Current Events
Following The Lead Of The Sarbat Khalsa
by GURMUKH SINGH [United Kingdom]
The decision making tradition of the Sarbat Khalsa was evolved during the first half of the 18th Century.
It is likely to be revived
and further developed through seminars like those arranged by the Sikh
Research Institute and supported by the Sikh Council UK over the weekend
of June 16 and 17, 2012. The main event - on Sunday, June 17, will be at
The Oxford Union, University of Oxford, in England.
The background is the need to promote the decision-making process within
umbrella Sikh organisations like the Sikh Council UK, by learning from
the model of the Sarbat Khalsa as it evolved during the first half of the
18th Century. This is only possible by understanding what the concept
means in this day and age.
For example, which decisions need to be taken
by consensus and which can be taken by the senior office holders of
Sikh institutions and organisations, on their own.
Are there historical examples when the Sarbat Khalsa did not
deliver a consensus based decision? Are there some current examples when
the consensus based approach would have been helpful? The Nanakshahi Calendar issue? The 1984 Shaheedi memorial at
Darbar Sahib?
The Akal Takht invited organisations and individuals to give views
and many organisations in the diaspora, including the Sikh Council UK,
did that in writing. However, it was never made clear how consensus was
reached. Similarly people are now being invited to comment on the Anand
Marriage Act without being clear about how the information will be processed.
My interim response (below) to some similar queries following a short article on the subject, is based on a study of the 18th Century trials and tribulations
of the Khalsa Panth, which we remember in our daily ardaas.
The Sarbat Khalsa is an expression of Panthic solidarity
That is so even when there are internal disagreements.
During the 18th
Century Khalsa freedom struggle, despite internal disagreements over whether or not to invade the well fortified city of Kasur (triggered by
the appeal of a Brahmin whose wife was in the Nawab’s captivity), the
overriding concern was for Panthic unity and it ensured final victory.
(The campaign is well described in Sardar Ratan Singh Bhangu’s Sri Guru Panth Prakash under the heading “Saakhi Prithmai Kasur Maarnai ki”, 1760).
To my mind, the Sarbat Khalsa is not, in itself, the decision making
mechanism but an important end product of the consultation process.
Things have become much more complicated in the 21st Century, but now we
also have the tools and skills to do research and base discussions and
decisions on that research. Success or failure would depend on the
quality of the research (equivalent to field intelligence in the 18th
Century freedom struggle) and the spirit of working together for the
ascendancy of the Khalsa Panth (panth di chardi kalaa).
Great Khalsa leaders like Nawab Kapur Singh played an important
catalytic role in the Sarbat Khalsa tradition without detracting from
the grassroots (sangat) consensus aspect of the decision-making.
Their "authority" for decision-making on their own as leaders or
“office holders”, was residual. It grew in proportion to the respect and
trust they won over a period of time.
These great leaders of leaders were also talent spotters and promoted
leadership qualities in those around them.
Jassa Singh Ahluwallia was a stable boy at Darbar Sahib and was spotted by Nawab Kapur Singh. At a later point in Sikh history, this very “stable boy” in the service of the Khalsa warriors sat on the throne of Hindostan.
Other sardars grew in stature
during this period through what can only be described as "team-working"
by equals, albeit independent minded personalities. As a result, the very
mention of the names of those like Sardar Baghel Singh sent a shiver
down the spines of hardened Mugal warriors and rulers.
In the modern context, we can draw lessons from the Khalsa field
strategy of 18th Century. Consensus is achieved through factual
information gathering on a topic or campaign (field intelligence).
Draft
proposals should be based on that information. Consultation and drafting
changes are made and final approval is given by the sangat's representatives.
Success or failure depends on the quality of the intelligence gathered.
If the first draft "proposal" is not refused at the outset, then there
is a good chance of the proposal or plan of action being adopted in due
course, following discussion.
A draft proposal in today’s world pre-supposes a research
panel of Sikh scholars in diverse fields and policy experts.
Regrettably, Sikh institutions, including successive Akal Takht
jathedars, have failed in this respect.
Taking decisions on the mere basis of a jaikara launched arbitrarily by someone, immediately followed in knee-jerk fashion by all present with a "Sat Sri Akal", is not, in itself, conducive to the success of the project. A jaikara interrupting a katha or a
presentation should be discouraged as be-adbi.
A jaikara should only appropriate at the conclusion of proceedings, following the ardaas.
Today, organisations are started by dedicated community activists with a
desire to do something for the community. To start with, these
activists are content to call themselves “nishkam sevadars”.
Regrettably, in the Sikh community, the desire to lead has a tendency to
become permanent due to personal ambition.
In fact, such is this desire
to lead and remain in control that the original aims of organisations
to remain part of the Khalsa Panth by working towards panth di chardi kalaa, fall by the wayside.
Also, with one person assuming a dictatorial role, it means that
those with ability and diverse skills are kept away. The single “leader”
has the tendency to surround himself with sycophants! Without genuine
team-working of equals, an organisation becomes entirely dependent on
one person. Such organisations are starved of fresh ideas and the
complementary skills needed in today’s world. They have no continuity
and run into the sands when the single “leader” is no longer active,
or passes away.
The approach of organisations started and “owned” by permanent leaders, is “top down”.
That is not the Khalsa way.
All gurudoms, deras and sant sampardais automatically fall into this category because they have one head whose command is the law for the followers (chelas). Of course, there is need for men and women with outstanding abilities and skills; but the Khalsa way is the sangat (congregational) way, i.e., grassroots or “down-upwards” in the Sarbat Khalsa tradition, perfected during the most challenging period in Sikh history.
The foundation for
this approach had been laid during the person-Guru period (1469 to 1708)
and entrenched by Guru Gobind Singh into our maryada.
Organisations have specific aims and objectives. One individual or
organisation cannot possibly cover all aspects of a community’s needs.
That means that at national and global levels, there will always be a
need for co-ordinating umbrella organisations.
Every Sikh organisation,
including gurdwaras, the centres of Sikh community life and holders of
the sangat’s funds, must accept that need for national and international
level representation of Sikh issues and concerns. More so the
organisations founded and led by individuals, who, otherwise, would have
done much for the community in different fields.
All that we study in management and decision making theories today, was
actually practised - maybe due to the collective instinct for survival - by
the 18th century Khalsa leadership which kept panthic solidarity in the
forefront.
This topic needs much thought and development in future seminars like those organised by the Sikh Research Institute.
June 2, 2012
Conversation about this article
1: Jaimal Singh (Amritsar, Punjab), June 02, 2012, 4:41 AM.
First things first! Until and unless all our institutions have 50% active representation of Sardarnis, especially at the decision-making level, no progress will be made. There is no barkat in all that we do today because we have abandoned our core principles. Get back to them, and the rest will follow. If we find excuses to not do so or to delay it, we will simply keep on going round and round chasing our tails. And ... before anyone pops up to point out that women did not participate in the Sarbat Khalsa in the 18th century, I simply want to say to them: real men in the 18th century rode horses to work. How come YOU don't?
2: Kulwant Singh (U.S.A.), June 02, 2012, 7:00 AM.
I think it is dangerous to leave the decision-making power solely with Akal Takht. I don't think our ancestors, nor anyone else living in those times, realized that Sikhs would be spread all over the globe. Nor did they think that the Akal Takht's authority would be subverted by an Indian government. The Five Takht system that only covers half the subcontinent is outdated. A new system is needed to attend to Sikh issues internationally. I support the ideas that the author has put forth. However, implementation is the hard part.
3: Jodh Singh Arora (Jericho, New York, U.S.A.), June 02, 2012, 1:15 PM.
S. Gurmukh Singh has given the history of the Sarbat Khalsa but he has not taken into consideration the present state of Sikhs and their problems and needs. Nobody can impose his/its decisions on others. The crying need today for us across the diaspora is a THINK TANK. A few Sikhs from Chandigarh can no longer make a 'good' decision which serves all of Sikhdom. It must involve intellectuals from all over the world who are selfless, not in need of money and have knowledge in-depth to think out and provide solutions. The present SGPC is in no position to make any decision as it is made of one family. Therefore, that is the first step we need to pursue.
4: Gurmukh Singh (London, United Kingdom), June 02, 2012, 3:05 PM.
We are trying to interpret the Sarbat Khalsa tradition of the 18th Century into 21st Century decision-making language. All comments on the sikhchic.com forum will be passed on to the Sarbat Khalsa seminars taking place in the UK on June 16 and 17.
5: Ravinder Singh Khalsa (U.S.A.), June 02, 2012, 8:53 PM.
I commend you for taking this step. I think it's absolutely the right direction and there is a need for Sikhs in every country to follow suit so we work collectively as we used to. I wish there was such a organization in the U.S. I would dedicate myself to it in a heartbeat if the interests of the community at large were the priority.
6: Baldev Singh (United Kingdom), June 03, 2012, 4:37 AM.
This is the best way forward for Sikhs to: + Look inwards and learn how much we practice Sikhi principles in our daily life; + To spread our Gurus' universal message.
7: Harpreet Singh (Cambridge, MA, U.S.A.), June 03, 2012, 11:20 AM.
The Sikh leadership in the eighteenth-century was highly fragmented and personal interests frequently prevented Sikh sardars of the misls from collaborating with one another. Consider the relationship of Ala Singh with Abdali and the former seeking the title of "raja" from Abdali (c. 1761), in spite of the latter's attempts to wipe out the Sikh population. In spite of this turmoil, most Sikh sardars still found a way to put aside personal differences and take collective decisions that were binding on every Sikh. Based on colonial accounts, during the Sarbat Khalsa gatherings, the opinion of every Sikh, regardless of his or her status, was taken into account. In Gurmukh Singh j's proposal above, a way to engage the common Sikh needs to be considered so that the Sarbat Khalsa does not become an elitist institution. The best way to do this is to divide the Sikh world into countries, states/provinces and districts and then elect a jathedar or jathedarni from each district based on his or her record of achievement in panthic and public affairs. The jathedar or jathedarni should be appointed for a five-year term, with the sangat he or she represents providing an annual online evaluation to the Sarbat Khalsa committee, which should have the power to remove the representative if negative assessments can be confirmed. These are some very preliminary ideas, which can be flushed out further in a white paper to create a global Sarbat Khalsa body that is representative of every Sikh and leverages technology to connect everyone to the issues faced by the panth.
8: Ajeet Singh Mac (Indore, India), June 03, 2012, 8:49 PM.
It is a great idea to hold a discussion on the Sarbat Khalsa. This will help create awareness within the community to think positive and work towards unity and a global-level leadership to protect our interests at the individual and panthic level. S Jodh Singh ji has spelled out the strategy very nicely. Wishing you all out success and God's Love.
9: Aryeh Leib (Israel), June 04, 2012, 4:59 AM.
If this "down-upward" model is to be truly emulated, it would seem that it has to start on the micro-level, i.e., the gurdwara itself. From where I sit, here in isolation, there seem to be complaints from all quarters that many - if not most - of the gurdwaras are being run as petty-fiefdoms by powerful local individuals intent on consolidating and maintaining their positions of influence. If this is not addressed first - or, at the very least, simultaneously - I have a hard time seeing how the sangat-based model can possibly succeed on the macro level.
10: Aryeh Leib (Israel), June 04, 2012, 5:16 AM.
To start at the gurdwara level would have the added plus of getting the presently-unaffiliated Sikhs involved, by demonstrating to them that their voices will be heard and their opinions taken into account. This way, the Sarbat Khalsa would be a natural outgrowth; many local constituencies seeing the need for a similar representative body on a large scale. Just my uninformed opinion, for what it's worth ...
11: Harmander Singh (London, England), June 05, 2012, 11:54 AM.
Very good points raised by the contributors above. The Sarbat Khalsa is a but a 'process' for implementing any decision or strategy. The process alone in itself is meaningless, if all the other steps or prerequisites are not met. Other factors to consider (and some have been touched upon) are the structures, the shared ethos and political or executive willpower. For self-governance it is also essential to define the powers invested and how they could be legally enforced. The missing overarching facet is 'vision' - what exactly is the (shared) vision of Sikhi that is being sought - ask any current 'leader' and they will, I fear, not be able to express a coherent description of where they hope to see Sikhs of tomorrow, let in alone years to come. We (Sikhs In England) had produced a 25 year community strategy in the late 1990's but we failed on two major aspects - one, we naively assumed that others would help refine it, if not welcome and embrace the researched vision, and second, we did not sufficiently allow for the ineptness and hostility from those who would have felt threatened by the proposed changes. All of the ideas put forward by others above were included in our plans. As for Jodh Singh ji's comment: "A few Sikhs from Chandigarh can no longer make a 'good' decision which serves all of Sikhdom." - I would contend that NO Sikh from Chandigarh is capable of making a good decision, period.
12: Gurmukh Singh (London, United Kingdom), June 06, 2012, 9:46 AM.
If Harmander Singh can coach Sardar Baba Fauja Singh to break world records, I am sure he can work on other "grey beards" too so that they can arrive in the 21st Century! I recall when he presented the "25 year community strategy in the late 1990's" prepared by "Sikhs in England" at the open British Sikh Consultative Forum meetings in 2002/3, at the same time the other organizations presented their aims. But, as he writes, "the missing overarching facet is vision". The 18th Century Khalsa had one clear objective or vision expressed by "Raj Karega Khalsa". They had total belief that their mission, blessed by the Guru, was to establish just (halemi) Khalsa Raj of the people. Today, we need to re-interpret the Sikhi (Khalsa) mission in a very different world. This is an ongoing process. There are some of us who believe that it has been going on for some time.
13: Gurmel Singh (United Kingdom), June 06, 2012, 7:39 PM.
I commend this work and, as always, note the contributions Sardar Gurmukh Singh ji is making towards the evolution of the Sikh thought towards the principles derived from Gurbani. Whilst this is not an easy area in practice it is essential for there to be an improved understanding of participative leadership styles, consensual decision making, meaningful consultation processes and the limitations of the recently (relatively) developed one-person-one-vote western democratic traditions. I fully concur with the comment that, "the Sarbat Khalsa is not, in itself, the decision making mechanism but an important end product of the consultation process". However, this then raises the whole issue of what constitutes an adequate consultation process and how consensus based decision is taken before its presentation to the body collective we call Sarbat Khalsa. Judging by the very many examples that exist, including some very recent ones, it is easy to deduce that we have some considerable way to go as a community. I often wonder why so many people readily outsource the responsibility for their lives to some dera head - could it be that in some way they are confusing the tradition of "hukam munn-na " as unconditionally obeying their spiritual head in a similar manner to Guru Angad obeying Guru Nanak. I could be wrong but I fear this is what is also one of the causes of the prevalence of autocratic leadership styles in our community. Finally, I don't think it would be wise to ignore the reality of the need to vary the leadership style according to the task and context as long as the overall culture is participative, consultative and consensual.
14: Harmander Singh (London, England), June 07, 2012, 7:34 AM.
I regret in not commending Gurmukh Singh earlier in bringing this important matter to the fore. It is again in his usually polished Civil Servant style, inviting others to contribute without constraining parameters as is the style of some others who have a personal agenda. Yes, the SIE original thoughts were later updated in 2005 by SIE's Balbinder Singh Panesar in his paper - 'Sikhi, from the cradle to the crematorium' - this explored the different aspects encountered through a life of a Sikh in the 21st century. It would be remiss of me also to not mention a paper written in 1999 by 18 year old Sandeep Kaur - 'Sikhi in the 21st Century' that explored the consequences of not embracing the opportunities to adapt Gurmat to the changing environment. Finally, I leave with the latest (Okay, they are actually 4 years old) ideas from SIE to encompass Sarbat Khalsa principles - the Sikh Intranet if not the Sikh Extranet that SIE has a working model ready to be launched. The beauty of this tool is that it would not only allow equal access to debates by men and women but also young and old alike no matter where they are in the world - all for next to nothing (subscription charges will apply). Incidentally, i will help administer edicts and other good practice guidance instantaneously as well as alert the Panth of the charlatans within it.
15: Amrik Singh Ahdan (United Kingdom), June 07, 2012, 7:35 AM.
We have much to learn from Sikh history. As usual, a most timely and well researched article by Gurmukh Singh, as we ask ourselves, "Why June 1984?"
16: Gurnam Singh (United Kingdom), June 08, 2012, 4:13 AM.
I just want to thank Gurmukh Singh and everybody that has put in the intellectual labour and responded to his piece. In some sense, I feel it is this free and respectful exchange of ideas that embodies the very idea of Sarbat Khalsa that most of us envisage. Sadly, open, courteous, critical dialogue is rare today. Many of us become hostage to the 'clannish' sycophanitic mentality that is fostered by the so-called leaders of our institutions, deras and jathebandhis. If, as Gurmukh Singh and others have noted, there is a need to nurture and engage experts, research institutes and think tanks in facilitating the decision making process, I ask the question: where have all the Sikh intellectuals gone? Mind my words, but we have joined a nation of lemmings led by donkeys. No wonder the jaikara is such an effective tool in promoting decision making aimed at maintaining the status quo. Sadly, I feel many of our intellectuals have succumbed to intimidation, either been hounded out or have simply thrown in the towel. However, with the advent of all kinds of new social/ electronic media, new possibilities have emerged where thinking and ideas have a real currency. And so Sarbat Khalsa, as the embodiment of the collective will of the whole Sikh Quom, now exists as much in a virtual world as it does in the halls of the Akal Takht. These new times do throw up new possibilities, but failure to seize these may result in disaster. I am very much looking forward to the Oxford seminar which, given its symbolic significance and the media coverage, has the potential to become a historical landmark in the development of Sarbat Khalsa.