Selected Editorials - The Sikh Bulletin

The Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) initiated the preparation of the Reht Maryada
(RM) in 1927 and approved the final version only in 1945. [1] This long process was necessary to allow
Sikh scholars to deliberate on the sources that were used to formulate the Maryada; they rightly rejected
those portions of the available rahitnamas, and other documents, that they considered out of harmony
with the AGGS and those that were considered inappropriate (or politically incorrect, to use the current
jargon). These scholars were not infallible and may well have incorporated in the maryada injunctions
that are absurd by today’s standards, needing expunging or modifications. Whenever a suggestion is made
that we consider revising or modifying the RM, a common refrain is that our great scholars have already
deliberated upon the matter and there is no need for any further review. To these people the older the
tradition the more of a sacred cow it becomes, almost as if the thought processes of those scholars
somehow superior to those of current scholars. Perhaps a few examples of the ‘outdated-ness’ of the
current RM will help throw some light on the issue.
As the RM deals with matters of concern only to Sikhs it is not out of place to first decide on the
definition of a Sikh. This will, as always on every issue concerning Sikhs, involve a protracted discussion.
Here there is a proposal to define a Sikh as follows: A Sikh is a person who solemnly affirms that he is a
Sikh, believes in the Guru Granth Sahib and no other scripture, believes in the Ten Gurus from Guru
Nanak to Guru Gobind Singh, and has no other religion.
This definition is a modification of the affirmation required under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act 1925. The
reason is that this definition, in contrast to the others, like the one in the Delhi Gurdwara Act 82 of 1971,
is by far the broadest. This definition will encompass the many who claim to be Sikhs but would by other
definitions be excluded. It leaves out the requirement of the Khalsa initiation and the requirement of being
keshdhari as being prerequisites to being recognized as a Sikh. One can imagine the virulent objections of
the “orthodox” to this proposal, but the ground realities (at least in the Diaspora) would make the
“orthodox” definitions farcical; far too many would, by definition, become non-Sikhs, or we would have
to continue to accept them as Sikhs despite the definition requirements not being met – a rather
hypocritical situation!
A wide definition, such as this, will allow any Sikh so qualified to undertake some of the ceremonies, etc,
where the Maryada says ‘only a Sikh…’ can do it.
Article IV of the RM refers to the several compositions that a Sikh is expected to recite daily (Nitnem).
Whilst there must be some individuals who faithfully recite all the required banis daily, the majority fail
miserably. The sheer volume of the prayers required is impractical. Then there is the problem of reciting
‘banis’ from the so-called Dasam Granth (DG), bearing in mind the controversy surrounding the said
Granth; though why there should be any controversy (regarding the DG) is difficult to comprehend,
considering that it is not a sacred scripture, all the other objections notwithstanding.
In relation to Ardas, the obvious objection is to the reference to bhagauti, even though the reason for its
use has been conveniently explained away by apologists. A portion of Chapter IV Article V of the RM
states:
“Only an Amritdhari (baptized) Sikh man or woman, who faithfully observes the discipline ordained
for the baptized Sikhs, can enter the hallowed enclosures of the takhts. (Ardas for and on behalf of
any Sikh or non-Sikh, except a fallen or punished (tankhahia) Sikh, can be offered at the takhts.”
If this requirement is to be strictly followed almost no one will qualify, including the Jathedars of the
Takhts (keep in mind the words faithfully observes the discipline ordained for the baptized Sikhs).
Moreover, there is no reasonable explanation as to why anyone should be disallowed from entering the
enclosures as long as he is respectful and meets the basic requirements such as covering the head, etc.
Strange that one can offer Ardas for a non-Sikh but not for a “fallen” Sikh. Why Is it against the “Sikh
29