Criticism of Sikhism

Sikhism has commonly been dismissed as, either consciously (according to John Hardon) or spontaneously (according to John B. Noss), a syncretism of the Hindu Bhakti and Muslim Sufi movements.[1][2]

The Sikh scripture Guru Granth Sahib in a Gurdwara

Ernest Trumpp, a colonial-era Christian missionary in Sindh, asked in 1869 by the Secretary of state for India on behalf of the British government to translate the Adi Granth and Dasam Granth, began studying and translating them,[3] but considered them not worth translating in full, because "the same few ideas, he thought, being endlessly repeated". He had been collaborating with granthis of the Nirmala sect, which interpreted Sikh scripture from within a Brahminical framework.[4] The Nirmalas and Udasis had risen to prominence at the expense of the mainstream Khalsa in the eighteenth century, which had been experiencing increased Mughal persecution in the 1700s that forced it to cede control of Sikh shrines to sects without external identifying articles, and subsequently focused on political sovereignty.[4] He found that the Sikh granthis who recited the text in the early 1870s lacked comprehension and its sense of meaning.[3] He stated that "as a result of their warlike manner of life and the troubled times,"[5] that "Sikhs had lost all learning" and the granthis were misleading.[3] Even for Sikhs the language of the Guru Granth Sahib is considered archaic and hard to understand without an interpreter, especially in relation to important but complex ideas.[6] According to Tony Ballantyne, Ernest Trumpp's insensitive approach such as treating the Sikh scripture as a mere book and blowing cigar smoke over its pages while studying the text, did not endear him to the Sikh granthis who regarded it as an embodiment of the Gurus.[3]

Trumpp said that Sikhism was "a reform movement in spirit", but "completely failed to achieve anything of real religious significance",[3] He concluding that the Sikhs he worked with did not understand the metaphysical speculations of their scripture. The Nirmala[4] Sikh intelligensia he met during his years of study, stated Trumpp, only had a "partial understanding" of their own scripture. He considered most Sikhs to neither observe the Sikh Rehat Maryada, or Sikh code of conduct, nor guide their popular notions by the teachings in the Adi Granth,[3] but had become more of a military brotherhood with a martial spirit, inspired by a "deep fanatical hatred" for the Muslims given the Sikh sense of their history and identity,[3] and described the scripture as "incoherent and shallow in the extreme, and couched at the same time in dark and perplexing language, in order to cover these defects. It is for us Occidentals a most painful and almost stupefying task, to read only a single Rag".[3] Trumpp criticized Adi Granth to be lacking systematic unity.[7]

According to Sikh historian Trilochan Singh, Trumpp used his "limited knowledge of the language of oriental text" to censure and denigrate the authors and texts he studied, approaching Sikh history, religion, and scripture with pre-conceived notions, biases, and prejudices, having a difficult time concealing his "missionary arrogance and contempt for any religion or religious teacher other than those of their religion,"[8] as he had similarly dismissed other religions whose writings he translated, and even the preface of Trumpp's book had been filled with such sentiments. According to Singh, driven primarily by missionary zeal, Trumpp had also sought to undermine Sikh social, cultural, and political underpinnings which had given cohesion and strength to the Sikh community throughout their history, in the hopes or seeking laurels from like-minded co-religionists, though many contemporary Christian writers had also dismissed Trumpp.[8] Singh also considers Trumpp to have found it difficult to place Sikhism neatly within deism, monotheism, or other "isms" of his day, which clashed with his 19th-century Christian sensibilities.[8]

According to Indologist Mark Juergensmeyer, setting aside Ernest Trumpp's nasty remarks, he was a German linguist and his years of scholarship, translations, as well as field notes and discussions with Sikhs at the Golden Temple remain valuable reference works for contemporary scholars,[9] as Singh writes that he did feel that the Sikh scriptures were a "treasure trove" of medieval languages, and maintained interest in them from that perspective.[8]

W H McLeod, a scholar with former missionary links, considered a portion of the hagiographic Janamsakhis of the Sikh gurus, though popular among Sikhs, as stories with myth and miracles, discounting some entirely, considering some as improbable, and some as merely possible, placing 87 of 124 sakhis in these categories. The remaining 37 he categorized as probable or established.[10] McLeod considered the Guru Nanak of the janam-sakhis was the one "of legend and of faith, seen through the eyes of popular piety" decades after his death, distilling what he considered an accurate portrait of Guru Nanak in three paragraphs.[10] McLeod's textual criticism, his empirical examination of genealogical and geographical evidence, examination of the consistency between the Sikh texts and their versions, philological analysis of historic Sikh literature, search for corroborating evidence in external sources and other critical studies have been influential popular among the Western academics and Indian scholars working outside India, but highly controversial within the Sikh community, and prompting a reaction similar to that of other faith communities.[10]

McLeod was also not content with the approach of expositions of Sikh scholars of the nineteenth century to leave questions unanswered on concepts such as nirgun (transcendent) and sagun (immanent) aspects of the divine (that God was transcendent while God's phenomena were immanent), and how Nanak's theological thought that God can and does communicate to every human being regularly, and how this communication can be "recognized, accepted and followed," criticized as failing to provide a satisfactory, coherent answer about "how" this ongoing divine communication happens or can happen, which was "allowed to remain a mystery," as according to the scholars of the time, in regards to the nirgun aspect, "there is nothing man can say of it" except when experienced in the "ultimate condition of absolute union."[11]

English travelers to Sikh temples during the early 1900s saw the veneration of the Granth as coming close to defeating the purpose of Guru Nanak's reforms (away from external authority to living experience), and saw it as a warning to Christian Protestants to avoid lapsing into bibliolatry, as Hindu temple idol worship served as a warning to Catholics.[12]

Dayanand Saraswati, in his book Satyarth Prakash, criticized Sikhism and Guru Granth Sahib, deeming them to be spreading falsehood, a snare to rob and cheat common people of their assets.[13]

According to Kristina Myrvold, every Sikh scripture copy is venerated with elaborate ceremonies.[14] However, these rituals are a daily means of "merit bestowing ministrations."[14] These daily ritual ministrations and paying of homage for the scripture by Sikhs, states Myrvold, is not unique to Sikhism. It moulds "meanings, values and ideologies" and creates a framework for congregational worship, states Myrvold, that is found in all major faiths.[15]

The cutting or removal of hair from any body part is forbidden for Sikhs who have gone through the voluntary initiation,[16] as bestowed by the divine.[17] This growing of one's hair is known as Kesh.[18]

Second-generation non-amritdhari young women in the West, in addition to being critical of the perceived fixation and commodification of the body in Western society, have expressed criticism of the generational pressures to keep hair from the amritdhari, or initiated, portion of female Sikh society, whose discipline "went against the feminine normativity that gender discourses require women to perform," though non-Amritdhari women commonly attribute this to traditional societal norms and as "nothing to do with Sikhism."[19] though Sikhs who have not undergone the initiation are not obligated to keep it. Sikh women have often found it difficult to reconcile Sikhism's ban on cutting hair (for initiates of both genders) with contemporary beauty standards and media images.[20]

Khanda emblem of Sikhism

The Sikh community in Punjab traced its root to mystical universalists who tried to transcend Hinduism and Islam alike, though increased persecution by the Mughals, particularly the emperor Aurangzeb, and the martyrdoms of multiple gurus and leaders led to the evolution of Sikhism as not just a spiritual movement, but a clearly defined militant brotherhood to win independence from Mughal oppression in the Punjab.[21]

According to McLeod, Sikhism was predominantly a peaceful panth dedicated to theology until Guru Arjan was tortured and executed by the Mughal emperor Jahangir; thereafter, focus began to change towards an orientation of a religious militia and resistance movement.[22] Mandair considers Nanak's originality to lie in combining mystical experience with the historical foundations of introspection, interiorization, detachment, meditation and spirituality. After Guru Arjan's persecution and death during the Muslim rule period, the theology of Sikhism shifted from these precepts, as tensions with the Mughals began to increase, and more toward militarization in the defense of religious freedoms of Sikhs and non-Muslims as the process of change and response to the "disturbed circumstances" culminated in the 1699 founding of the Khalsa, as well as the influx of more martial social strata which swelled the ranks of the community during this era,[22] though some disagree that the martiality of Sikhism can be attributed to the customs of the social strata that converted to it.[23]

Sikhs were accused of a violent character following the assassination of Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in 1984.[24] Through its history (such as the militarisation of the Khalsa),[25] the symbol of the Khanda), has been given religious meaning and is considered to hearken to the remembrance of martyrs through whose sacrifices the community survived,[26] as has art and legend.[27][28] Critics claim that Sikh religious identity has "become grounded in historical moments of conflict".[29] For Sikhs, weapons are sacred as they are seen as means to fight any persecution against any innocent regardless of colour or creed.[30]

The idol of Ravidas in the sanctum of Shri Guru Ravidas Janmsthan Mandir in Varanasi, marking his birthplace. The Ravidassia group separated from Sikhism into a separate religion in 2009.

Dalits (formerly untouchables) who had previously converted to Sikhism, in response to social discrimination, and targeted violence against them for supposed unorthodoxy in a shooting incident in 2009. That year, they carved out a new religion called Ravidassia religion,[31] while retaining some historical Sikh symbols such as the nishan, sabhas and langar.[32][33][34]

Ravidassias believe that Ravidas is their Guru (saint) whereas the Sikhs have traditionally considered him as one of many bhagats (holy person).[35] Further, Ravidassias accept living sants of Ravidass Deras as Guru whereas the Sikhs do not, states Ronki Ram.[36] The Sikh subtradition decisively split from Sikhism following an assassination attack on their visiting living Guru Sant Niranjan Dass and his deputy Ramanand Dass in 2009 in Vienna by Sikh radicals.[33][37] Ramanand Dass died from the attack, Niranjan Dass survived his injuries, while over a dozen attendees at the temple were also injured.[37]

In the 1970s, Western heritage people – mainly North Americans and Europeans – led by Harbhajan Singh Khalsa, also known as Yogi Bhajan, began converting to Sikhism. They started as Yoga exercise enthusiasts who became interested in their founder's religious background. They called their movement Sikh Dharma Brotherhood or 3HO (Healthy, Happy, Holy Organization).[38] They accepted the Guru Granth Sahib as their scripture, underwent the rituals of Khalsa initiation, visited Amritsar, and adopted the dress (turban) and codes of Sikhs. Many in the Sikh community in India have, however, not accepted them as true Sikhs. While it was embraced by some Sikh leaders who were eager to widen Sikhism's appeal by displaying as a "modern" region amid fears of native youth not taking up the traditional Sikh lifestyle in desirable numbers, many Sikh intellectuals and community leaders were suspicious of his methods. The noted Sikh historian Trilochan Singh, for example, has criticized it as "absurd and sacrilegious," citing the flamboyant titles Yogi claimed for himself, misuse and mistranslation of Sikh scriptures, and incorporation of tantric yoga practices, as they were "never known in Sikh history, and were repulsive to the mind of every knowledgeable Sikh".[38]

A similar conflict in the 1970s between the Sikhs and the Sant Nirankari sect, a 20th-century offshoot of the Nirankari tradition, led to accusations by some Sikhs that the Sant Nirankaris were heretical and sacrilegious.[39] Contrary to mainstream Sikhism, the Sant Nirankari leader had declared himself a guru with his own scripture in the presence of the Guru Granth Sahib, and added heretical variations of several Sikh rituals and symbols, including replacing the Sikh institution of the Panj Pyare council with the sat sitare, and replacing amrit, a mixture of mixed sugar and water administered to Khalsa initiates, with charan amrit, water used to wash his feet.[39] They were also accused of unprovoked criticism of the Gurus and Sikh scripture, as the Sant Nirankari leader had written in his own scripture that he alone, of all religions' prophets, had agreed to go back to Earth to spread God's true message, with the understanding that God agreed that anyone who was blessed by him would go to heaven regardless of their deeds, and that analysis of the Guru Granth Sahib had fruitless, using the metaphor of churning butter yielding no cream, and of being funded by the government and economic elites to undermine the community.[39][40]

While listing the daily duties of a Sikh, early rahitnamas in Sikhism warned that they must shun panj mel (five groups). These include the Ramraiyas, the Minas, the Masands (corrupted tithe collectors), the Dhirmalias, the Sir-gums (Sikhs who accept Amrit baptism but subsequently break it cut their hair).[41][42] In some historical rahitnamas, the presence of sahajdhari Sikhs, who have not undertaken the formal initiation, "problematizes" and sharpens the distinction with the initiated Amritdhari Sikhs and the .[41]

A few Sikh groups have put pressure on universities to stifle academic criticism of popular Sikh literature and theories of Sikh history.[43] In the early 1990s, Pashaura Singh, an academic of the "Macleodian school," was campaigned against for "challenging the authenticity of Guru Granth Sahib", which he denied, and pressured to withdraw sections of his thesis at University of Toronto supervised by W.H. McLeod, his mentor.[44][45][46] In 2019, a minor political party in Punjab objected to an invitation to Pashaura Singh by Punjabi University for an International History Conference for his scholarship on Sikh scriptures and literature, threatening to protest if Singh is allowed to speak at the conference.[46] It must be noted that Pashaura Singh was afforded due opportunity by the Akal Rakhta and other Sikh scholars on his comparative method (borrowed from Trumpp) and his hypothesis of the draft theory was rejected as forcibly injecting undated texts dated much beyond the timeline of the Adi Granth to which he failed to bring a credible response to his academic peers.[47] Another academic also praised by MacLeod, Harjot Oberoi, was also campaigned against for his removal by parties which denounced his methodology towards the study of Sikhism.[48]

According to the Indologist Mark Juergensmeyer, the largest group of scholars dedicated to Sikh Studies are based in and near Punjab, but these scholars project themselves as proud Sikhs and predominantly focus on showing distinctiveness of their faith rather than examine the connections and similarities of Sikhism to other religious traditions based on comparative studies of texts and manuscripts.[49] Sikh writers criticize methodologies to "coldly dissect" their personal faith and Sikh history by "methods of social science" and by critical comparative textual or literary analysis.[49] This, critiques Juergensmeyer, has set the stage for an "unhappy confrontation" between the academic scholars versus those motivated in defending the dignity of their faith, including publications by Sikh institutions that are hostile to W. H. McLeod and other scholars who are based outside India,[49] and as Juergensmeyer states, some conservative Sikh scholars have made important contributions to the scholarship of Sikhism by discovering old Sikh manuscripts and publishing their analysis.[49]

In Quebec, Canada, a 2013 poll concluded that 39% of Canadians had a negative view of Sikhism.[50] According to the Vice president of the polling institute, "Since 2009, favourable views towards all religions have dropped outside Quebec. In that province, favourable views towards Hinduism, Sikhism and Buddhism have climbed, but are still lower than in the rest of Canada. Only perceptions of Christianity remain unchanged."

• 2015 Guru Granth Sahib desecration controversy