A Focus on the Recent Controversy in the Field of Sikh Studies
Pashaura Singh
(Lecture delivered at “A Dialogue: Scholars and Communities Respond to Each Other” organized jointly by the Institute for Conflict and Peace Studies (IFCAPS) and Oakton’s Peace and Social Justice Studies Program at Oakton Community College, Des Plains, IL, November 13, 2010)
Let me begin with a brief introduction to my presentation at the outset. First, I will briefly talk about the title of my presentation, ‘pulpit versus podium’. Second, I will walk you through the PowerPoint presentation how we introduce the students to pulpit and podium approaches at the university by addressing the questions: What are the faculty obligations in teaching controversial issues in the classroom? What approaches are followed in studying a scripture by different readers? Third, I will address the reasons for the charged religious reaction to academic scholarship in the field of Sikh studies. In fact, it has affected me on a most personal level. The audience may be aware of the controversy in the media over my doctoral thesis over the last eighteen years. When the controversy began in October 1992, I decided I would assist in the calm conclusion of the matter by saying nothing. Most of the people who had started the debate were not following academic norms. Some of the reviews were extremely hostile, violating the spirit of reasoned debate and civility, and some were simply personal attacks. In view of this stressful situation, I somehow managed to stay calm. Finally, I will talk about ‘town-gown conversation’ in which scholars and communities enter into a creative dialogue.
Pulpit versus Podium:
In our society, there are two chief ways through which religions are studied. The differing purposes and functions of these two ways are aptly captured in the images of pulpit and podium as described by June O’Connor in her brief article.1
The pulpit represents the confessional approach to understanding religion. This approach is universally followed by religious preachers who instruct and nurture the understanding and religious participation of their communities. For instance, this approach is visible in the work of priests and ministers who preach the messages of Christianity in the churches, in the work of rabbis who explain the riches of Judaism in the synagogues, and in the work of imams who communicate the meanings and values of Islam in the mosques. Similarly, Hindu priests, Buddhist monks, and Sikh gianis inform and nourish the religious life of their communities in Hindu and Buddhist temples and Sikh gurdwaras. Likewise, the spiritual leaders of other religious communities share their views and values, beliefs and practices in home and temple, on land and in lodge, practicing and preaching their religions in ways that will nurture the religious faith of their communities.
The podium represents the academic approach to understanding religions. The academic approach is visible in the work of scholars and professors in colleges and universities who seek to inform students about the religions of the world. The academic study of religions uses the tools and resources of the human sciences. Thus, students and scholars of religions employ a variety of approaches characteristic of the humanities, social sciences, and arts as they respond to a wide range of academic questions. They tap historical, psychological, sociological, anthropological, textual, philosophical, ethical, and comparative methods, seeking to satisfy their curiosity, inform their minds, expand their thinking, and develop their abilities to examine religions and the many debates about them both appreciatively and critically. Religions are studied as cross-cultural features of human life. In the University, we seek to understand what religious people believe, think, do, value, and hope for — and what critics of religion have to say as well. We work to understand the ways in which religions operate in the world, for good and for ill. Students are encouraged to engage in the processes of inquiry and investigation with open-minded attention to sources such as texts, practices, and participants. In the process of doing so, they are expected to grow in the skills of paying disciplined attention to the facts, noticing and analyzing claims, engaging in appreciative, critical, and comparative analysis and interpretation, and developing skills in oral and written communication through which they express their developing insights, understandings, and new questions.
These differing approaches to the understanding of religions are not oppositional. But neither ought they to be confused with each other, for each has its own distinctive mission and purpose.
Different Approaches to Studying a Scripture:
We can illustrate the pulpit and podium approaches followed in the study of textual traditions of world religions. In order to make sense of different approaches to studying a scripture let us look at the following Figure 1 carefully. From the theoretical schema given in this diagram, we notice that in the case of doctrinal reading there is a screen of beliefs and other theological presuppositions in front of the eye of the reader. The interpreter is approaching the text with preconceived intentions. In other words, there is a world before the text through which the interpreter is trying to make sense of the text. This mode of interpretation may be seen in almost all major schools of interpretations within the Sikh tradition, although the theological presuppositions will be different in each individual case. In certain instances, this approach turns into a fundamentalist variety that leaves no room for any other interpretation.
Figure 1
In the case of historical reading, the critical historian is trying to make sense of the world behind the text. That is, one is interested in understanding the cultural, historical, and literary influences that gave rise to individual texts. One is further interested in knowing the author’s original intention. The interpreter in this case approaches the text through the new lens of historical reason and research rather than through the perspective of theology and traditional formulations. It should be emphasized here, however, that it is not entirely possible for any historian to be absolutely free from any preconceived intention. At times, one might not be aware of one’s own unconscious subjectivity. But the goal of the historian should always be to utilize the rigors of investigation based on the principles of truth and detachment, and to offer no more than tentative claims based upon historical probability. Indeed, true scholarship aspires to do no more. The nature of historical knowledge is always limited by the character and extent of evidence, and can be altered by the discovery of new evidence or by the development of new methods of analyzing the available data.
Finally, in the case of literary interpretation one approaches the text without preconceived intention in order to explore the many possibilities of its meaning, and confronts the world in front of the text. For instance, each act of hermeneutic encounter with the Adi Granth text is unique since it is the encounter with the eternal Guru as disclosed in it. Thus it is the text that illumines the interpreter like radiance, not the interpreter who illumines the text. In order to appreciate this phenomenon we need to look at Paul Rocoeur’s magical looking-glass theory of textual meaning. He asserts that the meaning of a text does not lie behind it, in the region of intention and ostensive reference, but in front of it in the space of interpretation. Thus the interpretation of a text begins to show itself only in action and conduct.2
These are the three important approaches to studying a scripture. While the doctrinal reading reflects the pulpit approach, the historical and literary readings demonstrate the podium approach followed in the university setting.
Controversies in Sikh Studies:
In the west, Sikh Studies is a newly emerging field in the larger context of the study of religion and South Asian studies in the academy. Like any other new field of enquiry it is passing through the phase of ‘growing pains’ in its quest for legitimacy in academic mainstream. During the last three decades there has been a charged religious reaction to academic scholarship from a small but a vocal minority of Sikhs who are incapable of adjusting to the secular nature of Western universities. These critics of ‘critical scholarship’ have been nurtured in the more traditional mode of interpretation of the Sikh tradition. Following the legacy of the Singh Sabha (“Society of the Singhs”), a nineteenth-century reform movement which attempted to bring contemporary Sikhism more into line with Eurocentric understandings of religion, they adopted an approach to rebut perceived distortions or misrepresentations of Sikh religion and history. Any kind of scholarly ideas and interpretations that did not appear to pass a litmus test of “authentic representation of tradition” became the target of their polemical attacks. This organized group was able to exercise considerable control over the Sikh press and mobilize public opinion against both Sikh and non-Sikh scholars, following the historical-critical method in their study.
The censure of scholarly research was intimately linked with the complex political situation of the Punjab. As a result of Operation Blue Star of 1984 and the rise of militancy in the Punjab, the role of Akali leadership was marginalized within the Sikh community to a large extent. But in the early 1990s the movement of a separate state of Khalistan was crushed by the Congress-led government in the Punjab. This suppression of militancy created a vacuum in Sikh politics that provided an opportunity for the Akalis, particularly the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committe (SGPC), to stage a political revival. The scholarly controversy provided a handy tool for the SGPC leadership to assert its authority. Thus they used the very powerful rhetoric of “Granth in Danger” (in contrast to the famous slogan of “Panth in Danger”) to regain their lost credibility. Not surprisingly, the picture on the dust jacket of J.S. Grewal’s book Contesting Interpretations of the Sikh Tradition, showing the destruction of the Akal Takhat in 1984 by the Indian army, rightly links the scholarly controversy with the agony through which the Sikh community passed in that period. For almost a decade after the events of 1984 the Sikhs worldwide were undergoing a traumatic experience. This was the highly inflamed political context in which scholars were trying to develop an intellectual understanding of the Sikh tradition through the lens of the Punjab crisis. It is no wonder that this was the time when the number of Sikh critics of W.H. McLeod’s scholarship dramatically increased with the inclusion of ‘retired judges, civil servants, army officers, former ministers, and Vice Chancellors’. McLeod was seen as serving the interests of those forces which were inimical to the Sikh tradition and hostile to Sikh aspirations. Both the external and internal forces within the Panth successfully used the scholarly controversy to mobilize public opinion.
The political situation in the Punjab, however, must be placed in the larger context of what is happening in India in recent times. There has been a growing – and scary – tendency in India to try to convert religious commitment into political discipline. This is happening not only within the Sikh community, but also among Muslims and Hindus. One manifestation of such a tendency would be the enforcement of overt orthodoxy and a very literal reading of sacred texts. It should be emphasized that depth of religious commitment may have very little to do with such matters. What is important is the number of potential supporters that one political block can show to another, all marching in lock step and willing to vote or protest together. In the context of insecurities about their place in India and the future of their youth growing up in the diaspora, these vigilantes attack non-conformist scholars to fill a convenient ideological space, demonstrating the solidarity of Punjab-based scholars and diasporan Sikh professionals with contemporary projects of nation building and religious revival. In the process they make desperate attempts to control the memory of Sikh past in ways that suit their own ideological agendas.
The main objectives of any scholarly inquiry remain the ideals of truth and understanding. Throughout his works Guru Nanak has stressed the “search for truth” and the “sense of distinction” (bibek) between factual and stereotypical statements. He declares: “A [true] researcher (khoji) always grows, whereas a [mean-spirited] wrangler (badi) vanishes” (AG, p. 1255). A genuine academic intent is not to demean, dismantle, or offend. Rather, it is to explore, probe, and imagine, using the various disciplinary approaches – even drawing on forms of interpretation that may not be indigenous to a particular religious tradition but may be illuminating and novel. Academic techniques are certainly going to be different from those of theologians and traditional scholars. To understand a religious tradition from an academic perspective we must follow the established scholarly norms and resolve academic issues through academic methods. Advancement of knowledge takes place only through the presentation of better evidence, not by attacking the proponent of the idea we dislike. Civility and respect for people holding different views must be maintained at all levels of an academic debate.
Academic scholarship cannot be based on conspiracies. People often do not agree on certain issues, and this is precisely the nature of an academic debate. What we need to learn is an open attitude towards all serious questions. We should always keep in mind that the intolerant reactions to academic scholarship are sometimes heightened by ideological positioning within different factions in the body politic of a religious community. The real issue is, however, between academic freedom, a value taken for granted in the West, and a dogmatic stand based on the unholy mix of religion and manipulative politics which does not tolerate alternative interpretation of a sacred text.
The kind of socio-religious controversy surrounding the works of the scholars of the Sikh tradition is not something new. It is surprisingly archaic and happens most of the time in homogenous old-world societies. Thus it is structural / political and is similar to the experiences of scholars working in comparable contexts. The issues pertaining to South Asian modernization and diaspora provide the key to understand its true nature. There are certainly many conservative followers of Western traditions, too, who do not like much of the academic discourse about their traditions. They have, nevertheless, adapted to the existence of that discourse. Although they may ignore academic discourse as trivial in its disregard of real religious truth, they frequently glean insights from it despite perceived distortions. In the classroom, we frequently observe that analytic understandings help many contemporary students come to terms with their own traditions and appreciate them all the more at this stage of their development. In the West, Sikh Studies is a new field, and much of the reaction to scholars’ work reflects the Sikh community’s relative lack of experience with analytic understanding of their tradition. As that experience grows, Sikhs are likely to make adaptations and discoveries similar to those of their counterparts from other religious traditions–often ignoring analytic works as not serious, sometimes appreciating them in part.
Occasionally, a small number of ‘self-appointed guardians of sentiment’ can successfully coerce and intimidate others in an academic setting. They try to silence the scholars because they claim to take offense and insist that their sentiments trump scholarly pursuit of knowledge. Reflecting the postmodern discourse of power these zealots want to take away power and agency from the scholars and want to erase them through intimidation. In view of this alarming situation scholarship must continue as a moral practice to pursue the search for truth and understanding. As scholars we must protect the integrity of what we do and do our work with utmost clarity, resolve, and diligence. We have a moral responsibility to be accurate, and if we are in error we must own our mistakes. We must use extreme caution and circumspection in presenting our innovative ideas for critical appraisal by our readers. Above all, we must rededicate ourselves to our vocation of critical inquiry when we are attacked by the vigilantes.
Town-Gown Conversation:
Today, the total population of the Sikhs in the world is around twenty-five million, a figure which is higher than the global population of the Jewish community. This fact notwithstanding Sikhism, as the youngest ‘world religion’, receives far less attention academically than Judaism, the oldest ‘world religion’, despite the affinities which exist between both the Sikh and Jewish traditions. The reasons for this are many and varied. One is the shear fact of their chronological existence. As the world’s youngest major religion, Sikhism has had to address issues and divergent approaches in a more “compact” time frame and within a context of persistent political turmoil. Christianity, Judaism, Islam and other major religions have spent centuries working through various theological, philosophical, and cultural dilemmas while Sikhism has only just begun to make its impact in both the scholarly field and the world of comparative religion and ethics.
In fact, a great deal of ignorance still persists in North America about the Sikhs and their religious traditions. Not surprisingly, the first victim of racial backlash during the recent crisis after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 was a Sikh, Balbir Singh Sodhi of Arizona, who was shot dead by an angry gunman calling himself a patriot. Mr. Sodhi became the target because of a mistaken identity. Despite the economic success of the Sikhs in America, they have largely experienced social isolation, an experience which springs from a pervasive ignorance about Sikhs and Sikhism in this part of the world. People simply do not know who Sikhs are. The town-gown conversation will certainly go a long way to make Sikhs more familiar to members of the University community and will help break down barriers which exist between Sikhs and other people who perceive them in a stereotypical manner.
The internet has indeed exposed the colorful diversity of Sikh life in its global context. No single group can afford to monopolize the debate on any single issue. Surfing through different Sikh websites and discussion groups one can easily realize that there is a need to look at Sikhism from a global perspective. There are multiple ways to approach Sikh topics in various academic disciplines. As a matter of fact, the early twenty first century continues to be a very exciting time for Sikh Studies. Within the last generation scholars have begun to question the prevailing attitudes towards the study of Sikhism in both the west and India itself to the point that this least examined and perhaps most misunderstood of South Asia’s religious and cultural traditions now occupies seven academic chairs within the United States and one in Canada, with more proposed. It should therefore elicit little surprise that undergraduate and graduate courses in Sikh Studies, particularly Sikh history and religion, have been increasing dramatically over the last decade, a rise which corresponds in part to Sikh immigration into Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom. But the field of Sikh Studies will come of age only when it becomes an integral part of academic mainstream in North American universities.
Let me conclude this formal presentation with an impassioned plea to the members of the Sikh community, particularly Sikh organizations of North America, to work together in the discipline-based training of a new generation of promising young scholars in the area of Sikh Studies. This will open up a wide range of academic appointment options for the young man or woman contemplating commitment to a lifetime of scholarship in the field. These trained scholars will be an asset to the community at large. They will be able to provide the Sikh youth with university-level instruction in their religious and cultural tradition, and to make that tradition accessible to the wider non-Sikh community. Let us set aside confrontation in pursuit of a win-win strategy that will help usher in a new era of cooperation and understanding.
Notes
- This section is adapted from June O’Connor, “Pulpit and Podium,” Journal of Theta Alpha Kappa, Vol. 27, No. 1 (Spring 2003): 63-4.
- The details of these three approaches is taken from my The Guru Granth Sahib: Canon, Meaning and Authority (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, originally published in 2000; sixth paperback impression, 2009), pp. 259-261.
