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

objectionable, had similar criticism been levelled against other religious traditions as
well. "
It is incorrect that it is the conflict of world views that has led to the Bluestar
attack. Indian Secularism has never been Secularism of the type understood in the West.
Second, in operation, it has many a time been only an expression of Hindu orthodoxy.
Third, so far as the combination of religion and politics and the execution of the Sikh
Morchas from the precincts of the Golden Temple arc concerned, these were never
objected to either by the Mahatma, or, later after Independence, at the time of Punjabi
Suba agitation or during the Emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi. And, as to the issues
for which the Akali Party, struggled, those were purely socio-political, being the result of
uncalled for and unconstitutional, but overt discrimination made by the State against the
Sikh community.
At times Madan asserts what suits his argument, howsover, irrational, it may be.
Punjabi language stands recognized as one of the fourteen languages in the Indian
Constitution. And, yet, he cannot conceal his bias, when he says that "the argument
(about necessary secular basis of language) has not entirely been convincing, although
the Sikh holy book is written in Gurmukhi." For him, Punjabi is hardly a language and
the demand for a Punjabi-speaking state was not justified, although he is well aware that
everywhere else the division of India had been made on the linguistic basis. On the other
hand, he has hardly a word of condemnation, when almost the entire Hindu community in
Punjab collectively resorts to making false public statements about their mothertongue.
Instead of being critical of such public conduct, he appears quite unconcerned except for
saying that there is considerable truth in it. Minority positions being what they are the
world over, the Sikhs have never denied that a Punjabi Suba will give them a sense of
security. But, the studied effort of the Centre to deny it, the Punjabi Hindus' making an
exhibition of public misconduct, and, thereafter, the Centre's taking it as the truthful basis
of the division of Punjab, could not but alarm the Sikhs about the euphemistic Secularism
of the Centre.
It is also incorrect for Madan to say that in 1981 at the Sikh Educational
Conference the call for Khalistan was given. In fact, even till June, 1984 there was never
any idea of Khalistan in any political group or party, not even in the case of
Bhindranwala or the Sikh Students Federation. This is evident from the statements both
of Nayyar and Ravi about their talks with Bhindranwala in May, 1984, and the statement
of Rajiv Gandhi.
Again, on the one hand, Madan says that the Tenth Master invested the Guru
Granth with Guruship. Later, he says that Guruship of Guru Granth is an evolutionary
growth. Nor has Madan's statement that the text of the Guru Granth was finalised in
1962, any factual basis. It is a historical fact that in early 18th century, the dispute
between the Bandai Khalsa and the Tatt Khalsa was resolved following the hukm (hymn)
from the Guru Granth. Similarly, Madan concedes that the entry of some Sikhs (Mazhbis)
to the Golden Temple was decided following a hymn from the Guru Granth Sahib. In
both the cases it was the meanings of the hymns that prevailed and not the symbols.
Hence the incongruity of Madan's statements that Guru Granth is a classic example of
supremacy of symbol over substance. We have explained that unlike as in the Vedic
religion, where only the meticulous performance of the ritual or repetition of the mystic