Above: from a painting, 'Friend or Foe', by Guy Coheleach.
Columnists
The SOJHI Project: Who's Friend? Who's Foe?
by I.J. SINGH
In the past few weeks, the SOJHI project has attracted tons of attention, a lot of it decidedly negative, and not for the good that it attempts and achieves.
I like and admire the project and the work that goes into it. So, I have been scratching my head to figure out how exactly I feel about this whole imbroglio.
I submit to you my preliminary thoughts here, somewhat incomplete.
For those on unfamiliar territory, SOJHI is an initiative of the Texas-based Sikh Research Institute (SikhRI). The objective of SOJHI is to design a curriculum that parallels curricula that we see for secular education in our schools from kindergarten to high school. What SOJHI teaches, however, is not the 3R's, but the basics of Sikhi - its language, magic and meaning, music and lifestyle.
Readers, I am sure, would agree that this is exactly what we have needed for over a generation. It is something we have not had so far.
For taking on such a Herculean task then, kudos to the tireless workers at SikhRI.
Now, critics are surfacing who are pointing to what they see as missteps and inaccuracies in the SOJHI offerings.
Why are some people reacting now with strong opinions, when the whole program was unveiled almost three years ago - and why so strongly and negatively? (I am aware that many more are reacting much more kindly; to them, a sincere thanks.)
I offer you a digression via an analogy that might be useful.
Look at the Financial Stimulus Plan and how the average Joe and the Republicans are responding to it. There is a lot of anger on the street, but it took a few days and weeks for this anger to become even somewhat channelized. In fact, the process of giving direction to amorphous anger and addressing it productively is far from complete.
There is no doubt that the average tax-paying citizen has a very large stake in this financial meltdown that we are in. It is like being hit with a ton of bricks - and then there is the much needed massive program of rescue and restoration that is hard to understand and comprehend fully.
Now, look at the several thousand pages of a program - the SOJHI Project. It will take time for readers and users to come to terms with it. And then response will surely follow; the process has started already.
Obviously, Sikhs all across this country feel that they have a stake in this much needed program, and they should.
The patrons and designers of SOJHI have invested a lot of their own money, along with blood, sweat and tears to produce it. They have come up with a road map for teaching the fundamentals of Sikhi in a systematic manner where no such model ever existed. (Emphasis on "ever" is intentional.)
In fact, this has been the Stimulus Plan that Sikhi in the diaspora has direly needed. But for most Sikhs, it comes as an overwhelming experience, just as the financial stimulus plan does in matters of the economy.
It will take readers and users a while to come to terms with it. If they do not react then, if the program does not become the talk of the town, I would honestly say, the effort of producing the program has been wasted.
It would be like the Republicans who have no critically detailed reaction and alternative suggestions except to reject the massive financial rescue plan. The power of "No!" serves us only when it is accompanied by productive and creative initiatives.
Is the SOJHI project perfect?
No more than any other endeavour in life. Perhaps no more than the Financial Rescue plan is, but it is just as vital. The Financial Plan would only get better if the best minds (Republicans, Democrats, and those of no party affiliation) come together. The SOJHI initiative will only progress if Sikhs honestly weigh in on it.
So, we need the critics - we need them desperately. More power to them. But we need to co-opt them to work with us so that the product is better than either side could possibly make by itself alone. They need to be cast into the role of the loyal opposition.
What bothers me is not that there are shortcomings in the SOJHI project; I would be surprised if there were none. My problem is how the differences are playing in the community and how we learn from them.
When charges of blasphemy are pushed forward, that, to me, is nonsense. Why? Because such actions close the conversation that is so necessary. They result from overwrought emotions that overlay and drown rational analyses.
To my mind, neither the designers of SOJHI nor their critics are out to damage Sikhi or sell it short. But, if you look at our community, for the past two or three decades, hasn't this been our modus operandi in discussion and debate - by charges and countercharges? And the result is pure chaos.
I would say to the critics of SOJHI: Thank you for your analysis.
But, I would also hasten to remind them that working the passions of people is not productive strategy; it sensationalizes the issues but achieves little beyond the expenditure of incredible amounts of energy and resources. It serves no purpose to cast aspersions on the motives of either side.
Sikhi is not in danger from anybody here.
(Some of my readers from India might remember Blitz, a news magazine that specialized in sensational news. It often brought the blood to a boil but, in the final analysis, was a poor arbiter of policy compared to saner but imperfect voices like The Statesman.)
Our critics need to come to their critique from a position of appreciation of SOJHI, just as the Republicans need to criticize the Financial Rescue Plan from the realization that without a plan, we as a nation are sunk.
We at SOJHI, too, need to give our critics an equal place at the table. I would like to see our critics become our partners so that they can see that SOJHI gives them an instrument that never existed before, and can do things that have never been attempted.
The Sikh Research Institute (SikhRI) and the SOJHI project will, I know, respond positively. But institutions are more akin to ocean liners and are less like speed boats. They need to forge a reliable system to evaluate themselves before tinkering with either their structure or direction. And that is exactly what SikhRI is now in the process of designing.
SOJHI is a fantastic initiative that deserves the thoughtful support of Sikhs everywhere. The operative words here are "thoughtful support."
Two lines from Gurbani come to mind:
Jub lugg duniya rahiye Nanak, kicch suniyae kicch kahiye
Whilst in this world, let's listen a bit; then, let's say our bit.
[GGS, M1, 661]
Hoe eikathr milahu maerae bhaaee dhubidhhaa dhoor karahu liv laae; har naamai kae hovahu jorree guramukh baisahu safaa vishhaae
O Brothers! Let's gather and sit together. Cut through differences and be in tune with Reality. O, let's assemble in His Name, and confer.
[GGS, M5, 1185].
The first citation tells us the onus rests on the joint faculties of listening to the other and then speaking one's mind; the second one reminds us that a fundamental of the process to resolve differences is to gather together united in common purpose in a civil dialogue.
Only two universals:
These things take time, but they will happen.
And, secondly, let's keep our friends close, but our enemies closer.
April 3, 2009
Conversation about this article
1: Tejwant Singh (U.S.A.), April 03, 2009, 11:54 AM.
All beginnings have mis-steps in life. Isn't learning and correcting the mistakes the true essence of learning process in Sikhi? As someone said, "If we change the way we look at things, then things we look at change". This for me is the cornerstone of Sikhi. So, it is ok and it is a must to change for the better. But change can only come with awareness, realization, understanding and acceptance from both sides. Protesting without offering an alternative is just bickering. Finding faults in others is easy and it seems it has become our nature. At times, it is sad to notice that we act like grumpy old people irrespective of our age. I.J., you are right in saying that the protesters against the Sojhi project deserve the seat at the table but only - using Obama's words - if they are able to unclench their fists and offer a helping hand. But one should never cave in to the dogmatic minded people in Sikhi, because those people have their own agenda rather than propagating the message of Guru Nanak.
2: Inni Kaur (Fairfield, CT, U.S.A.), April 03, 2009, 4:07 PM.
Thank you, Inder. At last a voice of reason on this.
3: Manpreet Singh (San Francisco, California, U.S.A.), April 03, 2009, 4:54 PM.
I hope people keep this perspective, but as someone having first hand experience of where all this storm started, I feel that you can talk sense to people who have responded emotionally from the goodness of their heart and raised issues that concern them, but the people who are actually fanning these flames and created this negative dramatic atmosphere to begin with are just using Sojhi as a beating stick to beat SikhRI for their own personal vendettas. Add into the mix, local gurdwara politics, and you have a perfect mini-storm. I wonder how do you discuss the motives of these miscreants without stooping down to their level and issuing press releases all over the internet loaded with personal mud slinging.
4: Harman Singh (Philadelphia, U.S.A.), April 03, 2009, 8:45 PM.
It is a shame that some of the current practitioners of Sikhi are so marred by dogma. This is precisely what our Gurus tried to free us from, trying to usher freedom of thought, spirit and action into the Sikh's mind. Unfortunately, this still remains our achilles heel as a community today ... too many boast much empty rhetoric and virtually no substance. I hope the Sojhi/SikhRI team keeps up the much needed work without getting too disappointed or frustated by these naysayers. I know, from personal experience, that it can be very easy to fall into this trap. People are always quick to point out the failures and downplay the successes. Do not lose heart, the majority of the community is proud of the work that you are doing, and prays for your success.
5: Gurpal Singh Bhuller (Chester, Virginia, U.S.A.), April 06, 2009, 8:41 AM.
Sojhi is the sort of thing that is desperately needed in the community. There will be many who throw slings at it, but it is mainly out of pique. The project is excellent and deserves everybody's support. In ventures of this type, there are bound to be imperfections. Such have to be taken into consideration, particularly as the Sojhi team has indicated that they are open to suggestions and would be willing to correct any deficiencies. Dr. I.J, Singh's comments are well worth reading and he has framed the discussion wisely. Thank you.
6: Rawel Singh (New York, U.S.A.), April 08, 2009, 9:49 AM.
The efforts of organizations that take steps to impart knowledge about Sikhi should be hailed. However, such organizations also need to ensure that in case they intend to change something that already is accepted as the norm in daily practice, it should be after discussions with the sangat at large. It has been my experience that our young people are enthusiastic but also also not amenable to discussions, much less persuasion. For example, when one of them used Vaahguru, instead of Waheguru, as Sojhi has done in its materials, I pointed out that both these are used in the Guru Granth in Swaiyyay mahlay chauthay kay, which makes their use clear. 'Vaahguru' there is used for praise and 'Waheguru' as a noun and to address the Master. E.g., on GGS: 1403, we read: "sayvak kai bharpoor jug jug vaahguru tayra sabh sadka". This is done in praise. Again, on the same page, and continuing to the next, we read first: "keeaa khayl badd maylu tamaasa Waheguru tayri sabh rachna". And then: " ... vaahguru tayri sabh rachna". This swaiyya has both the ecstasy and address. First, when it is to be conveyed that Akal Purakh is the Creator, 'Waheguru' is used and for His wonders, 'Vaahguru' is used. I submit some of the actions of our young people are based on revulsion to the present state of affairs, but we have to be prudent. It was said that in the Ardas, we should say after 'Sri Nankaana Sahib tay hor gurdwaariaan dey darshan deedaar - "Saaday gurdwaariaan noon bachaao). My suggestion to the young people was that it takes time for institutions to develop. If we want to discard them for new ones, where is the gurantee they will be different. Let us get together and improve their working. So they suggested a fresh Sarbat Khalsa. I was asked my views and I said: "I agree, but it should not be partisan". I sincerely recommend to the organizers of the Sojhi program not just to stick to what they have done, commendable as their intentions are, but aim at wider acceptance in keeping with Gurmat.
7: Sunny (Canada), April 16, 2009, 2:48 PM.
This article fails to address what exactly the objections to the SOJHI curriculum were. One important objection I saw was that they suggested a change to the pronounciation and spelling of "Waheguru". What's the motivation behind this? Why are they creating 'dubidha' or doubt amongst the sangat?