Extract
Sikh fundamentalism.
Is there such a thing as Sikh fundamentalism? Sikh theologians deny that such a concept can be applied to their faith and would presumably explain the recent situation in the following terms. Most Sikhs do not ever hear or read the term (or its translation) and few of those who do encounter it ever understand it. Of the tiny minority who do both hear and understand it practically all dismiss it as a term which could be applied to Sikh belief.(1) It is a Western term, foisted on the Sikhs by the loose usage of journalists. The term is certainly used in recent publications with marked frequency. It is, however, one which has been transferred from its Western context to the Islamic movements associated in particular with Iran, and from there was conveniently appropriated to describe the Sikh movement for Khalistan. The Khalistan movement was regarded as extreme and therefore it was fundamentalist.
Is this a fair assessment? It is true that many of the participants in the campaign for an independent Sikh state ("Khalistan") were correctly described as activists or militants, and many of them adopted a traditional view of their inherited faith. It is traditional in the sense that they revere their Gurus and the sacred scripture. It is also traditional in that those who upheld it adhered to a view of history which sanctifies the use of the sword when the need is compelling and when all other means have failed. Many of them could be described as fanatical in maintaining this particular faith. But this is not fundamentalism. The term "fundamentalist" does not mean "traditional," on the one hand, nor "fanatical," on the other. It came to be increasingly used because journalists and other people in search of meaningful equivalents adopted this particular word as a loose equivalent of "fanatical." Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale was a fanatical exponent of Sikh separatism. Therefore Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale was a Sikh fundamentalist. This view of fundamentalism as an equivalent of "traditional" or "fanatical" seems, on the face of it, to be a wrong use of the term. Fundamentalism, surely, concerns a belief in the inerrancy of holy scripture. Before accepting that this view is mistaken, however, there are at least six questions which deserve to be considered. 1. Is our understanding of the term "fundamentalism" in the Sikh context astray? 2. Are there really any groups within the Khalsa which can legitimately be described as fundamentalist? 3. What should we make of the views of some Sikh writers, mainly in English-language journals (particularly those which circulate amongst overseas Sikhs), who sound suspiciously like true fundamentalists?(2) Are there some Sikhs who, under the influence of Western models, do adopt fundamentalism after all? 4. What are we to make of the usage by journalists and other commentators who appropriated the term to refer to militant Sikhs? Their introduction of the term may not correspond to its original meaning, but introduce it they assuredly have. 5. What should we make of the argument...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
