editorial articles reviews news & views - Institute of Sikh Studies

76
ABSTRACTS OF SIKH STUDIES : APRIL-JUNE 2005 / 537 NS
our mouths wide open”. The difference is that whereas Kabir talks of
puppies speaking to God, Fenech does not speak to even Lord Christ
for munificence, but to McLeod, obviously, for worldly gains. I would
prefer to call them yuppies – young urban professionals out to seek
McLeod’s munificence for material gains.
It is in this view that Fenech proceeds to examine the Sikh tradition
of martyrdom to belittle, if not demolish, in his own style the whole
concept and achievements of the Sikh martyrs, often contradicting
himself, not knowing what stand to take.
III
Fenech starts his first chapter, Introduction, with two grievous
misstatements. Firstly, the opening sentence is preposterous. It reads,
“To many contemporary Sikhs and non-Sikhs the concept of martyrdom
or Sahadat also Shahidi is fundamental to Sikhism and represents an
exceptionally important institution.” The question immediately arises,
who are these “many Sikhs”(), and “non-Sikhs”() and, what is
“fundamental to Sikhism” To all Sikhs nam-simran, meditating the
name of God, is fundamental to Sikhism. The only non-Sikhs who
could give that much importance to Shahadat or Shahidi could be agents
of Indian intelligence set-up, or its various branches, who had
masterminded the militancy movement in Indira Gandhi’s second term
as India’s Prime Minister, or these could be McLeodian yuppies and
people belonging to his school of thought in North America. With
this type of misstatements, which could only be result of briefing by
Indian intelligence set-up, McLeodian stalwart proceeds to build up
his thesis.
Secondly, in the very second sentence of chapter three, this yuppy
proceeds to contradict what he wrote in the very first sentence of
chapter one. He proceeds to say, “Of course, even a cursory glance at
popular Sikh accounts will invalidate this claim,” by Mona Kang that
“one can say that Sikh history is the history of martyrs.” He continues,
rightly, that, “At any stage in the diachronic development there was
far more to Sikhism than martyrs and martyrdom,” The point is, that
this McLeodian stalwart is not sure as to what is the real position-the