I
In the history of all organised faiths, we observe that the process of religious organisation is a multigeneraional project in which we see the gradual transformation of prevalent civilisational traditions, into practices and then, into codified standards, or norms, by which the religious community organises itself internally, and creates a distinction between insiders and outsiders.
Let us begin with Buddhism, which will be our comparative case for constructing our framework in this essay. Buddhism is the oldest organised religion in the Dharmic civilisational tradition (one could make the case for Brahmanism, but its codification was achieved only in the Manusmriti, after centuries of development, and centuries after the ‘founding’ of Buddhism; ancient Aryanism before the codification of the Manusmriti should be compared to the shamistic-animism of the greater Indo-European tradition, gradually transforming into universalist deistic philosophy, as it also did in Greece - it provided the materiel for both Buddhism and Brahmanic Hinduism, and indeed the entire Dharmic tradition, but cannot conceivably be reduced to either as there are too many outliers, as doing so would, naturally, extend the conceptual boundaries by which we identify these religions, and religion per se, to such an extent, so as to make them unviable, thus redundant, but, there exist, to capture the essence of it all, other umbrella concepts, philosophy and civilisation, used in their lower case sense, which help us better conceive how a gathering of all these streams which flow into the single stream of our civilisational identity can be identified, akin, historically, to how the river Sindhu gathered its waters from all this land - they are both necessary and sufficient for our purposes, and most others.)
Buddhism had its key founder event in the Buddha’s Deer Park sermon. But the making of this event, or its apotheosis, was in a series of smaller events, which gradually led to this - the three sightings, the moonlight escape, the yogic kriya, the quest for enlightenment, the attaining of enlightenment, and so on, to the Deer Park sermon. And, just as the apotheosis was reached at through a series of (smaller) founding events, so the greater event continued to cause successor (after) events, such as the founding of the Samgha, concluding in the Parinirvana. Thus, the whole life of the Buddha was a Cosmic Event, which created the Bauddha Dharam. (Later Buddhist literature attempted to portray this cosmic significance of each event in this apotheosis chain by showing the descent of devas and cosmic beings onto earth to pay their respects to the Buddha, whenever a founding milestone was achieved; there are similarities in the Sanatan Sikh tradition).
Each milestone founding event is significant also for the (guided) organisation of the religion. Through the guidance and lived example of the founder, the religion begins to transform various cultural traditions prevalent in the social milieu into sanctioned (or forbidden) practices. Now, this process continues after the passing of the founder, or the end of the founding events, as we saw in the case of various Buddhist councils, codifications of the sayings of the Buddha, collation of remembrances of those who lived with him, his instructions and guidance passed on to followers, petitioners, and often even interlocutors and participants in dialogue and debate.
By conducting this (multigenerational process) a religious community gradually self organises itself, via transformation of sanctioned practices into religious codes. These codes then further manifest in the formation and organisation of institutions, as they are institutional software themselves - in Buddhism, the hardware, was the network of monasteries and universities (and hermitages), which gradually spread the faith, and maintain the organised religion.
These institutions themselves exist within larger social, cultural and (geo)political contexts - and must engage, bargain and often compete with them in various domains. The story of conflict and cooperation between the temple and the palace is a fundamental dialectic of human civilisation since its beginnings, and we need not go into it here.
Now, as the context is laid out we will speak of Sikhi, Sikhism and the Rehitnama tradition.
II
Sikhi began with the founding event of the birth of Nanak. The Janamsakhi tradition is vital for understanding the consequent chain of founding events, first through the life of Nanak, then the passing of Guruship to Guru Angad, and later Sikh historiography carries this through till Guru Gobind Singh, to Guru Granth Sahib.
We cannot go through every detail of prevalent customs in greater Punjab, the Saptasindhu and Hind, or which customs were sanctioned (or prohibited) in the practice, example, demonstration and remonstration by the Gurus. One cannot comment on this in summary without being knowledgeable of the entire Guru tradition, all Sikh literature, oral and written, with adequate knowledge of the surrounding cultural and civilisational context. I will not even attempt to venture into what I do not yet grasp, that is, the ‘brahmvidya’, or greater philosophical gnana, which manifests itself into religious practice. That is a journey we must all undertake, and it is both the beginning and the end of Sikhi.
Sikhi in my view is not the same as Sikhism, but neither are they the same thing. As I see it, Sikhi is personal practice and devotion, while Sikhism refers to the organisation of the faith, particularly discursively, as the faith in the post-Guru period reconciled with, first, the absence of the Guru in human form to guide the practice of the faithful, and, second, the continued existence of the Guru both in the form of the Guru Granth, and the Guru Panth. (This idea is explored extensively by J.S. Grewal).
I have been working on a commentary on the Sri Gur Panth Parkash for the past few days. I noticed in the text, some passages in which during the last days of the Guru in Nanded (see Ganda Singh on this), some confusion had begun to arise among Khalsa Singhs on how the Sikh religion, particularly the Khalsa faith would govern itself after the appointment of Banda Singh Bahadur as Commander-in-Chief (Jathedar). The Guru is depicted as having looked on in amusement as some of this confusion broke out into argument. (See Annexure). There are numerous vital passages in the text, crucial for understanding how the Guru was actively remoulding the Khalsa into a self governing faith. I have written before on how the foundations of political structure for the self-governance of the Khalsa was also laid in the final earthly days of the Guru. (It can be discussed whether a geopolitical strategy for warring with the Empire was also conceived in these days, and perhaps Banda Singh’s contribution to these discussions might have been one of the reasons why he - as a Machiavellian genius - was appointed Commander-in-Chief. I will wrote extensively on this in the near future.)
The important point is, even in his presence, the Guru often allowed this arguments to play out and resolve themselves. The baton was being passed.
Understanding this, is vital for comprehending, in my view, how the Khalsa tradition developed in the succeeding era of the Guru Panth, the 18th century was unarguably its golden age, not despite but because of the hardships the Panth faced - and survived.
The Gurus had, over generations, guided the panth, through the demonstration of lived example, and as interlocutors in the sangat, many times on very affectionate and equal terms in the best traditions of guruship, to create a structure of and for the practice of Sikhi. The materiel for this was in many instances the prevalent customs of the land, but also included ancient revivals and new innovations. The transformation, through codification, of practice into code, and its institutionalisation in the Panth and its structures, was an active debate in the immediate Guru Panth era, with the Rehatnama tradition providing the textual traces of the community making itself across time and circumstance, and alongside it, like a river of sustenance (the great fount of gnana, the Sindhu itself) flowed the great tradtion practiced in their sanctity by the various sampradayae, whose traditions continue to enrich us today, as the great river binds those who sit on its banks today, and the great sages who contemplated its flowing everchanging waters those many ages ago.
In this we are united. It continues in our times, as will so into the future as the Guru Panth continues to progress through time, and meets its many challenges. The essential idea if that the republican ethos hardwired into the Khalse, is its moving spirit - it will manifest, in time and age, into structures through which the Khalsa will engage with the shifting terrains of history and the challenges which all tradition must necessarily face in an age in which ‘asankh chor haramkhor’ proliferate, to gather maya through trickery and discord. Any tradition, as the rise and fall of Buddhism also suggests, will remain only as healthy as the shape and structure of the institutions it manifests through its self-governing will. When it, or any of its members, lose the will to power, to power to make and remake oneself to meet the march of time, slavery first of the mind and then of the body beckons.
Sikhi, and by association Sikhism, has a powerful shield against the corrupting ravages of posttradition times (arhan mat ved hathyaar) - how the community maintains the spiritual link between the Guru Granth and the Guru Panth, that is the test of history.
III
Sri Akal Sahai.
—