Download entire Journal volume [PDF] - Global and International ...

J. S. Grewal: W.H. McLeod and Sikh Studies 131
carpenters’, but the Ahluwalias enjoyed a high status in the Punjab
society; they were not placed below the Khatris. The corporate status of
the Ramgarhia, on the other hand, remained essentially unchanged.
McLeod concludes that the Sikh way of life offers a possibility of
temporal success for individuals and in a diminished degree for castes.
The whole discussion is conducted in terms of caste and social mobility,
as it is done for the traditional Hindu society.
In ‘The Sikh Concept of Caste’ in his Essays (2007), McLeod refers
to the views of Jagjit Singh on the abolition of caste, caste system and
caste ideology, and comments that Jagjit Singh uses the term caste for
varan (varna) and ignores jati. But Jagjit Singh does not ignore jati.
McLeod gives several quotations from the Adi Granth to show that varan
had no bearing on liberation. But this is equally true of jati. Both varan
and jati were set aside. McLeod himself adds later that Guru Nanak did
not see any relevance of jati or kul for liberation. This message was
repeated by his successors. Bhai Gurdas too emphasized that the Sikhs
constituted a single varan in which all the four varans had been joined. In
the Tankhahnama, Guru Gobind Singh says, ‘I shall merge the four
barans into one’. McLeod goes on to say that the ‘Sanatan’ view had
come to prevail among the Sikhs by the middle of the eighteenth century.
But he cites no evidence for this. He simply states that in the Sanatan
view ‘Sikh society comprised the four traditional barans’ and those who
belonged to this society should never mingle with ‘the Dalits’. Later on,
the Tat Khalsa rejected the varan system. Having said all this, McLeod
reiterates that the Sikh Gurus could see that the jati system ‘held Indian
society together’ and they did not seek to destroy it. In support of this
view, he refers again to the old pattern of matrimony accepted by them.
He interprets Bhai Gurdas, the B40 Janamsakhi, and some of the
Rahitnamas as accepting jati and recommending no social intercourse
with Dalits. He repeats that there were urban and rural hierarchies among
the Sikhs. He points out, however, that the Sikh notion of caste was
generally different from the Hindu, ‘partly as a result of the Sikh stand in
favour of eliminating the baran differences’. In the Gurdwara there was
no place for discrimination ‘on the basis of purity and pollution’. Even if
caste is widely practised in the Panth ‘some Sikhs genuinely believe that
caste observance has no place in the Sikh faith’. Yet, McLeod maintains
that the Sikhs were not deviating from the path of the Gurus in accepting
jati and gotra, but whether or not they deviated in terms of status ranking
is ‘another question’. It must be pointed out that if the notion of status
comes from the varna and occupations are not prescriptive, it is not
strictly legitimate to talk of hierarchy. On the whole, McLeod’s
conceptualization of the issue of caste is unclear, if not selfcontradictory.
A different kind of paradigm appears to be needed for
conceptualizing the Sikh social order in which there is a strong emphasis
on equality with no normative prescription for hereditary occupations.