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

134 JPS 17:1&2
external appearance becomes all-important for him. Here, it may be
pertinent to mention that though the Sahajdhari Sikhs of Chaupa Singh’s
Rahitnama were not Keshdhari or baptized Singhs, they were a part of
the Khalsa sangat. They too believed in the ten personal Gurus and
Guruship of the Granth and the Panth, and they followed some of the
practices of the Singhs. Much of the rahit was common for Keshdharis
and Sahajdharis. The splinter groups and the Udasis were not included
among the Sahajdharis. It is necessary, therefore, to identify the
Sahajdharis of the late eighteenth and the early nineteenth century to find
out whether or not they were conscious of their distinct identity.
According to McLeod, the Tat Khalsa in the late nineteenth century
remained loyal to the inherited tradition when they began to shape
systems in the light of ideals and modes of thinking acquired from
Western education and literature. The Khalsa ideal became distinguished
by a new consistency and a new clarity of definition. The earlier features
which were not acceptable were either rejected or suitably modified.
Quest for distinctive rituals was initiated, and attempts were made to
produce acceptable statements of the rahit. ‘An appropriate version of the
Panth’s history was formulated, a powerful stress was laid on the
doctrine of Guru Granth, and Sikhs were exhorted to observe
conventions which would proclaim their separate Khalsa identity’. Due
to Sanatan opposition, it was only gradually that the Tat Khalsa views
gained ascendancy amongst the intellectual leaders of the Panth.
Eventually, they did secure dominance.
McLeod talks of three identities among the Sikhs: the Amritdhari, the
Keshdhari and the Sahajdhari. Little distinction was drawn between the
first two. They who retained their hair uncut and refrained from smoking
were regarded as Sikhs of the Khalsa for all practical purposes. However,
the idea that it was possible to be a Sikh without being a Khalsa had only
negligible support among the Sikhs. The Sahajdharis were pushed to the
periphery. McLeod sums up the distinctive identity of the Sikhs in terms
of reverence for the ten Gurus, the practice of nam simran, veneration for
the scripture, and acknowledgement of the sanctity of the Gurdwara.
Other features were added from the legacy of Guru Gobind Singh:
initiation into the Khalsa and observance of the rahit (including the Five
Ks), belief in the end of personal Guruship at the death of Guru Gobind
Singh, and vesting of the authority of the Guru in the Adi Granth and the
corporate community. Those who declined to accept the basic
requirements of the rahit could still be accepted as Sikhs but only on the
understanding that they were failing to discharge customary duties.
McLeod’s search for uniformity in identity gives primacy to objectively
defined features of identity.
We may add that in any given historical situation objective realities
and subjective self-image are intermeshed in a consciousness of distinct
identity in relation to others. As the product of these variables, identity