The Sikh Bulletin

The Sikh Bulletin &`gx 535 February 2004
or scriptural literature (e.g. rehatnamas, hukamnamas,
gurbani) In case someone thinks 'dharam' means 'religion',
they are sorely mistaken! Dharam is a much more fuller,
substantive and wholesome term than 'religion'. 'Dharam'
means a totalised and holistic lifestyle of righteous living
(code of ethical conduct, philosophy of life, etc). It was
used in this sense by the Sikh Founding Fathers (the 'Gurus').
For example:
"(Guru Nanak) gave a new code of conduct, as the high
way of spiritual life. Thus, Guru Nanak restored to
DHARMA, its lost feet. He blended all classes and creeds
into one social order: the SIKHS. In this, he gave the
lowliest social equality with the kings; and taught
humility and dignified living to the world." Bhai Gurdaas,
Var 1, 24
Sikh writers continue to confuse and misinterpret 'religion'
and 'Dharam' as the same things (much like the term
'Khaalsa' meaning the 'pure'). 'Dharam' is higher than the
confines of institutionalised 'religion' (e.g. Catholicism,
Protestantism). It is about human society and its
wholescale ethical functionality. The authentic Khaalsa
culture, society and people are a dharamic nation and
civilisation.
The Sikh Gurus never meant us to be a religion. They meant
us to be a full-fledged people, a nation, a PANTH -
defined and driven by a comprehensive ethical human
culture ('a network of ideas, values and customs which
define the behaviour of a society').
3. The term religion was first brought to the Sikhs by the
British colonialists, in the 19th century during their
conquest of Panjaab. British officialdom began to describe
the Sikhs as a 'religion'. The British used various disjointed
and half-baked descriptions about the Sikhs - their lifestyle,
their ethics and collective community. For example, the
'Khalsa' was frequently described as a 'military sect'. The
Darbar Sahib was described as a 'temple of worship'. Indeed,
even today, the term 'temple' and 'place of worship' is
routinely applied to gurdwaras. Moreover, the learned
Sikhs have absorbed and imbibed these misdescriptions;
and frequently use them themselves, pliantly. The
Gurdwara is neither a 'temple' nor a place of 'worship' (a
English term for formal religious 'prayer' etc). In sum total,
the Sikhs have blindly and pliantly accepted terminology
superimposed by a conquering power! (highly reflective of
the current subdued and pliant 'Sikh' mental character, in
contrast with the pre-1849 staunch Panjaabi - Sikhs who were
annihilated by the invading British, much like the Scottish
highland stalwarts).
4. The term 'religion' comes with a great deal of negative
and institutionalised baggage. The religious establishment
throughout Europe, over previous centuries, and indeed, the
current time; has been involved in great social and political
controversies and scandals, and sanctioned aggressive wars
by the prevaling imperialistic states. Religion is associated
with institutional control, formalisms, ritual, tight and
oppressive authority and officialdom. This is certainly not
the substance of the Khaalsa philosophy, lifestyle or
movement or peoplehood! Indeed, the exact opposite.
5. Religious groups do not have rights in international
law! The nearest thing to religious rights, is the right to
freedom of thought and expression and freedom of 'religion',
etc, as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights. Religious groups do not have any COLLECTIVE
rights as a collective community, unlike ethnic-national
groups, in international law. There is no legal basis for
self-determination for a 'religious minority' or a
'religious community'. The Sikhs presenting themselves as
a 'persecuted religious minority' in India, diverts massively
and most fundamentally, from the correct principles of the
Sikh case - a nation undemocratically and oppressively
colonialised and subjugated by a state (INDIA). It makes
no intellectual sense for a 'religious' community to seek
autonomy, self-determination or self-rule, merely
because of their different style of worship, different
prayers, different centres of worship. That is like,
buddhists demanding territorial and political separation
from christians. In contrast, a nation - a people who have
a collective way of life and a collective society of their
own, and seek to function and develop as a collective
human unit - has much more comprehensive
and overarching basis for self-existence and independent
existence. A nation wishes to function as a full-fledged
comprehensive society - social, political, civic and
legislative; based on its cultural, social and spiritial
substance and values - customs, heritage, codes, norms. This
is why the Khaalsa civilisation decidely qualifies as a
nation more than as a mere 'religion', much less a
'religious minority'!
The reduction of Sikhs to a 'religious' group, as against a
ethnic group, is driven by the duplicitous and oppressive
desire to deny the Sikhs their legal rights as a distinct
and full-fledged people. Being a 'religion' gives Sikhs no
legal strength or basis. Indeed, discussions by the Sikh
Commonwealth (London) with western governments'
representatives and in the United Nations (New York) about
Sikh nationhood were often complicated and impeded by
Indian pre-information, that Sikhs were only a 'religious'
group.
6. Sikhs says they are a 'nation', and claim national
rights. How do they reconcile this with their constant and
repititive self-description as a 'religious' group, seeking
'religious rights and freedoms'
The Sikh Center Roseville, 201 Berkeley Ave, Roseville, CA. 95678 12