Fundamentalism and the Sikh Religious Tradition by T.N. Madan

Maya (Multifarious things and beings), and fourth, the next higher stage of the Gurmukh
who lives truthfully." In fact, the recommendation is for a continuous moral effort. It is
wrong to say that Guru Nanak recommended only listening to the holy word. In fact, no
one emphasizes the importance of 'deed' more than does Guru Nanak who says that man's
assessment shall be based on his deeds, "truthful conduct is the highest form of living,'
and that one remains near or away from God according as is the character of one's deeds."
The problem Secularism has created, is that having discarded the internal brakes
that religion gave lo society, it has been unable to devise and instil in man any rational
ethics that could create cohesion in a society. The factual position is that despite the
warning the authors of Limits of Growth, gave a quarter century back, the gap between
the rich and poor of a country, and between the developed and undeveloped countries,
has grown at an alarming rate. The present thinking seems to involve "the annihilation of
mythology, religion, all value system, all hope." The problem appears to be not of any
seeming fundamentalism, but of Secularism, and its inability to create a commitment of
the people to a rational ethics, much less to a univresal ethics.
Pacificism and Indian Context : Here a few words about pacificism, and its
ethical base or value. The present century has known for two great pacificists, namely,
Bertrand Russell in the field of thought, and Mahatma Gandhi in the field of religious
conviction. During the First World War, Russell faced imprisonment; but after the
Second World War the same pacificist Russell suggested that in order to avoid the
appalling disaster of a Russian Victory, a threat of force or even actual use of force
should be employed against the USSR, before it could develop a big stock pile of atom
bombs and became a threat to the West. To an outsider, the moral difference between a
pacificist Russell, who recommended a strike against Russia, and a Ronald Reagan who
called it an 'evil empire', is hardly visible.
Next is the question of Mahatma's combining religion and politics, and his
pacificism. Combination between the two was always practised by Mahatma Gandhi. His
incongruities in this regard, are too obvious to be ignored. He endorsed the stand of the
Akalis, whom Madan calls Fundamentalists, when they freed their gurdwaras from the
control of Government patronised Mahants. Yet, he was inexplicably upset, when the
Akalis started the Jaitu morcha, although he himself wanted the Akalis to join his
political movement against the British, whom the Akalis had confronted at Jaitu. And
again, when it suited him, he joined the Khilafat Movement, which was politically extraterritorial.
We have noted how he introduced Hindu ideology in the Congress, which was
turned lo looking back to the Hindu past.
He recommended pacificism to the British, when faced with an impending attack
from Hitler's Germany. Seervai, the unparalleled Constitutional lawyer of India, has
made a detailed analysis of these facts and events, and come to the conclusion that
Mahatma's faith in non-violence was just superficial, far from being serious. He writes,
"There is little doubt that Gandhi used non-violence as a political weapon, and was
prepared to support or connive at violence to secure political goals. Anyway, it is well
known that later he not only promised to promote the war effort, if India were given
autonomy, but also blessed the dispatch of Indian Army to Kashmir in 1947. Abul Kalam
Azad's views about Indian and Mahatma's pacificism are not very different.
The Mahatma stressed that Pakistan would be created on his dead body, and yet
it left Abdul Ghaffar Khan aghast, when Gandhi supported the Congress Resolution