presume to judge who is sinner and who is a saint. Its genuinely sad that a faith built to encourage inter-communal harmony is now suffering at the hands of those who would prefer it to be standardised at the price of intra-communal violence. The ultimate message of Sikhism is the unfathomable mercy of the Divine, and the ability to choose one's actions. Us Sikhs should never forget this.
Religion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! my footBy: astrix | Wednesday , 27 May '09 17:44:25 PM Reply | Forward One solution to all problems plaguing the world today - BAN RELIGION. It does not serve any purpose at all except for inciting intolerence resulting in hatred and culminating into violence. RELIGION IS BAD for mankind. It is the root cause of all evil that exists in society today, and mind you, it is irrespective of any religion since poison by any name is poison ultimately. I urge to one and all, stop fooling yourself in the name of religion, it doesn't take you anywhere.
All religions by their definition are monopolistic and intolerant.By: Suvi Cyriac Nadakluzhackal | Wednesday , 27 May '09 15:25:15 PM Reply | Forward How else can they bring in more members and money in to their hands?
Reply to op73By: Sameer | Wednesday , 27 May '09 14:26:59 PM Reply | Forward RSS
Rising Religious Intolerance in IndiaBy: Dr. Ankeshwar Prakash | Wednesday , 27 May '09 11:37:57 AM Reply | Forward I think that it is not merely a problem of existence of caste system, rather it is a problem of rising religious intolerance in the minds of only a few people belonging to a particular community. The solution lies in honest introspection by such people. Further both central and state governments should have handled the issue carefully. Due to the involvement of religious sentiments, the governments should have been proactive rather than reactive. Guilty people, from whichever community they are, shoud be punished and brought to justice.
Read the best book on Sikh identity politics by Harjot Singh OberoiBy: op73 | Wednesday , 27 May '09 7:57:21 AM Reply | Forward The finest book on the subject discussed by Mehta is Harjot Singh Oberoi's THE CONSTRUCTION OF RELIGIOUS BOUNDARIES, which reveals the huge diversity within Sikh traditions that was stamped out by Khalsa Sikhism. Oberoi was hounded into silence for revealing this historical truth. The fact is that the monopoly of the Sikh Panth now is no different from the BJP's effort to monopolize the existing diversity of Hindu traditions.
Carry on the good work!By: Jayadevan | Wednesday , 27 May '09 7:49:54 AM Reply | Forward The very idea of speaking the words "religion" and "tolerance" with the same breath is ludicrous. Organized religion is an excellent way to acquire power - can we imagine the beneficiaries ever tolerating competition? The fact that reactions of this sort - the attack in Vienna - come from the Jat Sikhs is only incidental, they were the people whose position was being threatened. All religions have used every method in the lexicon to wipe out competition - they only needed to have the opportunity and the power. That this sort of confrontationism also serves to cement the hold of a highly corrupt priesthood is a fringe benefit. If there were no Shias or Nirankaris, they would have to be invented. Fortunately, there is always an unending supply of fools who know nothing about theology or philosophy and mistake symbols for the actual thing to commit the next horror. It would seem difficult to make the human race extinct, but God did provide a destruct button - stupidity.
Monopoly religion????By: Dr.G.Srinivasan | Wednesday , 27 May '09 6:40:16 AM Reply | Forward This happened in all religions Sikhism is no exception
Except Islam no other Religion is a very near success in eliminating castes,By: naufulamhu | Wednesday , 27 May '09 5:06:34 AM Reply | Forward I am naive and ignorant, I was under the impression that Sikhism brought a great revolution in Hinduism by abolishing the four traditional castes and hundreds of other sub-castes. Only today I understand that Cates do exist in Sikhism as it does exist in my country Sri Lanka among the Buddhists. Low caste people like us are not allowed entry into some of the Buddhist temples. Did religious conversion bring the revolution of caste-less religion?( Where are you Dr. Ambethcar) It appeared to do so in the case of Hindus converting to Christianity. But that is also wrong. Very many high caste Hindus Christians proudly add their Hindu Caste names after their Christian names such as Margaret Mudaliar, James, Sylvia, Mary, etc and in some places there are separate Burial grounds for low caste Christians, but in the case of Sri Lankan Islam and in Tamil Nadu, Muslims who used to belong to various Hindu Castes, have totally got rid of their Hindu Caste identity,, this is a real revolution
Issue is with tolerance, on Dalit side as wellBy: Navdeep Bajwa | Wednesday , 27 May '09 3:50:08 AM Reply | Forward Seems like the whole media is vilifying the higher caste sikhs for not being tolerant. The issue here is with "GURU MANYO GRANTH". Sikhs do not regard a livcing person as a guru, the holy book is the guru. THe ravidasis use the holy book but consider a living person as a guru. That is what causes this issue. Why cant tolerance be taught to ravidasis to understand this and show respect to the sikh traditions as well. A simil;ar issue caused the Nirankari problem in 80's as well and we know how that was politically and socially exploited.
Reader CommentBy: rohitchandavarker | Tuesday , 26 May '09 17:02:00 PM Reply | Forward The simmering discontent within the Sikh community resulted in this senseless violence.The reasons are manifold but the underlying reason is the chasm between the affluent sections
Guru Nanak Devji must be crying nowBy: Rajdeep | Tuesday , 26 May '09 15:56:52 PM Reply | Forward Great Guru Nanak Devji fought all his life against mindless rituals and symbolism in religion and today his followers kill somebody because he was sitting with the holy book Adi Granth instead of a notch lower. How stupid one can go on these things, some times back they were trying to kill some one else because he was dressed as Guru Govind Singhji. All the problems of rituals and castism that were cleaned by these Ten Gurus are now a days back in modern day Sikhism. Its time we all read and interpret the Adi Granth an japji Sahab once again and start the clean up act.
Business of expansion of the neo gurusBy: shantam i singh | Tuesday , 26 May '09 15:55:47 PM Reply | Forward Sikh masters and their contempraries have made religion free from the cluches of elite of their time. They have given immense importance to the idea of finding a living guru. This freedom to choose create the markets of gurus. Problem arises when these kiosk holder gurus cross the limits of their porfession. Just imagine you are a show room holder and a street seller start selling his things in your shop. What you will do? The same Sikhs are doing with this particular guru, otherwise hundreds of other deras are doing their business in their way.
Folks first try to get facts rightBy: Gurpreet Sandhu | Tuesday , 26 May '09 15:45:28 PM Reply | Forward The case here is that of one sect who call themselves ‘Ravidasis’
Monopoly ReligionBy: Parminder Singh | Tuesday , 26 May '09 14:56:31 PM Reply | Forward Sikhism tolerates all religions. It is borne out by the fact that Shabads of Hindu, Muslim Saints find a place in Guru Granth Sahibji. Nobody can deny the fact that saints like Kabir, Farid, Dhana, Tirlochan, Bhatts,Ramanand etc. did not belong to high castes. Nowhere in the Guru Granth Sahib there is preaching that Hindus/ Muslims should give up their religion. The advice to them is to be true Hindus/Muslims. Sikhs do not worship Idols, but they do not break them. Ravi Das is one of the saints whose Bani finds a respectable place in Sri Guru Granth Sahibji. However, nobody, including saints of other sects/ faiths/ deras have a right to either misinterpret or show disrespect to Guru Granth Sahib or the Sikh tradition/ teachings. If they want to charter a different line of thought, so be it. Let them have their holy book, place of worship, etc.
Folks first try to get facts rightBy: Gurpreet Sandhu | Tuesday , 26 May '09 14:27:05 PM Reply | Forward The case here is that of one sect who call themselves ‘Ravidasis’
Caste system in IndiaBy: Raman Mittal | Tuesday , 26 May '09 13:27:26 PM Reply | Forward Caste is a factor which is age old in India and refuses to die--come what may. Irrespective of religion, the caste system rises again and again and refuses to die. Nanak, Kabir, Sufis, Ramakrishna, missionaries, Constitution may have shown the door to caste based practices, but still it enters from back door. It appears the caste system is so deep rooted in Indian milieu that it is almost impossible to get rid of it. So, let us learn to live with it.
commentBy: santosh | Tuesday , 26 May '09 11:38:48 AM Reply | Forward who owns the religion?
Monopoly religionBy: MOHAN DADDIKAR | Tuesday , 26 May '09 11:29:51 AM Reply | Forward Sikhs, though deeply religious are generally a tolernat and peace-loving community. They are modern in outlook and proressive in soial reforms.But nowadays they are aping the Muslims in all spheres of human relations. So even waaring a turban has bccome a symbol of aggressive Sikhism. I reauest the Sikh commnunity to return to their age-old tolerance and love for peace and stop becoming like Muslims.
It was not the 6 people, it was a philosophyBy: T R Suman | Tuesday , 26 May '09 10:52:25 AM Reply | Forward This was not just an emotional killing of Sant Ramanand by 6 antisocial elements. This has lot to with the growing intollerence in the modern day Sikhism. A religion whose roots get watered from the respect to every religion. But the so called custodians of sikhism want to interpret the things the way they want and not the way they are. They want evry sub section of sikhism to follow there line. They can't digest the rise of so called lower caste sikhs or whatever they call them. They always forget that all of us are living in a free democratic society where everybody has it fundamental right to follow any religion in his own way. The difinition of a particular religion by a particular section is not binding to everybody. Things will get normal in the course of time but one thing is bound to happen. The social landscape of punjab has changed for ever.