Dynamics of Khalsa institutions
By Kehar Singh

THE tercentenary of the Khalsa falling on April 13, 1999 provides us an opportunity to appraise the great organisational principles and the spirit which informed the epoch-making spectacle enacted by Guru Gobind Singh on the Ist of Baisakh, 1699. The creation of the order of Khalsa on this day was the magnificent culmination of the new religious principles initiated by Guru Nanak in the 15th to 16th century. Religion, according to Guru Nanak was a way of life rooted in the spiritual communion with God. And this was to be a way of life not of an ascetic but of a socially committed being. Nihar Ranjan Ray, a perceptive reader of the Indian religious tradition rightly observes that" ... the integration of temporal and spiritual has been the most significant contribution of Guru Nanak to the totality of the Indian way of life of medieval India."

Guru Nanak founded a new socio-religious community whose concern was for the totality of human existence. Being alive to the political happenings was expected of a Sikh of Guru Nanak who himself had given a lead in this regard through precept and practice. Militarisation of the Panth of Guru Nanak to meet the exigencies of the times was a necessary result of the socio-political concerns of the community. It was on these foundations that the Tenth Guru built the edifice of Khalsa brotherhood. Khalsa became the cherisher and upholder of the values of equality, human dignity, freedom of conscience self-governance, and general welfare. This role was highly demanding. The Khalsa fought life and death battles against the oppressors. Everything, they say, is fair in love and war, but not so for the Khalsa. The tenth Master’s clear injunction to the Khalsa was to overcome the weaker instincts even during the trying times like war. Because, according to the Guru, only person of a very high moral calibre could equit himself well in a long drawn out struggle for righteousness. The Khalsa was to be saint as well as a soldier at the same time.

The idea mentioned above was not an utopia but a reality is fully borne out by the contemporary chroniclers of the enemy camp. Qazi Nur Mohammed, who accompanied the invading army of Ahmad Shah Abdali in 1764, records in his Jangnama that the Sikhs never killed a coward or obstructed the one who fled from the battle field. Sikhs respected the chastity of women as part of their faith and honour, nor did they rob a woman of her gold and ornaments may she be a queen or a slave girl, and that in festivities they surpassed hatim in generosity. And this was not a one-time expression of the high qualities by the followers of Guru Gobind Singh but a distinguishing feature of the Khalsa brotherhood over a long period of time.

Even in 1849, when the Sikhs had lost the empire, J.D. Cuningham, and English historian wrote that "a living spirit possesses the whole Sikh people, and the impress of Gobind has not only elevated and altered the constitution of their minds, but has operated materially and given amplitude to their physical frames. The features and external form of a whole people have been modified, and a Sikh chief is not more distinguishable by his stately person and free and manly bearing than a minister of his faith is by a lofty thoughtfulness of look, which marks the fervour of his soul, and his persuasion of the near presence of the Divinity."

The feudal Indian society of 17th century was hierarchically structured on the basis of caste and creed, occupation, and region. The tenth Master dissolved all these man-made distinctions through the nash doctrine. All amritdhari Sikhs were ordained to forget their previous dissimilarities and inequalities and were made equal participants in the new dispensation. The result was a casteless and egalitarian community with a concretised mission of fighting against the oppressive social and political forces.

The initiation ceremony of 1699 not only embodied the Sikh values as implicit in the Banibut also laid down the norms and institutional framework to realise them. While working out the concept of Sikh polity it will be fruitful to keep the above in mind. In terms of institutions we have four models of polity experienced by the Sikhs during the course of their existence, right from the times of the founder of the faith till date. These are (a) the spiritual-temporal kingship of the Guru period; (b) Khalsa democracy of the Misl period; (c) the monarchical regimes of Maharaja Ranjit Singh and his successors; (d) the liberal republican democracy of the post-Independence era. Judging by the Khalsa principles enunciated by Guru Gobind Singh the Khalsa Democracy of the Misl period approximates the ideal Sikh polity. It was during this period that the concept of popular sovereignty became operative. Every Sikh had opportunities to participate in the decision making and a sense of belonging to the system. However, the institutions of the Misl period have limited use for the contemporary Sikh society.

The institutions of Panj Piaras, Sarbat Khalsa and Gurmata may be relevant to the intracommunity affairs, but not so for multi-religious and democratic society of today. Our experience has taught us that democratic way of electing our rulers, despite its limitations is the best to operationalise the concept of popular sovereignty.

So far as the present day Sikh society is concerned it has to organise its collective affairs on two levels. To participate in the political affairs of the state a Sikh has to operate as a secular person and make a bid for political power in a liberal democratic idiom. In the process the Panthic concerns may be brought in but they have to be couched in secular terms. Whether it is politicisation of community or communalisation of politics is too technical an issue for the purpose of this piece. Even in the matter of management of religious places the Sikhs have been organising their affairs through a legally constituted body-Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC). Both in secular and religious spheres, we have legally constituted and operative bodies.

The broad acceptance of the institutions of representative democracy may lead us to construe that these are the modern version of the Sikh institutions of Misl period. Or conversely, some may argue that the institutions evolved by the 18th century Sikhs are outdated. To my mind there is another perspective which may help us better appraise the relevance of the Khalsa institutions in the present day context.

The Sikhs at large continue to attach importance to the decisions arrived at through conventional methods and herein lies the sanction behind the pronouncements made at Akal Takht. The political leadership has to make compromises and work under many a constraint. The community yearns for the articulation, of its collective consciousness which is essentially moral in its nature. This articulation it is presumed can be better done by a traditional religious leadership rather than the political leadership thrown up by the electoral process. In addition this articulation is also viewed as a check on the arbitrary functioning of power-drunk politicians. State power is amenable to manipulation and can be put to use against the general interest. The point being made is that the concept of popular sovereignty in Sikhism does not denote absolute collective power as it is generally understood in the West. In Sikhism sovereignty is required to be in conformity with the Guru’s legacy which lends it legitimacy. That is why the Sarbat Khalsa meets in the presence of Sri Guru Granth Sahib and its decisions are known as Gurmatas.

In community matters the Khalsa sovereignty is articulated by the Panj Piaras (five beloved ones). The tenth Guru had ended the tradition of supremacy of one person and created the institution of a presidium of five to speak for and represent the Panth. The five cherished ones are supposed to be the conscience-keepers of the Panth and their views and decisions are accepted by the tradition bound as the voice of the Panth. The common Sikh expects from them high standards of integrity and impartiality. There is no unanimity amongst the Sikhs about the process of the selection of the five beloved ones. However, the jathedars of five temporal seats of the Panthhave assumed this role from the sixties of the present century. There seems to be broad agreement about the Panj Piaras being selected, and against the application of elective principle as practised in modern democracies.

An effort was made to resuscitate the institution of Sarbat Khalsa by the militants in the eighties of the present century. The sectional agenda of the sponsors robbed these gatherings of universal appeal for the Sikhs in general. The schemes for operationalisation of this institution in the present day context are still being worked out by the scholars.