Columnists
The Matter of The Kirpan
by I.J. SINGH
Since Vaisakhi 1699 when Guru Gobid Singh, the Tenth Sikh Master, mandated it, a Kirpan (sword) has been one of the five articles of faith for a practicing Sikh who has been initiated into the Khalsa discipline. Its size often varies from a minimal three inches or less to one that may be 3 feet long. And it often has a sharp blade as any sword would.
We know that many types of kirpans exist in the marketplace - from those with diamond studded hilts but incredibly dull blades that would likely not kill a cockroach, to others that are razor sharp.
We have heard good scholars assert that a kirpan is not really a weapon, although it can be one. In history, it has been a dependable weapon in many battles. The word "kirpan", they tell us, comes from the juxtaposition of two ideas - "kirpa", meaning benevolence, kindness and grace, with "aan" that translates into honor and dignity.
The kirpan then becomes the Sword of Mercy.
So, to wear a kirpan means standing up for what is right and for impartiality; somewhat like being prepared for war if you want peace. The sharp blade that is useful in war also signifies the sharp edge of the intellect that cleaves knowledge from ignorance, justice from injustice.
A historical parallel comes to mind: The sword - Curtana - of the English King, Edward the Confessor, who ruled in early 11th century, lacked a sharp point. It was known as the Sword of Mercy.
When then is a "kirpan" acting true to the derivation of its name? When does it morph into a weapon to fight in the cause of defense and justice? Can it become an agent of offence? What if a Sikh carrying one misuses it? What is our responsibility when, as any other weapon might, it falls into the hands of a person who should not have it or a child who is not mature enough to understand the discipline associated with its meaning and its significance?
There are also others - equally credible and responsible scholars - who assert that the kirpan is undoubtedly and only a weapon. But now, over three centuries later, times have changed. A kirpan, they claim, is an anachronism in this day and age.
They are sure that brandishing a weapon like the kirpan, in any society in this age, marks us as a primitive people out of touch with the global realities in which we live.
It is also undeniably and self-evidently true that if a kirpan were simply to be only a weapon and if the intent was to always be armed, then the kirpan would be better replaced by an Uzi, a Kalashnikov, or one of the many lesser known but more powerful and destructive weapons. Weapons must evolve with time.
Such reasoning is not at odds with that of many Sikhs and non-Sikhs alike that I have come into contact.
Even though the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution speaks to the rights of a free citizenry to bear arms, many assert that the needs of the nation are now not what they once were. We have a standing army and police. The average citizen would be better off with either no access to arms or restricted very strongly in the right to weapons. Ergo, minimally, the purchase or possessions of arms by the citizenry needs to be strictly regulated, controlled and enforced.
The opponents of such a position are equally, if not more, insistent that such a governmental regulation would be unconstitutional and an unnecessary intrusion into the private lives of a free people.
When someone buys a gun, would you want and expect that he or she have some training in its use? Would you want the buyer to be a balanced, even-tempered person not likely to fly into an uncontrollable rage at the least provocation?
Would you hand a weapon to a child? When an event like the killings at Columbine (1999) occurs, it is natural that the police would focus on parental responsibility. How did the child get access to a gun? Was the gun secure? How did the child violate security? Clearly, such questions are paramount in determining parental culpability.
So, when we hand a sharp kirpan to a school-going child, are we then aiding and abetting irresponsible, possibly even criminal, conduct. Don't forget that school-age kids get into disciplinary pranks and problems, some turn bullies or have to confront them. A kirpan is not the way to deal with disputes on the playground or in the classroom, but would a young child understand that?
This then begs the question: At what age should a young Sikh become amritdhari and be bestowed with the right to wear a kirpan - an article of faith for Sikhs?
If, on the other hand, a kirpan is not a weapon but is only the symbol of a shared heritage, then where is the need for the sharp edge? Could it then be modified so that it is no longer a functional weapon and, like Edward the Confessor's sword, have its point and edge dulled and blunted? Then, it would become strictly a sword of mercy dedicated to the ideas of justice, dignity, strength and assertiveness but not aggression.
But would that not change the kirpan in a way that runs contrary to its history and role in Sikh psyche? It would then no longer remain what it was when it became an article of faith and through the subsequent centuries.
We need to acknowledge, understand and emphasize that even when used as a weapon, a kirpan is to be unsheathed only in defense. This is the Sikh teaching. As Mai Harinder Kaur succinctly points out, "No one is ever attacked by a kirpan. When used thus, it ceases to be a kirpan and becomes a weapon. And the person who wields it ceases to be a Gursikh and becomes a common criminal, a thug. These thugs must be treated as the criminals that they are."
Let's not forget that through our young history, the kirpan has been both a weapon and a symbol of strength and dignity - a true sword of mercy. These are truths that must not be swept aside.
These days kirpan is often seen as posing a security problem and then it comes up against the might of the law at airports. Amritdhari Sikhs then acquiesce to these concerns by removing it for the flight or wherever else the needs of security trump religious freedom. Many of us then take comfort in the small, less than an inch long, replica of a kirpan embedded in our kangha, or a miniature harmless version worn as a pendant on a chain.
But the struggle continues for us to be able wear all the articles of our faith openly in this society. It will not be an easy trek but is being ably led by the Sikh Coalition, SALDEF and United Sikhs.
These days the kirpan has attracted critical and negative attention both within our Sikh community and outside of it, particularly for its inappropriate use in gurdwaras - in election disputes and other controversies.
Of the many possible examples, we cite only one: the recent stabbing of a lawyer - Manjit Singh Mangat -- outside the Sikh Lehar gurdwara in Brampton, a suburb of Toronto. The assailants that have been arrested are Sikh men who attacked Mangat because they apparently differed with him on some Sikh doctrinal matters.The details of the differences are not pertinent here. The assailants and others of that ilk claim to be acting to preserve the pristine purity and dignity of Sikh doctrine.
Not to be paranoid but it is also possible that some Sikh-baiter - and we know they exist - could without much trouble pose as a Sikh and wreak havoc with his kirpan. All he needs to do is to grow out his hair and get a turban for the day.
It also undeniably true that there are many lethal tools and objects around everyone in home or at work that, in the wrong hands, can kill.
Such abuse of a revered article of faith then sets up calls and clamor that kirpans be legally banned. We cannot support such a blanket indictment of a respected faith tradition.
But the Sikhs, individually and collectively, do need to aggressively and unequivocally assert that the misuse of the kirpan would find absolutely no defense by hiding behind religious teaching or the sanctity of the symbol. This is gross and inappropriate misuse of a kirpan that must to be treated as the crime that it is - condemned and tried according to the fullest extent of the law.
To my mind, a more fundamental issue remains untouched: Is it via kirpan or similar weapons that we resolve our differences? Even a cursory exploration of the life and writings of the Gurus provides some revealing lessons.
Look, for instance, at Guru Nanak. He wrote against the emperor of the day (Babur) just as fearlessly as he addressed both Hindu and Muslim clergy. Sure, he spent time in Babur's jail. And then he stood in the Ganges splashing water in a direction contrary to that approved by the clergy; he also publicly cooked meat at a major Hindu festival. All these examples and many more would be sins in the eye of the Hindu clergy. The Gurus were also equally unforgiving of many Muslim practices.
But it is also undeniable and hugely significant that, even though some called Nanak crazy or Satan incarnate, no one physically attacked him. No riots broke out wherever he traveled or preached his message.There were no widespread calls for his head by those who did not like his message. Of course, it makes us marvel at the force of the personality of Guru Nanak. Doesn't it make one think about what kind of man he was? And how far we seem to have fallen!
Does this mean people were more cultured, civilized and self-restrained 500 years ago than they are today? Does it mean that we have regressed? We seem to have learned that we have the right to disagree, but not learned to disagree without becoming disagreeable.
Even if some fool speaks or acts in a manner unworthy of the Guru, we need to remember that the Guru is not lessened or diminished by the antics of irresponsible people. Some of our people do not seem to realize that silencing a man is not the same thing as convincing him. And the kirpan was never meant to abridge another's freedom to speak.
Surely we need to develop a system of justice, for resolution of internal conflicts that are seen in every living tradition. The Gurus gave us one to nurture and develop. We seem to have driven it down into a dysfunctional state and an untimely coma. And finally what we achieve by our intemperate behavior with the kirpan is to put in doubt our maturity with a black mark against an article of our faith.
If we continue to misuse it, the kirpan will no longer remain a repository of the values of justice and resolve, but come to represent terror and injustice - something that needs and deserves to be shunned or banned.
It is such a weighty matter then, why is this essay so short? Because our purpose is not to posit answers etched in stone but to set the stage for an ongoing conversation.
I refer readers to the book, Sword & Turban of the Sikhs, by Trilochan Singh, for a scholarly historical perspective, and to two recent columns here on sikhchic.com: On April 9, 2010 by Manjit Singh (Montreal) and on April 24, 2010 by Bhupinder Singh Mahal for initiating this conversation on this site.
Some of the questions that I am trying to posit today lie at the core of our belief and our sense of self. They cannot - rather, must not - be wished away. Answers will emerge only in time. The process of exploration is all important.
Clearly, as a community we need to think about such matters. It's time we did. We have started the process; now let's carry it forward in a gentle, consistent, insistent and determined fashion.
May 3, 2010
Conversation about this article
1: Taran (London, United Kingdom), May 03, 2010, 9:04 AM.
I do not carry a kirpan, but still have a viewpoint. A kirpan is ceremonial to present-day Sikhs as compared to the Sikhs who lived in Guru Gobind Singh's times. In those times, they did not have AK's, so that's why I guess Guru ji introduced the kirpan for all his Sikhs. Most gursikhs wear a kirpan today as an article of faith. I have never seen or have heard that Sikhs are using kirpan as a weapon - the few incidents reported are of idiots misusing them, but it is not a norm by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, in the U.S. and almost everywhere in the world, guns are primarily used by gangs to commit violence and crime - that is the 'norm'. There are also knife crimes in every place around the world. But honestly speaking, most of the Sikhs carry their articles of faith with responsibility and full understanding. I strongly differ from the writer's point of view where he is questioning and worried tat the world may see us as primitive. Some westerners would still see us primitive as we grow our beards long and have long hair. Are we going to change or start having a dialogue about the global view on us Sikhs? Imagine telling some white guy living in the deep countryside in the States who does a big pony-tail or mullet and has a long beard and rides a Harley-Davidson, that he looks very dangerous and he should have a hair cut and shave! I guess we all know what the answer would be!
2: I.J. Singh (New York, U.S.A.), May 03, 2010, 2:31 PM.
Taran, thank you but I am not advocating that the kirpan, an article of faith, be banned. I am clearly against such a step. I am providing here the points of view from both sides and raising some issues that need to be carefully considered. One can't ignore the views of our opponents - we need to counter them and also provide a carefully measured and thought-out rationale on our position. Consider it a way and an opportunity to educate ourselves first and then others. Irresponsible voices, as well as understanding and responsible voices, on both sides exist. We need an internal conversation - that's my take here.
3: Jas (New York, U.S.A.), May 03, 2010, 2:37 PM.
In response to the above comment of "In those times, they did not have AK's, so that's why I guess Guru ji introduced the kirpan for all his Sikhs." Is that historically accurate? I have read that the Chinese and the Arabs used gunpowder before the time of the Tenth guru.
4: Surinder (Massachusetts, U.S.A.), May 03, 2010, 6:21 PM.
A gun was used to shoot the Ninth Master by Dhir Mal's masand. The Tenth Master also used guns. Guru ji is trikal darshi, he knows the future and the past. If Guru ji asked us to keep kirpans, there is a very good reason for it. Guru ji knew all about the AK-47 and every other future technology yet to be discovered. I would beg authors like this to not sow seeds of doubt in Sikh minds.
5: Raj (Canada), May 03, 2010, 9:14 PM.
Someone asked Bernard Shaw: How will the fourth world war be fought? He answered: "With fists!" There's a clue for all of us in there.
6: Harinder (Jalandhar, Punjab), May 03, 2010, 10:49 PM.
A command from the Guru to a Sikh is an order. It is not for the Sikh to ask why. Sikhs misusing the kirpan can be booked under the relevant laws of the country, like in any other criminal activity by or within any other community of that country. There are no statistics to even suggest that people who carry the kirpan misuse it more compared to those not wearing kirpan. Let's distinguish between the people who wear kirpan as part of their faith and those who wield it as a weapon, which makes them ordinary criminals.
7: Taran (London, United Kingdom), May 04, 2010, 6:21 AM.
Can I please ask Surinder as to what seeds I have sown in SIkh minds? You need to read the whole article and not just my comments. My comments are in wake of the article where I have suggested that the kirpan is integral to the Sikh faith and gursikhs all around the globe, and any notion that we as a community need to converse within ourselves or in our minds is just like trying to create a hoopla for no reason. Articles of faith are there, were there and should, would always be there. I.J. Singh - please don't get offended but I think your article is creating a rift here.
8: Sukhindarpal Singh (Penang, Malaysia), May 04, 2010, 9:47 AM.
I did not choose to be a Sikh. I was born to two wonderful humans who lived the Faith. I chose and continue to choose to remain on the Path. Part of the choice I made as a Sikh was to accept the Articles of Faith which I believe are the simplest of the requirements for being a Sikh. I live with my choices. I reap the fruits of the seeds sown by my thoughts, actions and deeds. When I accept the Guru and, hopefully, He accepts me, His word is the Law. "Gursikhi daa karm eh, Gur(u) ferma-ay Gursikh kernaa". I choose to wear the kirpan.
9: I.J. Singh (New York, U.S.A.), May 04, 2010, 10:28 AM.
I am somewhat baffled by the "rift" being created by by my column; a panthic confusion is certainly not my desire. I say quite clearly that "Such abuse of a revered article of faith then sets up calls and clamor that kirpans be legally banned. We cannot support such a blanket indictment of a respected faith tradition." "But the Sikhs, individually and collectively, do need to aggressively and unequivocally assert that the misuse of the kirpan would find absolutely no defense by hiding behind religious teaching or the sanctity of the symbol. This is gross and inappropriate misuse of a kirpan that must to be treated as the crime that it is - condemned and tried according to the fullest extent of the law." Also, I am not recommending that a kirpan be replaced by an AH-47. I repeat the words here, "It is also undeniably and self-evidently true that if a kirpan were simply to be only a weapon and if the intent was to always be armed, then the kirpan would be better replaced by an Uzi, a Kalashnikov, or one of the many lesser known but more powerful and destructive weapons." Please mark the conditional words "If" at the beginning of the sentence and "only" in italics. I am not at all rejecting any of our articles of faith.
10: Surinder (Massachusetts, U.S.A.), May 04, 2010, 11:40 AM.
Taran ji: I am referring to the article, not your comment on it. I actually agree with you that articles like these cause a rift, sow seeds of doubt, make arguments which lead to very disastrous conclusions. Intellectuals need to strengthen our (and their own) faith, not weaken it. I can provide many counter points to counter the article, but the limited space of the comment prevents me from doing so. I wish we would not do this to our own sacred articles of faith.
11: Gurjender Singh (Maryland, U.S.A.), May 04, 2010, 12:14 PM.
Every day, I read articles on the five articles of faith and our court fights over the right to wear the kirpan. Most of the time, all the five articles are not visible to a person (outsider). Whereas most of the problems faced outside India are related to turban and no one wants to educate the non-sikhs about that. We only keep on fighting in gurdwaras and performing more and more kirtan and nagar kirtans, without explaining ourselves others. Sikhs are living in the West for well over a century. Still most of the people do not know about the Sikh turban and we want to teach them about the kirpan. Something is wrong somewhere. Sikh energy is being wasted in the wrong direction. Most of the new generation is running away from our articles of faith because they lack real understanding. If the turban is there, the kirpan will follow. But if there is no turban, then the kirpan does not make any justification. I will request most of the young organizations such as Sikh Coalition, SALDEF and the United Sikhs, please use more energy towards turban, if indeed the Sikhs want to value the kirpan.
12: Surinder (Massachusetts, U.S.A), May 04, 2010, 2:14 PM.
The author says: "It is also undeniably and self-evidently true that if a kirpan were simply to be only a weapon and if the intent was to always be armed, then the kirpan would be better replaced by an Uzi, a Kalashnikov, or one of the many lesser known but more powerful and destructive weapons." There is nothing *undeniable* nor *self-evident* in this argument. This argument is fallacious. This argument basically is that a weapon of more destructive capability should always *replaced* a less destructive one. By this logic, a pistol should be discarded for a machine gun; a machine gun should be discarded in favor of a shoulder-fired missile and so on. But the world has not seen the end of pistol production? Why?
13: Hardev Singh. Kohli (Canada), May 05, 2010, 12:52 AM.
If the kirpan is an article of faith and we accept it as an article of faith, we must constantly remind ourselves of the commitment we have made to the Guru to take the path shown by Him for us. We can also say this for the other four K's. No misuse of the kirpan is, or should be acceptable.
14: Karnail Singh (Detroit, Michigan, U.S.A.), May 05, 2010, 9:27 AM.
Here is my take: 1) Our Guru gave us the symbol like a wedded bride and groom have some symbols. (These symbols do not protect them from anything.) So we all should wear these symbols to show that we are married to the ONE. 2) If someone misuses a kitchen knife because of a stupid or criminal mind-set, would we go around and throw out all the kitchen knives? 3) Think about it, we the Sikhs started these discussions, not anyone from outside the community. Those Sikhs who do not want to wear a kirpan need excuses and start such discussions. Have faith in our Guru. GurFateh!
15: Sukh (Edmonton, Alberta, Canada), May 06, 2010, 2:45 AM.
Very valid article indeed. Main question raised being how to handle the misuse of the kirpan by fake Sikhs. If a faker is bent on misusing the kirpan and misrepresenting the sanctity of the symbol, let the law handle it and the Sikh sangat MUST support the law enforcement to charge, convict and punish the person criminally. We are wearing the kirpan as an article of faith, not a weapon, and we have to respect that when there is an instance of misuse. Please remember that misuse is often through a clear agenda, even when the perpetrator is very-Sikh looking and the victim perhaps not so Sikh-looking.
16: Gurinder Singh (Stockton, California, U.S.A.), May 06, 2010, 3:00 PM.
To carry a kirpan is our Guru's order. A sikh always obeys his Guru's order. There is no ifs or buts. Otherwise, he ceases to be a Guru's Sikh. Please do not ridicule a Sikh's kakkaar by manipulation of words. The case of the assault of Sardar Manjit Singh Mangat by some thugs is sub judice. Let the police do its job to bring out the facts to public knowledge.
17: Sangat Singh (Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia), May 07, 2010, 7:54 PM.
I have valiantly resisted jumping into the fray to add my penny's worth, lest I should, in true Sikh fashion, put my head inadvertently on the chopping block. We do have difficulties for every solution. Punjabi does have an appropriate saying to match every occasion. "Taa(n) gundhi hildi ku-on payean" - "While kneading the flour why, are you moving" - or, a little more strongly, "Munn harami hujatha dha-ar" - "You can advance a lot of reasons for not doing it". The other day, I stumbled upon the Indian 'Door Darshan' channel. Where a medal presentation ceremony was in progress at the Rashtrapati Bhavan.Among the recipients of the 'Vashsist Sewa Medals' were some 8 Generals. My interest was piqued to count how many Sikh Generals were among them. There were at least 3 visible ones, not counting those without turbans who could possibly be Sikhs, but not necessarily. What impressed me most was that each and everyone of them was impeccably turned out in their splendid uniforms, bedecked in an array of medals and colourful ribbons, but each was also carrying a ceremonial sword. According to the present thrust of comments, shouldn't they be carrying AK 47s and wearing 'muftis'?. What place has an antiquated sword in the present day?. Let's move our sights to another colorful ceremony. The Queen of England and the President of India on ceremonial occasions are transported in highly decorated royal carriages drawn by at least a number of horses. Would present day Roll Royces provide a more efficient transport? But I suppose the horse drawn carriage has one great advantage - apart from the pomp and show. One could break wind with abandon and blame it on the poor horse. Even an antiquated object can be easily turned into something worthy of respect and power. Take the Ambassador car, the visible vehicle of austerity still being used in India despite being the old Austin Oxford model of the 50s. This outward sign is still practiced, otherwise the car is built like a tank and a revolving red light and a noisy siren is enough to strike terror on poor pedestrians and stray cows. You decide what you want to do with the Guru's Gift of the Kirpan!
18: Ravinder Singh Taneja (Westerville, Ohio, U.S.A.), May 09, 2010, 9:27 AM.
In our zeal to take a position, we seem to have seriously misread the author's intent and, as a consequence, failed to address the real issue which to my mind revolves around the actual intent of the kirpan. Is it just a weapon or does it also signify something more? Or is it just a ceremonial piece that has outlived its utility? Regardless, it can be misused and that is a problem we have to collectively address. Becoming a Khalsa (for which it is mandatory to carry a kirpan) should not be a light decision and therefore deferred until one is able to make such a decision. Why thrust it on kids?
19: Jas (New York, U.S.A.), June 11, 2010, 8:05 PM.
This discussion needs to be had and is not creating a rift. It is preparing us for the discussions we are having and will continue to have with non-Sikhs. The countries and institutions that we have moved to are asking these questions of our community, so this friendly debate needs to take place so that we are prepared and can represent our community in a controlled fashion. Let us not attack those that are setting us up to think about these things. We need to be prepared.
20: Kelly Singh (Three Rivers, MI, U.S.A.), October 19, 2011, 8:09 PM.
I myself am a new Sikh. I wear 4 of the Punj Kakkaars. I understand their meanings. We Sikhs need to educate the public, police and courts about our religion because a lot of Sikhs are being arrested for carrying their kirpan. Our kirpans are not weapons. They represent the very concept of justice.