Columnists

Pigeonholing

by I.J.SINGH

 

I find it fascinating that some people refer to Sikhs as a "Qaum"; others call them a race, nation, religion or ethnic group. I don't know how to translate the word "Qaum" precisely; it could mean either race or nation.

In the United States, the Census Bureau lumps Sikhs with South Asians, whatever that appellation may mean. (I wonder who drew the line to delineate South Asia from contiguous parts of Asia, and when and by what logic?)

What is the correct designation for Sikhs, and why is it important?

What is ethnicity? Scholars are not very helpful, nor are dictionary definitions. Ethnic groups are composed of those who share distinctive cultural characteristics originating from a common linguistic, national or racial heritage; so says the Oxford English Dictionary. It is not a very simple definition and incorporates many complex ideas and concepts.

Do all Sikhs have a common linguistic heritage? To a certain extent, yes, if one accepts that the Punjabi language in Gurmukhi script is fundamental to Sikh scripture. Keep in mind, though, that Gurmukhi is only the script in which the Guru Granth is usually penned; the languages in it are many of the Indic languages extant at the time that the scripture was compiled. Persian, Sanskrit, Braj and related languages are well represented in it.

The Gurus  -  particularly Guru Nanak  -  traveled widely and must have taught their message in the local language. It is doubtful that Guru Nanak taught the people of Assam, Sri Lanka, Tibet or Iraq, for example, in the Punjabi of his native village. That is precisely why some of his compositions are in languages other than Punjabi.

In fact, the Guru Granth contains little of what to us is modern conversational Punjabi, the language that most Punjabis use in their homes and social interaction.

Punjabi, furthermore, is not unique to Sikhs. It is the language of all Punjabi people   -  Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims and even a small number of Christians and Buddhists. Even if we insist that facility in Punjabi and Gurmukhi is essential to being a Sikh, would it be right to argue that all Sikhs share a common language?

Many Sikhs are converts from the local stock in remote parts of India and in every country of the world. Keep in mind that India itself has more than 52 substantive languages and perhaps as many as 874 dialects. I realize that many of the Indic languages are different branches of the same linguistic tree, but there are also languages, like Urdu, that are hybrid mixtures of very different linguistic origin, in keeping with the hybrid nature of the people and the culture of northwest India.

I also see that for many people across the world, English is rapidly becoming not just a technical or second language, but also the language in which they think, dream and curse. For the next generation of these people, including many Sikhs, the primary language will become English. I am sure, however, that this fact will not peremptorily alter their anthropological or ethnographic classification.

Similar problems surface when we look to national origin for a definition of Sikhs and Sikhism. Are we looking for geography to guide us here?

It is true that Sikhism arose and largely flourished in Punjab, but the religion had spread far beyond its borders even during the lifetime of the Gurus  -  a process that has only been hastened by the worldwide expansion of the Sikh diaspora. Also, the land of Punjab has been divided into two nations, India and Pakistan, for the past 55 years.

Perhaps as many as 2.5 million Sikhs  -  almost 10 percent of all Sikhs  -  live in the diaspora, in countries as far removed from the "motherland" of Punjab as the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Kenya, Tanzania, Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore, and even the nations of the former Soviet Union.

For generations now, millions of Sikhs have been born and raised in countries outside Punjab or India. Their connections to the mother country are no better than those of a fourth- or fifth-generation Yankee whose ancestors came to the United States on the Mayflower.

Criteria of race are so confusing that a discussion of the idea tends to obscure more than enlighten. In terms of race, some Sikhs are clearly of South Asian origin, whatever that means. Incidentally, ethnologists and anthropologists are not quite clear on how to classify the South Asians.

Punjab, from where most Sikhs hail, presents a provocatively interesting racial mélange that has emerged out of its colorful history. People as diverse as the Aryan Caucasians, Greeks, Mongols, Semites and Dravidians found roots in Punjab, where they intermixed with the indigenous people and with each other.

The most current scientific wisdom on notions of race suggests that, on the basis of markers in the human genome, people can be classified into five large groupings corresponding to the major geographical areas of the world  -  Asia, Europe, Africa, Melanesia and the Americas. The five groups differ from each other to a small degree.

Similar groupings of the world's people have been suggested by studies of the Y chromosome inherited through the male line and of mitochondrial DNA that is inherited through the mother. The conventional racial classifications that we generally use may be merely cultural constructs.

I think that looking for purity of racial stock is an undertaking for the shortsighted and dim-witted. There are Sikh converts who are clearly of the Black races, just as there are converts from the White race. I know of at least one Chinese convert to Sikhism and two Sikhs who are half Japanese. Plenty of Sikhs are at least biracial, if not multiracial, according to conventional notions of race.

Also, if the definition of a religion depended on its racial stock, then no one could convert to it. The doors would then be closed to the emergence of new religions, such as Sikhism, which arose in the sea of Hinduism and Islam.

This issue of what to do with converts has plagued many religions, particularly if they do not actively solicit conversions. Judaism and Sikhism are prime examples of religions with a non-proselytizing worldview, although Sikhs freely welcome converts to their cause.

Judaic law generally recognizes anyone who is born of a Jewish mother to be a Jew. I suppose such reasoning stems from the fact that, biologically speaking, motherhood is clearly established, whereas fatherhood remains a matter of faith. (The ultramodern technology of DNA testing is not routinely practiced, nor is it universally available. DNA might establish paternity, but would it not also shatter trust, without which a relationship cannot exist?)

Reform Jews have, within the past few months, recommended that anyone who shows a serious interest in becoming a Jew should be accepted as such. Orthodox and Conservative Jews, however, do not accept such lax criteria.

Christianity and Islam proselytize very actively, and these religions, therefore, freely transcend cultural, racial, national or ethnic barriers.

Hinduism had almost impenetrable barriers to conversions until Dayanand, a Hindu reformer, arrived on the scene early in the 20th century. He justified the conversion of indigenous Indian Muslims and Sikhs to Hinduism on the grounds that it would be a return to their original true parental fold. (He reasoned that either these Sikhs and Muslims must have converted directly from Hinduism themselves or their ancestors must have.)

I don't know if Hinduism has rigidly defined and enforced formal barriers to conversions, but in Hindu practice I see an attitude that the Indian Hindu is somehow better than one of non-Indian origin. This is evident in the fact that American converts to Hinduism, who are mostly White, are not allowed to enter certain Hindu temples in India.

Since caste is a hallmark of Hinduism and is determined by genealogy at birth, I wonder where and in which caste the new converts are placed.

Conversion does pose serious doctrinal problems for religions that have a hereditary priestly class with its associated perks  -  such as the Brahmin in Hinduism and the Cohen in Judaism.

Sikhism arose as a religion whose members converted from other faiths  -  primarily from Hinduism and to a lesser degree from Islam. Sikhism has no hereditary caste, priestly or otherwise, so conversion to Sikhism is freely welcomed but never coerced. Doctrinally, Sikhs do not march in the world convinced that all others are infidels and must see the light as we see it.

In some ways, though, our (Sikh) problems in this area are eerily similar to those of Jews with whom we share a history of persecution and are roughly comparable in numbers. Are Jews a nation, an ethnic group, a race or a culture? Can nations exist without boundaries? I ask this even though Jews now have Israel and many Sikhs have been clamoring for Khalistan.

Indeed, some observant Jews remain vehemently opposed to the formation of a Zionist state. What is significant is that for almost 2,000 years, Israel did not exist, yet the Jews were widely viewed as all of these things  -  religion, race, ethnic group, culture and nation. Jews worldwide do share a common scriptural language, but not the other dictionary criteria of ethnicity. Their long history and rich religious tradition, however, give them a common bond. If nothing else, the worldwide prevalence of anti-Semitism unites them.

Look at the Muslims. They are part of a global religion that transcends geographical and national boundaries, yet their scriptural, liturgical language remains the same  -  Arabic.

One may be a Chinese Muslim or a Muslim from Uzbekistan, Pakistan or Harlem in New York City, but the language of scripture and prayer remains Arabic. Muslims are culturally, racially and linguistically a diverse people; one would be hard put to define common ground based on any of the conventional criteria between, say, the Bosnian, Chechnyan, Spanish and Arabic Muslims.

Religions from their outset are ideas and ideals, but they cannot thrive or survive without institutions. No institution can arise or exist free of local culture, language and traditions, that are best labeled habits of the heart. Traditions bind a people even if they are diversely situated or widely dispersed and, in smaller ways, act and behave differently. It is the continuity and commonality of traditions, not geography, that lie at the root of a religion and make a nation.

When one tries to interpret, classify or look for the antecedents of the philosophic ideas of a religion, the task is alarmingly complex. Religions, though unique revelations of their founders, take life in existing cultures and are often interpreted in terms of the prevailing systems.

Take Sikhism, for example. In India, it is usually interpreted by reference to the philosophic framework of Hinduism, such as the vision of Shankarcharaya. 

But such is not necessarily the case when we talk about Sikhism in a North American or European context. Not long ago, I was at a conference where Sikh teaching was explained with reference to Heidegger, Wittgenstein and Kant. It is natural, and even more so for a minority faith like Sikhism, that it be explored within the terms of reference and worldview of the majoritarian culture. The point I wish to make is that although the attempts to do so are natural and welcome, the fit is always awkward and incomplete.

I know that this debate on how to classify Sikhs has been playing heavily, particularly in the United Kingdom. The debate is important because it has political implications. Visibility and acknowledgment by governments of Sikhs' unique status mean recognition and support, perhaps even economic and political opportunities, and these issues are important to the life of a community.

This leaves us in bit of a dilemma. The way most of these notions of nation, race, and ethnicity are used in terms of Sikhs reminds me of the analogy of the square peg in a round hole.

Good scholars, like S. Gurmukh Singh of London, point out to me that Sikhism is not a religion like most others. Where other religions have dogma and doctrine to give them life, often with a hierarchal structure, Sikhism teaches a way of life and a philosophy for living.

This is true. But this also means that discussions of who is a Sikh or definition of who qualifies to be counted as a Sikh would become irrelevant. A Sikh, then, would be anybody who claims to be one, however imperfect he or she may be. While this is true at the individual level, at the corporate or institutional level, precise definitions may become necessary. For Sikhs, the Code of Conduct (Rehat Maryada) attempts to do so and is a product of the corporate body of the larger Sikh nation.

Another thought that comes to my mind is that perhaps most religions, like Christianity or Islam, also started similarly  -  as a way of life  -  and their institutionalization with codified dogmas and doctrines occurred sometime later. At least initially, societal ethics were taught, monitored and enforced largely through religious institutions and their code. This is how any way of life was defined and propagated.

I am certain that during their first several centuries, the clear distinction between Christianity and Judaism that exists today was not all that obvious and the lines between them were considerably fuzzy. The existence even today of a 2,000-year-old substantial movement, called Jews for Jesus, underscores my point. Christianity, in its early days (centuries?) was a way of life with little dogma, doctrine, central authority or formal structure.

I wonder how far such an analogy could also be used to explain some of the current dilemma of classifying Sikhs.

When I use a similar lens, it is not surprising that Sikhism is a way of life, but it also has the markings of a distinct religion, with its own unique worldview and institutions. With time and institutionalization, fences arise between neighboring ideologies. Whichever way one looks at Judaism, Islam or Sikhism, it is clear that, at least in the Western world, they are minorities.

Thus, civic authorities  -  governments  -  have to take account of that fact, not so much for their love of either the religion or its existence, but because of the legal need to treat all citizens equally and the most pressing obligation to preserve order.

A recent constitutional issue in the United Kingdom best reveals the complexities and ramifications of these matters.

The House of Lords wrestled with issues of definition when a Sikh boy was refused admission to a school because of his turban and long hair. Racial discrimination was held illegal, but Sikhs are not a race in the conventional sense of the word. Because the school was founded on the Christian faith, religious discrimination was deemed legal.

The issue, however, was finally resolved by adopting a wider definition of ethnicity  -  a group in which the adherents regarded themselves, and were regarded by others, as a distinct people.

The criteria, enunciated by Lord Fraser of the British House of Lords, were as follows:

1   a long-shared history distinguishing the community from others;

2   a cultural tradition of its own, including family and social customs;

3   a common geographical origin;

4   a common language;

5   common literature peculiar to the group;

6  a common religion different from others; and

7  a minority status within a larger community.

It was also recognized that, clearly not everyone would display all the characteristics, but enough of them should be found to set the community apart from others. This would include all those who join by marriage or conversion.

By this expanded definition, Jews and Sikhs certainly qualify as ethnic minorities.

Sikhs, like Muslims and Jews, are many things, but primarily they are defined by their religion. That discussion, therefore, is more of an academic one.  There has been an ongoing public debate on these issues in the United Kingdom, and on a more mundane and practical level, the British recognized all this. But the issue was that in the United Kingdom, these groups are minorities; they deserve and require recognition as such, along with equal and appropriate protection of the law.

So Jews, for instance, are now classified as an ethnic group in the United Kingdom, though it is clear that they do not fit the narrow dictionary definition of ethnicity.

Sikhs, too, seem to have prevailed, and the British will soon recognize them as an ethnic minority.

Here, too, the worldwide distribution of Sikhs defies any narrow definitions of race, nation or ethnicity. The expanded definition propounded by Lord Fraser appears to be more responsive to the contemporary concerns of society.

It seems to me that to try to cram the Sikhs into any narrow pigeonhole is bound to be extremely awkward.

February 4, 2008

[This article first appeared as an essay in Being & Becoming a Sikh, by I.J. Singh. The Centennial Foundation, Guelph, Canada, 2003.]

read other articles in Columnists