SYNTHESIS AND OTHER PROCESSES IN SIKHISM By MARIAN W. SMITH s IKHISM is one of the great religions of the Indian sub-continent. It offers a fine example of the process of religious synthesis, a process which is widely accepted by scholars. Yet the Sikhs have a group identity which has been evident for some generations. Part of their own feeling of identity relates to their pride in the former Sikh Empire which they ceded entire to the British in the middle of the last century. The newly established Punjab boundary between the Dominions of India and Pakistan cuts straight through this territory. What happens to the nature of Sikh identity in the future will depend upon a number of factors. This paper limits itself to an investigation of the processes by which the identity was formulated. The paper suggests other processes as well as synthesis, adding one which the anthropologist will recognize as peculiarly cultural. There are today between four and six million Sikhs. In a population of 399 millions in the sub-continent this seems insignificant. Yet the importance of the Sikhs both historically and in the present is out of all proportion to their number. Partly, this is due to the fact that they were concentrated in the Punjab where the full effect of their influence might be felt. Even in the Punjab, however, the Sikhs formed a minority, outnumbered by both Hindus and Muslims. Their importance goes beyond census figures, to some extent relying on the tradition of their former rule in the Punjab, and to some extent based on their recent achievements. For almost a hundred years they served as soldiers and policemen of the British Empire. Their war record is enviable and they are, both men and women, among the best educated of Indic peoples. The Sikhs have often been called the Protestants of India. Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism, was born in 1469, thus anticipating the birth of Martin Luther by fourteen years. Although the reforms of these two great religious leaders led so largely in the same directions, each was certainly unaware of the existence of the other. The intellectual and political atmosphere which surrounded Nanak s development was a peculiar blend of Hinduism and Mohammedanism. Born a Hindu, a Kshatrya or warrior by caste, he was reared in the Punjab at a time when that area staggered under the full weight of Muslim influence. The The body of this paper was read before the one hundred and fifty-seventh meeting of the American Oriental Society, April 15, 1947, under title Hindu and Mohammedan Influences in Sikhism. The author first began her study of Sikhism in 1941 while organizing a course in Ethnological Field Techniques in the Department of Anthropology, Columbia University. She wishes to express her appreciation to the Viking Fund for a grant to Columbia University which enabled her to do field work among the transplanted Sikhs of British Columbia, Canada. Her deepest appreciation goes to her Sikh friends for their help, their constant generosity of time and energy. 45 7
458 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [N. s., 50, 1948 initial conflict between the Hindu masses and Muslim conquerors was intensified by the latter s active program of conversion. Whether or not this program lived up to its full reputation for torture and bloodshed is immaterial. Its increasing success constituted a direct challenge to native politics and to native religions. Nanak s answer was a reaffirmation of the spiritual essentials of Hinduism plus an emphasis upon human dignity which had almost immediate repercussions in the political sphere. Nanak offered a doctrinal synthesis which answered the challenge of Islam and at the same time aimed at the very foundations of the top-heavy Brahmanical social structure. By emphasizing an individualism al-ready present in the Hindu tradition, he raised human dignity into a force which transcended other-wordly values, made excessive ritualism unnecessary, consecrated daily labor, and denied the validity of the caste system itself. He was not alone in his ideas of social reform. Northwest India in the fifteenth century was a hot-bed of idea and comment, and of political recrimination. Kabir, who attempted a reconciliation of Islam and Hinduism, has been revered both as a pi7 by Muslims and as a guru by Hindus. Large portions of his teaching are incorporated in the Granth Sahib or Sikh scriptures. The Hindu Ramananda had earlier recommended intense devotion, and encouraged social reform to the point of admitting all castes to his sect. They were busy times. The way was well paved for Nanak s eclecticism and for his spiritual insistence upon the rights of man. Neither of these furnished an easy road. The absorbing tolerance of Hinduism often came into conflict with fanatical Muslim claims. Archer gives an excellent example of this: A brahman... was asserting... that Islam and Hinduism were both true religions, were effectual but different roads to God. This at last aroused the indignation of certain orthodox Moslems who persuaded the authorities to arrest the brahman and take him to Delhi for trial... The lawyers... proved that the brahman had proclaimed Islam to be a true religion and contended that since there can be only m e true religion the brahman had proclaimed Islam to be the true religion. The brahman, accordingly, was called upon to give the witness... saw the trap and declined... his refusal was judged to be renunciation of Islam, for which in the Moslem state the penalty is death. He was put to death.2 Eclecticism needed more than statement. Islam had a code of canonical law strongly backed in northwest India of the fifteenth century by Muslim political power. The Hindu Code of Manu with its caste rules was deeply entrenched in custom but had little else to recommend it as a weapon against a victorious Muslim officialdom. Nanak s call to the people made no attempt to codify belief. His followers were sikhs or learners. In a spiritual reassertion of the greatness of Divinity, he condemned the single path to God, thus im- John T. Archer, The Sikhs, Princeton University Press, 1946, pp. 42-43.
SMITH] SYNTHESIS AND OTHER PROCESSES IN SIKHISM 459 plicitly defying Islam. He held Hindu excesses up to ridicule, thus depriving his followers of any easy way out of their difficulties through escape into ritualism or otherworldliness. His synthesis was no sponge, no mere summation of ideas. It was a declaration of the power of individual belief which hit at the very roots of both organized Islam and organized Hinduism. This was not at first recognized: for the great Muslim ruler, Akbar, himself something of an eclectic, made land grants to the Sikhs, thus lending them his tacit approval. Yet even then the Sikh state was forming. Nanak had concerned himself with leadership and he had established a sect center with a public kitchen. By the time of Arjun, fifth guru (1581-1606), a Sikh center had arisen at Amritsar and a system of tithing had been instituted for its support. Lesser centers were scattered wherever there were Sikhs, and these looked to Amritsar for guidance. All this required organization, subdivisions and local leaders. The public kitchens were expensive to operate and emphasis was placed upon financial success. Belief remained uncodified but unity was being achieved. The Hindus had a long and proud military tradition in their Rajputs and Kshatryas. But it was essentially an aristocratic tradition. It could not put armies in the field large enough to defeat the soldiers of Islam. Through his insistence upon his followers inherent power to realize their own ends, Nanak had set the stage for future Sikh militarism. Men went out from Amritsar in the latter part of the sixteenth century to enlist as soldiers in the political intrigues of the Muslim court. Unfortunately, they backed the losing side. Arjun was fined, and finally put to death with torture. A Sikh peasant army was in the making-and their leader had been martyred. Political martyrdoms and forced conversions increased in number as the cosmopolitan atmosphere of sixteenth century Islam dissipated. The tenth guru, Gobind Singh (1675-1708), not only became the champion of the lowly peoples of north India but an irreconcilable foe of Muslim rule. Under him baptized Sikhs became Singhs, warriors or lions. He organized the Khalsa along lines which allowed a maximum of independent action on the part of individual Sikhs. Any five baptized Sikhs were given rights of autonomous action. Priests were readers without hierarchical position or special privilege and the affairs of the temple were placed in the hands of elected officials. Yet Sikh unity was upheld by adherence to the five K s, visible signs setting Sikhs apart from other segments of the p~pulation,~ and by a strong devotional attachment to the holy city of Amritsar. The sect was open to all castes; it reaffirmed the dignity of all labor; and stressed the military virtues above all others. The basis of Khalsa organization imposed by Gobind Singh is not easy to 3 The five K s are kesh, uncut hair; kirpan, a small dagger worn in the hair; konga, wooden comb; kochh, shorts; and kara, iron bracelet.
460 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [N. S., 50, 1948 identify historically. It certainly had some counterpartin thesindupanchayat. But it seems also to have unique features designed to weld disparate peoples of the lower castes into a highly motivated fighting unit. Under theexpert leadership of Ranjit Singh (1780-1839), the Sikhs did indeed defeat the Muslim princes and extend their military power over the Punjab from Afghanistan to the Sutlej River. An army of the common man had been formed in a manner reminiscent of the Muslim armies. But in becoming soldiers the Sikhs fitted into the Hindu military tradition, and were lifted to aristocratic status both in their own eyes and the eyes of many other Indians. In talking to followers of Gobind Singh today one is impressed by the extent to which the main tenets of Sikhism have been maintained, even intensified. The literary and philosophical traditions as such yield much valuable material, but an equally rewarding study might be made of the extent to which these are borne out in the everyday lives of the people. Almost all of the devotional aspects of Sikhism so well typified in Nanak, and the military aspects brought to fruition under Ranjit Singh, could be reconstructed from the conversations of the ordinary Sikhs with whom I have worked. Having their history before us, the question still remains-what are some of the processes which have formed Sikhism? Some Sikh temples in India today contain statues inherited from Hinduism. But the general insistence of the religion is against images of the deity. It is fairly easy to trace such an insistence to Muslim influence. The usual Muslim reasons, however, are not given: it is said rather that the mystic quality of Sat Nam, the True Name, defies the artist. In the manner of Islam, also, Sikhism admits of but one God, though there are many ways of approaching Him. That God is not the solitary figure of Islam; He is considered the prototype of all Godhead so that monotheism shifts from Muslim intolerance to a permissive Hindu position which allows Sikhs to feel brotherhood with all men whatever their god. These and examples given above indicate that Sikhism has used elements from both Hinduism and Islam through a process of selection and almost simple combination. The process is not always easy to follow. Sikh gurus or teachers, beginning with Nanak and ending with Gobind Singh, are regarded with reverence, although I have never heard any Sikh confuse them with, or closely identify them with, deity. All the gurus, and especially the later ones, are thought also to be heroes in the epic tradition which is common to both Hinduism and Islam. It would be next to impossible accurately to identify the heroic episodes in the legends as either Hindu or Muslim. Many of them indeed are told as historical incidents and can, in part, be historically validated. History is also partially responsible for the emphasis upon martyrdom. Not only are the gurus heroes, they are martyrs. Such a concept could have been introduced from Mohammedanism which belongs, after all, in the Judaic-Christian tradition.
SMITH] SYNTHESIS AND OTHER PROCESSES IN SIKHISM 46 1 But it could likewise have arisen from circumstance. Gurus and many Sikhs have, in fact, been martyred. To complicate further any simple picture of religious synthesis, one is preeminently aware in Sikhism of a consistent working out of basic principles. Wherever Nanak may have obtained his idea of human dignity-and it could have come in various guises from either the Hindu or Muslim tenets of his time-he worked it into a concept from which much of the peculiar flavor of Sikhism has since developed. Following it consistently the Sikhs, like the Protestants, have minimized ritual, consecrated labor, and denied class or caste stratification. In practice, of course, neither group has fully achieved these as social ends. But each has, over time, worked toward them. Religious synthesis is valueless in explaining such a phenomenon. One must allow for some process by which intellectually conceived ideas are translated into social action, their full implication gradually realized and consistently followed. One other possibility exists. Ideas which are now stamped with the Sikh label may have been present in the everyday life of the people who espoused Sikhism without having gained recognition in either the formal or literary records of. organized religion. Our analysis has been limited to the materials usually recorded and usually abstracted. Other materials might also prove illuminating. The tie between religion and politics, which was early recognized by Sikhism and is today fully exploited by it, runs counter to Protestant development. It is consistent with the basic principle of human dignity but the two religions have diverged radically on this point. Protestantism has been a major force in the Western separation between religion and the state whereas Sikhism has inextricably blended them. Intellectual consistency and historical circumstance do not seem quite satisfactory in explaining this difference. It is a matter of fact that adult Sikh women are fine, upstanding individuals. They often make the decisions in their households and they are fully versed in affairs beyond the homes to which they are virtually confined. This is a fact one would never glean from the overt expressions of Islam, from Hinduism, or from Sikhism. Are Hindu and Muslim women of the Punjab equally upstanding? If so, were they at the time of Nanak and has this effected the development of Sikhism? The literature offers no discussion of such a possibility, although there are some indications of positive evidence on the point. Examination of the Sikh ethical principle of service leads in the same direction. Sikhs today give great importance to mutual service. Doing things for the members of one s family and for other persons as well is regarded as one of the surest ways of serving God. Such an emphasis can also be found in the teachings of Nanak. It is standardized in the public kitchen through which the temple serves visitors; and, in the meal which follows temple worship, the women and children eat first and are served by the men as a symbol of hu-
462 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [N. S., 50, 1948 mility in service. Family meals follow a somewhat similar pattern. Men and boys often eat first, served by the women; then the women eat, served by the boys. There are numerous variations. The man of the house, for instance, may serve a large company of guests and members of his family in a gesture which is recognized as an honor to the guests. The idea lies deep in the habits of the people and in the daily expression of their emotional overtones. Have these ingrained customs been effected by the philosophical ideas of Nanak or was he lending verbal expression to concepts already inherent in family relations as he knew them? It is possible that neither verbalization nor practice actually arose in response to the other but that both have been reinforced by the presence of the other. The process certainly deserves careful investigation. Few would deny that ideas may effect behavior and custom. But the reciprocal action of behavior on ideas has not been examined sufficiently. In studying the development of Sikhism, (1) religious synthesis, (2) reaction to historical circumstance and (3) intellectual consistency must all be considered. One must also bear in mind the further possibility of (4) influence from social factors not included in either the written or spoken word. COLUHBIA UNIVERSITY NEW YORK, NEW YORX