The Constitutional Moment at Anandpur (Part II of II)
A look at the Khalsa's creation through the lens of constitutional theory
In Part I of this Article,1 it was proposed that the development of Sikh nationhood that culminated in the Khalsa’s creation may be understood as a “constitutional moment” as per Bruce Ackerman’s theory of democratic change to American constitutional law. It was argued that, in the context of Sikh nationhood, there was an initial signal given by Guru Nanak through his rejection of existing spiritual authority and the providing of a simple spiritual life.2 As the early Sikh community developed, it would eventually be confronted by Mughal state forces in the execution of Guru Arjan.3 This resulted in a Proposal by Guru Hargobind, his teenage son, calling the Sikh community to arms and transitioning Guru Nanak’s assertion of spiritual independence into the political realm.4
But not all were ready to accept the Proposal. Guru Hargobind and his successors had to contend with institutional roadblocks in the form of worried masands, parallel lineages, and general hesitancy from the Sangat. There was a debate occurring between the mainstream Guru lineage and these institutions as to the true meaning of Sikh doctrine as began by Guru Nanak. As the young Guru Gobind inherits the Guruship, so too does he inherit this debate, with the stakes being the question of whether Guru Hargobind’s Proposal will survive.
This second Part of the Article will argue that Guru Hargobind’s Proposal may be properly understood as one calling for nationhood, and in addition, was the best interpretation of Sikh doctrine as found in the writings of the early Gurus. The political and literary activities of the young Guru Gobind may be viewed as providing support for this interpretation, so as to fully convince the Sangat of its merit. As we then arrive at Anandpur on Vaisakhi day, the Sangat is tested to determine if they have accepted this interpretation, and pass the test when the Panj Pyare rise to answer the Guru’s call. As a result, the Guru not only forever discards the Masand institution, he also invests the newly-created Khalsa Panth with eternal Guruship when he too is initiated into its fold.
The Article concludes with reflections about what the unwritten constitution of the Khalsa was at its birth, as well as the best method of constitutional interpretation for the Khalsa today. It may well be that the actual events at Anandpur did not occur in the way we retell the story in 2024, but the very fact that we continue to identify with the story of the Khalsa’s Founding makes us a part of a multigenerational project spanning ethnicity and territory. Properly understood, the Guru’s choice to invest Guruship in the Panth means we must think of ourselves as a part of that same Sangat of Guru Nanak, a collective narrative that the story of the Khalsa’s Founding helps make real and invests interpretive authority in the present.
I. REVISITING GURU HARGOBIND’S PROPOSAL
I.A. FRIENDS AND ENEMIES
First, recount the manner of Guru Hargobind’s Proposal. Gurbilas Patshahi Chevin noted that it was at his gurgaddi (the transfer of the Guruship) following the martyrdom of his father where Guru Hargobind announced his reform for the Sikh Sangat. He does not consult with anyone, rather as GP6 puts it, he is said to have heard the command of Akal Purakh who, after telling the young Hargobind that they are one and the same, ordered the construction of the Akal Takht for the purposes of confronting the Mughal state. When Hargobind faces the masands who gather at Darbar Sahib to adorn the teenager with the seli topi (silk cap) and mala (rosary) said to be of Guru Nanak, Hargobind refuses. He instead asks Baba Buddha, a respected Sikh elder, to bring him two swords to wear instead. In his first act as Guru, Guru Hargobind commands the assembled Sangat to from then on come to him armed, for the time has come to fight, or as GP6 would put it— to extract badla (revenge).5
But here one may question a call to arms is a proposal for nationhood. A reasonable reader may think to themselves that the simple suggestion that the Sikhs now avenge the execution of Guru Arjan is not akin to the formation of a national consciousness. One can perhaps imagine a religious movement that seeks simply to fulfill a certain aim in the existing political regime—say, perhaps, overturning certain Supreme Court precedents—without constituting a movement toward a new national identity.
In Part I, the reader was asked to consider the proposition that a constitution, whether written or unwritten, is preceded by a national consciousness.6 I now ask the reader to consider the proposition of Carl Schmitt, that “[t]he concept of the state presupposes the concept of the political.”7
What is the political? As Schmitt goes on to state, “[o]ne seldom finds a clear definition.”8 But to him, the basic idea of what makes something fall into the category of the political is “the specific political distinction … between friend and enemy.”9 And the enemy is not one with which one has some form of economic competition or conflict of policy,10 no, the enemy is one with whom actual violence is possible.11 He notes in a footnote that “a people cannot wage war against itself.”12 A state (whether actual or felt) is a product of the political entity, and “[w]ar is armed combat between organized political entities.”13
This may seem strange to a reader whose conception of the political revolves around a state’s internal politics—arguments about sensible policy, good economics, and the structure of government.14 But Schmitt, finding this insufficient to explain why such a people have decided to constitute a state, turns to the philosophy of Hegel. To Schmitt, Hegel’s theory on the development of human consciousness itself describes the beginning of the political.15 Tom Rockmore describes Hegel’s dialectic as “requir[ing] the subject to draw a distinction in mind between the object and himself.”16
Another writer describes this vague “object” in question as “somewhat consonant with the modern concept of ‘The Other.’”17 The subject in opposition to this Other may be a “social movement or new concept which likewise construes the world in its own way.”18 Returning now to Schmitt, he would here aver that within this process of self-discovery (completed by both individuals and social movements) is an assumption that the other is thus the enemy.19 Any entity created through this process (whether an individual person or, importantly, an organized collective) implies a mutual negation between itself and The Other that always “bears the danger of war.”20 Schmitt explicitly uses the example of religious movements21 that result in political entities,
A religious community which wages wars against members of other religious communities or engages in other wars is already more than a religious community; it is a political entity. It is a political entity when it possesses, even if only negatively, the capacity of promoting that decisive step, when it is in the position of forbidding its members to participate in wars, i.e., of decisively denying the enemy quality of a certain adversary.22
But of course, it cannot simply be that every group we feel ourselves to be a part of becomes its own state. One can imagine the different social entities that any citizen of a state may at any one time be a member of—”a religious institution, nation, labor union, family, sports club”23— that are simply innocuous. While one can be a member of different social entities, in Schmitt’s view, one cannot be a member of multiple political entities. To find which one of the individual’s social entities is their political entity is to ask “Which social entity … decides the extreme case and determines the decisive friend-and-enemy grouping?”24 In implicitly proving the supremacy of the “German” social grouping as the political entity for the German people, he considers whether a church could have overridden a decision by Otto Von Bismarck to declare war, and denies it to have been possible.25 Thus, the German social entity is “the supreme, that is, in the decisive case, the authoritative entity.”26
So, when Guru Hargobind calls upon the Sangat to come to arms, this was a call for the social movement began by Guru Nanak—the Sangat—to complete the process of self-discovery of itself, the highest act of which is the manifestation of violence against The Other. This is what is implicit in the statement of the Massachusetts senator from Part I, that when American soldiers fought the British in the first battles in the American Revolutionary War, “The order was given to British subjects. The order was obeyed by American citizens.”27
In the Sikh context, upon the first battle between the forces of Guru Hargobind and the Mughals,
“The order was given to Mughal subjects. The order was obeyed by Sikh citizens.”
I.B. THE NONDUALIST OBJECTION
However, here a clever reader may force attention to a contradiction which must be resolved. Although I avoided excessive exploration of Sikh doctrine in Part I, it is here where it must be asked why the message of the Gurus inspired some to pick up arms. In doing so, the Sangat became the social entity that had the power to decide the friend-enemy distinction, hence becoming political. Simply calling it a “social movement” isn’t enough if we are to understand the contours of Sikh national life.
The problem here is, if understood at a superficial level, the doctrine of the Gurus would seem to imply that “Sikh nationhood” or “Sikh statehood” is a contradiction. The essence of Sikhi is actually against the friend-enemy distinction of Schmitt.
ਨਾ ਕੋ ਬੈਰੀ ਨਹੀ ਬਿਗਾਨਾ ਸਗਲ ਸੰਗਿ ਹਮ ਕਉ ਬਨਿ ਆਈ
I see none as enemies or even as strangers, all have become like friends to me.
Guru Arjan, Raag Kanrha, Ang 1299.
The problem Sikhi seeks to resolve is the hurt, pain, and suffering that result from “our mind’s capacity … to differentiate itself.”28 The self-discovery that leads to the formation of both the individual and the political entity results in a falsehood, because “reality is made of a fundamental, unchanging element—only this can be said to truly exist.” But our personal or social identities, represented by names, make “a claim about what that thing is” which cannot be said to be correct in light of the truth about existence. And so, the “point” of Sikhi (insofar as there is one) is to “overcome the mind’s capacity to differentiate.” The only true name is that “which can be true when applied to everything,” and in the Sikh universe, this is the Satnam. The function of the Satnam, and thus Sikhi’s, is to “to return one’s consciousness to its origin.”
If one stops here, then the contradiction cannot be overcome. A Sikh nationalism would be going directly against the dictates of the Gurus—it would be carving out a part from the whole of reality, individuating a social movement out of humanity and indeed the larger reality of Ik Ongkar. This is, in fact, a common argument today against pushes for a Sikh state. I will call it the “Nondualist Objection.”
However, what this argument fails to do is understand how the Sikh is to overcome their own mind.
Sikhi is not alone in identifying the problem of human existence (the ego itself), and the solution (overcoming the ego). I have argued elsewhere that Buddhism, and more recently, Derek Parfit, have also reached similar conclusions (possibly strands of Vedanta as well).29 But where Sikhi offers a unique take is in what the individual is supposed to do in response to this problem. Some paths may stress renunciation and constant meditation as the path toward this liberation, while modern philosophers such as Parfit may assume that one may rationally argue their way into self-liberation. However, Guru Nanak eschewed the ability of reason alone to access such a state of mind.30 Instead, he emphasized experience through aesthetic and wonder through perception—the shaping of one’s consciousness through feeling which will lead one to actually realize this truth.31
Consider here why “Guru Granth Sahib is written in verse to be sung in ragas, and not cold philosophical prose.”32 As well as the fact that, according to Bhai Gurdas, Guru Nanak was always accompanied in his travels by Bhai Mardana the rababi (an Indian lute player).33 Two powerful forces were combined in spreading the Sikh message—the reasoning of Gurbani combined with the emotive aspect of Sikh practice—which together “struck something deep inside the people who heard it.”34
The Nondualist will of course accept that Sikh practice is experiential, but will argue this does not quite mean it should be political. But what the Nondualist forgets is this experience is meant to be done with fellow members of the Sangat.35 The very fact of the existence of the Sangat created by Guru Nanak meant that the Guru understood the impracticality, and in fact undesirability, of simply trying to guide each person into a solitary egodeath that will never come. The Guru understood that humans are inherently social beings—the process of individuation can never be truly overcome so long as our biology remains what it is—and so his solution was to unite people into a community that is based upon the beliefs of constantly trying to rise above the evils of the ego. And for that matter, what better practice could there be for losing one’s self than joining a collective experience?
From this premise arose the collective nature of Sikh practice—consider here kirtan (the singing of Gurbani in congregation), langar (the communal meal), vichar (contemplation and discussion). Such a community’s social life would, I posit, be a refuge from a broader society that emphasizes the importance of the individual. Perhaps even to the extent that some would be willing to fight and die to see this way of life maintained.
And so, the friend-enemy distinction that Guru Hargobind encouraged the Sangat to take up in his Proposal for nationhood is more complex than simply one of ethnic nationalism as Sikh statehood is often envisioned or strawmanned. Yes, he is asking for the Sangat to transform into a political entity, with a clear enemy (the Mughal Empire) which it is to have the capacity for violence against. But the ideals which have united and caused the people to form this political entity are grounded in actually erasing the friend-enemy distinction, and preserving a way of life in which people may collectively experience this erasure. The Sikh political entity is thus one dedicated to erasing the necessity of the political to the greatest extent possible.
Indeed there is a strong argument that such violence, the friend-enemy distinction, and the Sikh political entity were simply inevitable features of the teachings of Guru Nanak which inherently “challenge the moral authority of kings and administrators who deploy[] physical violence to stake their claim to power and dominion over others.”36 The Guru’s assertion that any one personal or social identity is inherently false was bound to catch the ire of the powers-that-be eventually. The enemy of the Sikh political entity is thus those powers which seek to assert their own personal identity over the actual through violence.
In a last bid for victory, the Nondualist may argue that of course existing states are false, but it would twist Sikh doctrine to create a political entity for the purposes of “preserving” a way of life centered around the truth. Better to simply submit and go along with whatever the existing sovereign decrees—after all, if all our personal identities are fake, does it really matter what we do?
The Sikh response would be that such a submission cannot realistically be motivated by liberation from the self—no, the more accurate assessment is it is the self’s own cowardice and self-interest leading one to submit. In situations in which adhering to Sikh practice and doctrine (which, again, are themselves grounded in the truth about reality) force one either pick up arms or discard Sikhi itself,
this is where Guru Nanak’s “game of love” truly comes into play. It is easy to claim to be pursuing a twisted version of the ego-death, in which one casts aside identity and societal mores when convenient to them. What is harder is to “bear witness” (become Shaheed) to the falsity of ego by willingly sacrificing one’s life, when one actually does want to continue living.37
That does not mean one rushes to violence. The Sikh belief is one that is ultimately life-affirming—again, it is through the aesthetic experience in this life that one pursues that deindividuation of the self. And the capacity for this experience is precious—it is what at the root of the innate value of every human being. How much does one’s martyrdom really mean something if they did not want to live anyway? To play the game of love,
one must not hesitate to give their head with the understanding that there may be much that would cause one to hesitate.38
It may have been possible for the Sikh Sangat to continue existing as a merely social entity had the Mughals not targeted Guru Arjan. But Sikh teachings would have led to some political power sooner or later targeting the community. The transformation into a political entity was bound to happen. But as I discussed in Part I, it was not instant. The Sikh Sangat did not all subscribe to the political supremacy of the Sikh identity, and the debate over whether such an interpretation was proper continued into the time of the young Gobind.
II. GURU GOBIND’S DELIBERATION
II.A. THE GROUNDWORK
The Guru-lineage represented by the young Guru Gobind39 was thus one that held that the Sikh Sangat is a political entity, and political violence and sacrifice are inevitable manifestations of Sikh doctrine regarding truth, reality, and the self. His own father, Guru Tegh Bahadur, is said to have told the Mughal authorities before his execution,
ਸੀਸ ਹੈ ਸੁਪਨਾ ਇਸ ਅੰਤ ਹੈ ਜਾਣਾ ।
The head you ask for is but a dream, in the end it is going to leave anyway.40
But as has been alluded to, this was not a vision the entire Sangat subscribed to. In addition to the problem of the masands, while Guru Gobind was “in confrontation with the Mughal emperors” there existed parallel Guru lineages who were “reconciled to the Mughal state.”41
A popular story, found in the rehitnama (code of conduct) of Bhai Chaupa Singh, reports that when the newly-made Guru Gobind found out that only two Sikhs were martyred alongside his father, he “decided that he would one day confer on his followers a visible identity which would render concealment impossible.”42 This is, of course, an allusion to the Khalsa’s distinct appearance. Considering Chaupa Singh’s Rahit-Nama is written more than half a century following the events it reports, this may just be a post-hoc rationalization of the prevailing Khalsa culture. But it is more than possible that the young Guru, spurred on by the execution of his father, would have seen a need for more Sikhs to adopt Guru Hargobind’s Proposal if the interpretation it represented was to have any chance of survival.
But if some members of the Sangat simply do not believe in such an interpretation, what should be done? As stated in Part I, Guru Hargobind had unilaterally commanded the Sangat to take up arms. Which, in light of the nature of the institution of the Living Guru, was his right to do. But the formation of the Sangat itself by Guru Nanak and his successors had occurred in a fundamentally personable manner—the twin modalities of reason and emotion appealed to something within the people who then willingly became Sikhs of their own accord. I will here proffer that the young Guru Gobind understood that for the Proposal to be accepted en masse, it would require the Sangat themselves making it theirs—it would need democratic legitimization. A period of Deliberation on the ideals of truth, violence, and sacrifice that Guru Hargobind had proposed will be necessary. Returning now to Ackerman, this won’t be “like a philosophy seminar … [t]here will be a great deal of passion and personality, action as well as argument, drama as well as debate.”43
And so the Guru undertook to convince the Sangat that the interpretation the Proposal represented was indeed correct. From the beginning of the young Guru’s reign he continued developing the Sikh military,44 and would reportedly be victorious in battle early into his Guruship with rival powers around Punjab.45 Following the victory, the Bachhittar Natak, a text attributed to the Guru, reports that he established his base at Anandpur,46 which was to eventually become the site of the Khalsa’s birth. His military successes appeared to have sparked an excitement amongst the people of Punjab—Mughal court records show that in 1693 Aurangzeb issued “orders to the faujdar of Sirhind to prevent crowds from collecting.”47 It is also worth noticing that the Guru in his political acumen began asserting a presence in the Sangats of the parallel Guru lineages. Following the death of his nephew Ram Rai, the Guru is said to have sent his Sikhs to Dehradun in order to ensure the deceased’s wife Mata Punjab Kaur became the next head of the order. He continued to ensure her protection afterwards as well—perhaps preparing to draw upon the Ram Raiyya community if necessary in the coming struggle.48
But overlooked in the buildup to Vaisakhi is the purpose and function of the literature produced by the Guru and his poets at his Anandpur court. Part of the deliberative process of a constitutional moment is refining the Proposal in the face of the initial institutional “logjam.”49 It is commonly understood that many of the writings attributed to Guru Gobind Singh glorify dharamyudh (war for righteousness). What is often less understood is these writings are situated in a larger metaphysical context that continues to expound the same understandings of truth, reality, and the self in the writings of the early Gurus. The Jaap and Akal Ustat compositions concerning the nature of the divine, reality, and humanity, are said to have been written by the Guru prior to Vaisakhi, as are the stirring tales of mythological wars and his own personal military exploits.50
Obviously, not everyone at the time was literate. But considering that there were manuscripts of these works floating around in Sangats by the middle of the eighteenth century51 it may be possible these works were being distributed around the Sikh world. Perhaps it is being read aloud, or sung, in the Sangats too far to see the Guru himself at Anandpur. And whoever has access to its contents, whether written or oral, will better understand the Proposal of Guru Hargobind—they will understand why Sikhs must become a political entity and how such a notion is completely in line with Sikh doctrine from the very beginning. Grewal asserts the purpose of the Dasam Granth writings appear to be clarifying the Guru’s conception of God, other religious beliefs and practices, and his own mission.52 Consider the famous lines from Bachhittar Natak,53
ਯਾਹੀ ਕਾਜ ਧਰਾ ਹਮ ਜਨਮੰ
For this purpose have I adorned a birth in this world,
ਸਮਝ ਲੇਹੁ ਸਾਧੂ ਸਭ ਮਨਮੰ
All Sadhus (holy people) are requested to understand this in their minds:
ਧਰਮ ਚਲਾਵਨ ਸੰਤ ਉਬਾਰਨ
It is to propagate Dharam (righteousness), and save the Sants (the holy)
ਦੁਸਟ ਸਭਨ ਕੋ ਮੂਲ ਉਪਾਰਿਨ
And to uproot all enemies by their very roots!
A couple of points to note here. First is the audience the Guru is speaking to. He asks the Sadhus to understand his mission. Sadhu is traditionally a word used for the holy who lead a path of renunciation, but in the Sikh vernacular may also mean a general member of the Sangat.54 It is thus possible to read Guru Gobind Singh as responding to the general pushback against the martial lifestyle instituted by Guru Hargobind, by asking the Nondualists to listen. He then states a part of his mission is to actually save them, here using the word sant to again signify lay members of the Sangat.55 He is putting forward the reasoning described in Section I.B above—that a politicization is necessary to preserve the Sikh way of life. Second, the Guru does not name the “enemy” he believes himself tasked with uprooting. Instead, he refers to sabhan (“all”) enemies. What would it mean to destroy the roots of all enemies? Perhaps it would be necessary to eliminate the friend-enemy distinction alluded to previously. So here, perhaps the Guru is implying a Sikh political entity is one dedicated to the erasure of the very concept of the enemy.
It is true that the Guru seems to be putting forward his mission as if it were simply a given that he will pursue it without regard for the Sangat’s acceptance. But in pairing the long and rousing descriptions of war in the Dasam Granth with elaborate poetic treatises on Sikh metaphysics, I think the Guru and his writers were implicitly appealing to the listener to understand his point of view—to understand the essence of Guru Hargobind’s Proposal. He understood that just as Guru Nanak had convinced people of his philosophy through the dual motor of reason and emotion, so too will the Proposal need to be accepted in the same manner.
The Guru also continues to communicate with the assorted Sangats throughout India by means of hukamnamas (royal decrees) in the vein of Guru Hargobind and Guru Tegh Bahadur. In many he asks the Sangat to come to him and bring horses, elephants, weaponry, and money.56 There does not appear to exist any one hukamnama calling the Sangat to Anandpur. However, it makes sense why this was unnecessary—on Vaisakhi day, it was already the case that “masands and the sangats used to come to Anandpur in large numbers”57 to give their offerings to the Guru.
II.B. INSTITUTIONAL DRIFT
As GP6 had noted, Guru Hargobind’s Proposal had led to some friction with the masands from the very beginning. It must here be remembered that this is a time prior to rail and satellite. The masands were representative of the Guru in distant Sangats, with Bhai Gurdas terming them as Gurmukh,58 and Koer Singh notes with disgust in his Gurbilas that masands are said to exclaim that “‘the Guru’ had come” when they visited the homes of Sikhs.59
To the extent that the early Sikh community may be said to have had a constitutional regime,60 there were at least four institutions that made up its unwritten constitution:61 the Living Guru, the Shabad Guru, the Masands, and the Sangat (in its singular and plural forms). One may argue that the parallel lineages (Dhirmalias, Ram Raiyyas, etc.) that have been discussed were also relevant institutions, but they were not ones intended to be a part of the framework that had sprouted from the early times.
However, it would appear that around the time of instituting the Khalsa, Guru Gobind had grown increasingly weary of having masands acting as power-brokers.
“According to the Chaupa Singh Rahit-nama, Guru Gobind Singh became extremely annoyed with the masands towards the end of 1697. A masand named Cheto had concealed something, but all the masands reacted as a body (when Cheto was to be questioned). Guru Gobind called them thrice, but they did not come … Hukamnamas were issued to the sangats, asking them not to accept the authority of the masands and not to give any offerings to them.”62
Multiple early authors corroborate the problem of masands being untrustworthy with the Sangat’s offerings that they were supposed to give to the Guru.63 Hukamnamas attesting to this now-open distrust of the masands are available as well, with one dated to March 12, 1699 by Dr. Ganda Singh.64 Hukamnamas from after 1699 also repeat the command to stay aloof of the masands.65
It would appear that in the Guru’s view, the institution of the masands were trying to frustrate his mission, just as they may have done so with Guru Hargobind’s Proposal. Note that the offerings the Guru is asking the Sangat to bring to Anandpur are not just ones of rupees (legal tender). No, the Guru is quite explicit in what he’d like from the Sangat in the hukamnamas around this time:
ਅਸਵਾਰ ਪਿਆਦੇ ਬੰਦੂਕੀ ਜਮੀਅਤ ਲੈ ਕੈ ਤੁਸਾ ਆਵਣਾ
“In groups, with horses, infantry, muskets you are to come to Anandpur…”66
If a masand fails to facilitate these offerings, a militaristic mobilization of the Sangat will be difficult. Note, it is completely possible that masands believed themselves to be doing the right thing. Perhaps they subscribed to the Nondualist Objection, or simply did not want to be a part of what was sure to be a rebellion doomed from the start against one of the world’s superpowers. Indeed, as is normal in constitutional politics, the institution of the masands seemed to have been acting as a check on the radical actions of another branch in the constitutional order—the Living Guru.
But as such interbranch struggles become more pronounced, they may strain the existing order and lead to more extreme tactics—even all-out political warfare. Such was the case when, in the aftermath of the election of Thomas Jefferson in 1800, the new President used his office in unprecedented ways to fight back against the Supreme Court’s assertion of judicial authority under Chief Justice John Marshall—”including a campaign to impeach Federalist judges and replace them with Republicans.”67
The office of the U.S. President is much like the Guruship in that (even if not intended by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution) the nature of the federal election allows candidates to cast “themselves as leaders of a popular movement of aroused citizens determined to renew and redefine constitutional values in the name of We the People.”68 But the Sikh community was not exactly early America. The Living Guru, so long as he existed, did “not just carry high moral standing in the Sikh world, but one of a supreme nature.”69 Or at least there were enough members of the Sangat who believed this such to the extent that Guru Gobind could do what he felt needed to rectify the masand issue. The solution being, not just the American push and pull between the branches, but the final termination of the masands as an institution from the existing constitutional regime, for good, along with the elevation of the entire Sangat to become Khalsa.
II.C. RATIFICATION: THE SANGAT’S TEST
We now arrive at the most critical step of the constitutional moment—determining whose vision will win out during this “further period of mobilized deliberation”70 that was spurred on by pushback for the initial Proposal’s defeat from the existing order. The citizens “recognize that our so-called representatives are up to something special” in formulating “a self-conscious challenge to our fundamental law.”71 Ackerman claims this to be a “distinctive feature of American higher lawmaking,”72 but I will here claim that this too accurately describes the period between Guru Tegh Bahadur’s martyrdom and Vaisakhi at Anandpur.
To determine whose vision of the Constitution won the Deliberation, Ackerman proposes that in this “final ratification” there should be “a larger fraction of the American people giv[ing] the proposal deep support.”73 At least some of the “conservatives” who wanted to preserve the status quo must be convinced that “the substance of our higher law has outlived its time and needs self-conscious reconstruction for a new age.”74 Checking for this in the American context is easy—simply tally up the votes. But what does this look like in the Sikh context?
Here I will propose that the method of ratification of the Sikh constitutional moment, at least in its early form, is the Sangat’s Test. Recall in Section II.A. that in the early years of his Guruship, Guru Gobind sought to convince the Sangat of the necessity of Guru Hargobind’s Proposal through literature, action, and politics. This is emulative of the way Guru Nanak “won over followers based upon the self-apparent strength of the arguments and beliefs he presented.”75 But how can we tell whether the Sangat has truly been convinced of Guru Nanak’s Signal and Guru Hargobind’s Proposal?
One may here reply, “Well, you can hold a vote.” And it would seem reasonable to assume the people in the early Sangat did believe in Guru Nanak’s doctrines based upon the fact that they were the Sangat.
But this would be an insufficient metric precisely because of what the Signal and the Proposal demand from the individual. The interpretation of Guru Nanak’s Signal that holds truest to its core premise of the falsity of self requires action and sacrifice from the individual when such is needed, as argued in Section I.B. The question then becomes is the individual able to hold true to this.
The way Guru Nanak determined whether his disciples had truly grasped the essence of the Sikh path was through tests. I promised in Part I of this Article to return to the concept that the Guru “could simultaneously be the Guru and the follower.”76 Possibly one of the most key moments in early Sikh history is the transfer of the Guruship from Guru Nanak to his Sikh, Bhai Lehna, who becomes the second Guru—Guru Angad—with his name literally meaning “a limb of the body” (of Guru Nanak).
The Puratan Janam Sakhi, admittedly not a source contemporary to when this transfer would have occurred,77 describes several tests that Guru Nanak put Lehna through in order to confirm his actual understanding of Sikhi. According to the Janamsakhi, these include doing messy fieldwork in fresh new clothes and being prepared to eat a corpse (that turns out to be Guru Nanak laying there).78
Such tales may of course sound fanciful, but they sound in a tradition in which the all-encompassing Oneness of reality is affirmed as the ultimate truth. A Sikh does not need to go out of their way to show their understanding by purposefully staining one’s clothes, but one must not be controlled by their possessions. A Sikh may eat comfortably as per normal convention, but should understand that in reality there is no elemental difference between a human corpse and the chickpeas one may eat.
The test of Lehna is extremely relevant to understanding Vaisakhi because not only does Sikh tradition hold that on that day Guru Gobind similarly tested the Sangat, the function of the test was to be the same (and as will be shown, even other early writers note the parallels between the two events). The function of Lehna’s success in passing Guru Nanak’s test was not simply attaining the title of the Guru—according to Sikh doctrine, he became Guru Nanak,
ਥਾਪਿਆ ਲਹਿਣਾ ਜੀਵਦੇ ਗੁਰਿਆਈ ਸਿਰਿ ਛਤ੍ਰ ਫਿਰਾਇਆ
Establishing Lehna while still alive, Guru Nanak put the canopy of Guruship over him,
ਜੋਤੀ ਜੋਤਿ ਮਿਲਾਇਕੈ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਨਾਨਕ ਰੂਪ ਵਟਾਇਆ
Merging his light with Lehna’s, Satguru Nanak simply changed his form.79
The custom in India at the time was often such positions of authority would simply be passed down within a family line,80 as the Guruship did following Guru Ram Das. But Guru Nanak, instead of giving the Guruship to his son Sri Chand (who was himself an accomplished spiritual ascetic), gave it to Lehna. And what’s more, after this was completed, Guru Nanak himself is said to have touched the feet of Guru Angad, and treated him as if he were his Guru too.81
This also helps explain the function of the Living Guru—it is to help the Sikh overcome their own duality, and in doing so eventually overcome the dichotomy between Guru and Sikh. And so, as we near discussion of the pivotal moment of Vaisakhi itself, I have one last thought for the reader to consider. Perhaps, just as the Guru had come to the conclusion that the masands had outlasted their function, he also wanted to test the Sangat to determine whether the institution of the Living Guru was still required. The test to ratify the Khalsa’s nationhood was one that tested whether the Sangat had understood Guru Nanak’s Signal, which was “in some sense, a ‘declaration of independence.’”82 Vaisakhi hence may be understood as a radical change in two institutions of the old regime—both the termination of the masands and the concept of an individual as Living Guru.
III. THE PANJ’S CODIFICATION
III.A. OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE
In Ackerman’s theory, if the constitutional moment has been won by those seeking change, then “[t]he time has come for sober legal codification of the new constitutional solution.”83 In his classical system (one that rigidly adheres to the text of the U.S. Constitution) this is the formal amendment to the text,84 while in what he describes as the prevailing modern system, this is “a series of landmark opinions, which inaugurate the radical revision of preexisting doctrine.”85
The transition between what Ackerman deems as “final ratification” and the “codification” stages of the constitutional moment are a bit murky, especially as applied in the Sikh context. Part of what Ackerman’s theory assumes is different entities involved in the respective stages—it is “the People” who will perform the final ratification through the reelection of a radical President and Congress, while it is the Supreme Court that engages in Codification to respect this choice.86
In the Sikh constitutional moment, at least as far as Anandpur is concerned, there was not two different entities ratifying and then codifying their approval of the refined Proposal. Rather, it was the Sangat that did both. The ratification in the Sikh context is the actual change in the Sikh’s heart that will lead him to accept the Proposal—the groundwork of which had already been laid by Guru Gobind. The Codification will be the physical manifestation—standing up to answer the Guru’s Call.
In narrating the Call of the Guru, Kavi Sainapati writes in Sri Gur Sobha of the refined Proposal of Guru Gobind as follows,
ਤਜ ਮਸੰਦ ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਏਕ ਜਪ, ਯਹਿ ਬਿਬੇਕ ਤਹਾਂ ਕੀਨ
Leave the masands and recite that the divine is One—with this wisdom did the Guru make his address
ਸਤਿਗੁਰੁ ਸੋ ਸੇਵਕ ਮਿਲੇ, ਨੀਰ ਮੱਧ ਜੱਯੋ ਲੀਨ
And so the disciples met with the Satguru, feeling at home just as a fish in the water.87
In Grewal’s analysis, “Koer Singh is the first Sikh writer to refer to the call for heads.”88 Sainapati, said to be writing before him, does not mention such a call. However, to be clear Koer Singh’s Gurbilas is not exactly late compared to the Sikh literary universe at large—Sainapati’s writings, thought to be written sometime around 1711, is the only other source of the episode to be clearly dated to prior to Koer Singh. After this, it is not until Koer Singh’s Gurbilas, dated around 1751 that the Khalsa’s creation is renarrated.89
According to Koer Singh, the Sangat that gathered on Vaisakhi had heard rumors, perhaps began by the Guru himself, that the goddess Chandi had been incarnated through a ritual by the Guru.90 He asserts the Guru was planning a trick to test his Sangat, and stood before them asking,
ਸਨਮੁਖ ਪੂਰਾ ਸਿਖ ਹੈ ਕੋਈ । ਸੀਸ ਭੇਟ ਗੁਰ ਦੇਵੇ ਜੋਈ ।
Is there any complete Sanmukh (lit. facing the Guru) Sikh? One who can give their head as an offering?
To fully appreciate the rhetorical whip of the Guru, recall that Vaisakhi is where the Sangat would gather with offerings for the Guru’s treasuries. This time he asks for the ultimate sacrifice as bhet, an offering. Koer Singh then goes on to narrate,
"He gave the call three times before a Sikh stood up. He was taken into a tent where a male goat was slaughtered and its blood could be seen flowing out. The Guru gave another call and another Sikh stood up. He too was taken into a tent and a male goat was slaughtered. In this way, the Guru chose five volunteers.”91
This may seem, to the lay reader, emotionally manipulative, unethical, and almost horrifying in a way. I will not admonish their reader to avoid some form of moral relativism—as Koer Singh explains it, some Sangat members immediately accuse the Guru of having gone mad (reminiscent of the reaction to Guru Hargobind’s Proposal), so it wasn’t as if all thought this normal.92 But consider that the Guru likely knew the history of the Guru Nanak, his predecessor—it may be possible to assume he would have known the history of tests that Guru Nanak administered to Lehna, and that other Gurus had done with other Sikhs, and saw himself as simply continuing this tradition. In fact, Kaushish of Guru Kian Sakhian makes this parallel clear, stating “when the Sikhs were tested in the time of Guru Nanak, only one Sikh, Lehna, had passed the test. Now, there were five willing to die for the Guru.”93
So what exactly was the significance of the five volunteers standing up to offer their head—each under the impression that he was truly about to die? A rationalist may dismiss this event, to the extent that it even happened, as one of simple religious frenzy common in cults across the world.
But here one must consider the message that the Five were responding to by standing. The Guru, in asking for the Sikh’s head, is promising to complete the transformation of the individual that Sikhi is built upon, in which the “Sikh moves from their name, with its ultimately false identity and frustrating limitations, to the Satnam, the True Name of an undifferentiated [reality/Beloved].”94 This was manifested in the gifting of the surname Singh (lit. tiger) to the newly-initiated.
This occurrence—the renaming of the five—often focuses on the martial nature of the surname Singh, which had traditionally been reserved to Rajputs of the Kshatriya caste in India. Which should not be ignored—this makes clear the political nature of the new order. However, what must also be emphasized is that the common name of Singh, now having been adopted by the five men who had stood up to answer the call, served as a negation of a particularly odious manifestation of personal identity—caste. Koer Singh notes the castes and locations of the five men being “a Sobti Khatri of Lahore … a Chheepa of Dwarka … a Nai of Bidar … a Jat of Hastinapur … and a Jhiwar of Jagannath.”95 The first two castes were generally regarded as higher in the traditional Indian hierarchy, with the latter three as low. But as Singhs, they were now thought to have put such identities behind them.
One may interject that the gifting of the name Singh has little to do with moving toward the Satnam, which must “be true when applied to everything.”96 However, note the mind’s capacity for language and naming simply cannot be defeated, at least in this stage of our evolution.
It is not through disengaging with society, or the mental gymnastics involved in ‘letting go’ of the ego, or any one magical formula that one ‘remembers’ (simar) their common origin.”97
One must feel this common origin. And so, the renaming of the Khalsas with a name that evokes a feeling of transcendence, duty, and sacrifice—all required by Guru Hargobind’s Proposal—would serve as a reminder of this “common origin.” Indeed, the Khalsa continuing its function as a Sangat within which the individual remains in this remembrance is alluded to by Sainapati,
ਅਨਿਕ ਜਤਨ ਕਰਿ ਬਾਰਿ ਬਾਰਿ, ਬਿਨ ਸਤਿਸੰਗ ਮਿਲਾਪ ।
The individual may try countless schemes over and over, but without joining the Sat Sangat—
ਚੌਰਾਸੀ ਫਿਰ ਫਿਰ ਪਰਤ, ਮਿਟਤ ਨਾਹਿ ਸੰਤਾਪ ॥
They will continue in the cycle of birth and death, with no end to their suffering.98
At this point, the Sangat, in the form of the Five, has proved themselves to have grasped the essence of Sikhi. Koer Singh writes the Guru as having stated,99
ਸ੍ਰੀ ਆਨਨ ਤੇ ਬੈਨ ਉਚਾਰੇ । ਸੁਨੋ ਖਾਲਸਾ ਜੂ ਮਨ ਧਾਰੇ ॥
And then the glorious voice stated, “Listen respected Khalsas and enshrine this in your mind,
ਤੁਮ ਹੋ ਮੋ ਕੋ ਪਰਮ ਪਿਆਰੇ । ਜਬ ਮੈ ਸੀਸ ਮੰਗੇ ਥੇ ਥਾਰੇ ॥
“You are my complete Beloveds, for when I asked for your head you gave it.”
The word used for Beloveds—Pyare—entered the common Sikh lexicon, and we now refer to the five volunteers as the Panj Pyare (Five Beloved). Because they have passed the test, the Guru is now prepared to recognize them as a political entity to whom he is going to gift political might by bestowing upon them the authority of the Living Guru. Recall here Schmitt’s thesis that it is the social entity one is a member of that decides “the possibility of conflict” that determines the political entity.100 If a religious movement has become so potent so as to decide this possibility for its members, “then these forces have in actuality become the new substance of the political entity.”101 And so the Guru is said to have stated,102
ਸਭ ਜਗ ਰਾਜ ਤੋਹਿ ਕੋ ਦੀਨਾ । ਪੁਨਿ ਬਿਧਿ ਸੋ ਤੁਮ ਕੋ ਗੁਰ ਕੀਨਾ ॥
“I shall bestow upon you rule of the entire world, because through this virtuous act you have blossomed into Guruship.
ਜਾ ਵਿਧਿ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਤੁਮ ਗੁਰ ਪਾਯੋ । ਤੈਸੇ ਮੋਹਿ ਮਿਲਾਯੋ ਭਾਯੋ ॥
Through this ceremony of amrit (khande ki pahul) I have given you the Guruship, and in this way I have made you one with myself.
The ceremony of khande-ki-pahul as described by Chaupa Singh is “prepared by stirring water with patashas (sugar cubes) in a large bowl by a dagger” while Gurbani is recited, after which it is administered to the neophyte and he is asked to utter, “Vaheguru ji ka Khalsa, Vaheguru ji ki Fateh.”103
The symbolic use of the dagger and the patashas (sugar cubes) is of relevance, but first consider the distinction now drawn between Khalsa as used by the Gurus prior to this occasion and now. As was mentioned in Part I, the usage of the word “Khalsa” began with Guru Hargobind, possibly as a response to the encroachment of the masands. But now, it has taken on another form, one not just referring the to any Sikh, but one who has undergone initiation by the double-edged sword into a new community who is said to be the Khalsa of Vaheguru.
III.B. THE PANTH’S CORPORATE BODY
The new body of Sikhs formed through pahul initiation is referred to as its own “Panth” (spiritual community) by several of the sources around this time. In describing a history of religion in Bacchittar Natak, a text generally attributed to the Guru, he writes of others who began their own Panth,
ਜੇ ਕੋਈ ਹੋਤਿ ਭਯੋ ਜਗਿ ਸਿਆਨਾ
Whoever thought themselves wise in this world,
ਤਿਨ ਤਿਨ ਅਪਨੋ ਪੰਥੁ ਚਲਾਨਾ
They established their own Panths.
ਪਰਮ ਪੁਰਖ ਕਿਨਹੂੰ ਨਹ ਪਾਯੋ
None found the Complete Man,
ਬੈਰ ਬਾਦ ਹੰਕਾਰ ਬਢਾਯੋ
Instead remaining engrossed in enmity, debate, and ego.104
The Guru then notes his mission given to him from a God-like being as follows,
ਮੈ ਅਪਨਾ ਸੁਤ ਤੋਹਿ ਨਿਵਾਜਾ
“I have fashioned you as my own son,
ਪੰਥੁ ਪ੍ਰਚੁਰ ਕਰਬੇ ਕਹ ਸਾਜਾ
And manifested your birth for the propagation of the Panth.
ਜਾਹਿ ਤਹਾ ਤੈ ਧਰਮੁ ਚਲਾਇ
Wherever you go you are to establish Dharam,
ਕਬੁਧਿ ਕਰਨ ਤੇ ਲੋਕ ਹਟਾਇ
And bring people away from evil deeds.105
It is here where one should note that the early Sikh Sangat established by Guru Nanak was also called a Panth by Bhai Gurdas,
ਮਾਰਿਆ ਸਿਕਾ ਜਗਤ੍ਰਿ ਵਿਚਿ ਨਾਨਕ ਨਿਰਮਲ ਪੰਥ ਚਲਾਇਆ
Minting his coin in this world, Nanak established the Nirmal (spotless) Panth.106
But of course, this early Panth was inextricably tied to the institution of the Living Guru. Guru Gobind makes it clear he is doing something qualitatively new in the establishment of a Panth—this is the fundamental change to the constitutional regime of Living Guru, Shabad Guru, Masands, and the Sangat. As has already been shown, one function of this new Panth is the elimination of the Masand institution. But, as will be shown, the second function is the final merging of the Living Guru and the Sangat into the Guru Khalsa Panth.
Sainapati himself titles the chapter of the Khalsa’s creation as,
ਖਾਲਸਾ ਪੰਥ ਦੀ ਰਚਨਾ
The creation of the Khalsa Panth107
and Koer Singh’s Gurbilas does the same.108
So, while the establishment of the Khalsa Panth is one of a community that has continuity with the Sangat of Guru Nanak, it is also different. Consider the commands of Guru Gobind to the first five Khalsas as per Koer Singh,
ਝੂਠੇ ਸਰਬ ਉਪਾਵ ਤਿਆਗੋ । ਸ੍ਰੀ ਅਸਿਧੁਜ ਕੀ ਚਰਨੀ ਲਾਗੋ ।
Forget all the false schemes of ritual. Grasp the feet of the divine Sword.
ਪੋਥੀ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਪੜ੍ਹੋ ਸਦ ਨੀਤਾ । ਜਪ ਰਹਿਰਾਸ ਕੀਰਤਨ ਚੀਤਾ ॥
Read from the pothis (hymnbooks) and the Granth everyday, recite Rehiras and Kirtan as memorized.109
In the first two lines we have a call for the politicization of the Sangat made explicit in the Sword being made the object of divinity. But in the second the Guru is said to have reemphasized the spiritual practice common from the beginning of the Sangat—the reading of Gurbani.
This continuation of spiritual practice is essential in order for the second function of the Khalsa Panth to be fully realized—to take over as Living Guru following the inevitable passing of Guru Gobind. The Sikhs who join the Khalsa Panth must temper their consciousness through the imbibing of Sikh doctrine in the Shabad in order to be truly said to be the Guru—a tempering that occurs “in the aesthetic, in the arts, in feeling” that forms the basis of Sikh practice since the time of Guru Nanak.110
ਤਖਤਿ ਬਹੈ ਤਖਤੈ ਕੀ ਲਾਇਕ
One who sits on the throne should be fit for such a position,
ਪੰਚ ਸਮਾਏ ਗੁਰਮਤਿ ਪਾਇਕ
Merging in the self-selected body, he becomes an infantryman of Gurmat.
ਆਦਿ ਜੁਗਾਦੀ ਹੈ ਭੀ ਹੋਸੀ ਸਹਸਾ ਭਰਮੁ ਚੁਕਾਇਆ
All doubts are removed that he is the elemental reality that has been present in the beginning, throughout the ages, and will be for the foreseeable future.
Guru Nanak in Raag Maru, Ang 1039.
Dr. Gurnam Kaur uses these lines to explain why Lehna had to be tested to become Guru Angad.111 But the same idea permeates the reason for testing the Sangat when creating the Khalsa Panth. For they too are now to function as the Living Guru, but instead of there being only one human body who fulfills this role, it will now be the collective Panth. This is made clear from the fact that following the administering of pahul to the Panj Pyare, the Guru is said to have himself took this same initiation into the Khalsa from their hands. It is at this point that Guru Gobind, himself a Khatri of the Sodhi clan, becomes Guru Gobind Singh.
Koer Singh writes,
ਉਤਰ ਸਿੰਘਾਸਨ ਜੁਗ ਕਰ ਜੋਰੀ । ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਲੇਤ ਆਪ ਸੁਖ ਗੋਰੀ ।
Coming down from his throne, the Guru put both hands together to accept the pahul. The Embodiment of Happiness (the Guru) then himself received initiation.112
This is roughly in line with how the story is commonly told today (if a little quick), that the Guru knelt in front of the Panj Pyare himself to receive the pahul. This incident is further fleshed out in Bhangu’s early 19th-century Panth Parkash as follows,
ਵਹੀ ਵਰਤਾਰੋ ਭੁਜੰਗਨ ਵਰਤਾਯੋ । ਆਪਸ ਗੁਰ ਚੇਲਾ ਕਹਿਵਾਯੋ ।
The same procedure did the Bhujangis (the Panj Pyare) follow, and the Panj and the Guru termed each other “Gur-Chela” (Guru and Follower).
ਯਹੀ ਆਦ ਹੁਤ ਆਯੋ ਵਰਤਾਰਾ । ਜਿਮ ਨਾਨਰ ਗੁਰ ਅੰਗਦ ਧਾਰਾ ।
Such has been the procedure since the very beginning—it is in this fashion that Nanak established Guru Angad.113
It would thus appear that, according to Bhangu, the moment that the Guru himself took pahul from the Panj Pyare was akin to Guru Nanak recognizing Lehna as the next Guru as mentioned in the Puratan Janam Sakhi. The two entities, the Panj and the Guru, enter a dialogue where they term both of each other as both Guru and Follower. And so, the Khalsa is no longer the possession of the Guru in the meaning of the term as Guru Hargobind and Guru Tegh Bahadur used it to describe the Sangat at large. No, now the Khalsa—refined to those who showed they are worthy of being so—is the Guru.
To summarize, the Khalsa becomes a Panth, the supreme Panth, and this Panth becomes the Guru. Thus the phrases Guru Khalsa114 and Guru Panth115 come into vogue by the time of mid-eighteenth century Khalsa literature. Dr. Ganda Singh offers a perspective on these different stages of the Khalsa,
“Apart from [using the word Khalsa for the entire Sangat prior to Vaisakhi] the Guru also used it in reference to those who on Vaisakhi of 1699 took amrit of the khanda and became Singhs of the Guru … [I]n essence leaving their prior dharam, family lineage, and occupations, and indeed their relations to the wider world, they became the Khalsa of the Guru. But because Guru Gobind Singh himself took amrit from the Singhs he had created and merged his own essence within this collective, and because he took upon the same rahit (code of conduct) given to the Khalsa: the difference between Guru and Sikh was erased and becoming One, all amritdhari (initiated) Singhs became the Khalsa of the Akal Purakh (Immortal Being) Vaheguru. For the function of the collection of offerings, the entire Sikh Sangat was Guru ka Khalsa (the Guru’s Khalsa), while on the spiritual level every Singh became Vaheguru ji ka Khalsa (Vaheguru’s Khalsa).116
Of course, the query now is what is the Vaheguru to which the initiated is said to be the Khalsa of. Today, Vaheguru is commonly understood as the name of the divine in the Sikh understanding. It is a term which is used in some earlier Sikh literature like the writings of Bhai Gurdas, and I have written elsewhere that while certainly a mantar (mantra) used, the word Vaheguru perhaps was not meant to be used as the actual name of “the Beloved”—the elemental truth at the heart of Sikh doctrine—that object, properly understood, is nameless.117
There is an argument to be made that perhaps Vaheguru was referring to Guru Gobind Singh himself, and so Vaheguru ji ka Khalsa is really just the same thing as Guru ka Khalsa. After all, the literal meaning of the term would appear to be an expression of wonder toward the Guru (Vah!), and there were terms like Akal Purakh and Mahakal used in literature attributed to Guru Gobind Singh that would have more clearly signified an entity that is not simply the Living Guru. Of course, this assumes one does not follow the doctrine that the Living Guru and the Sikh divine are entirely the same entity.118
But this argument cuts the other way as well—if the Guru was trying to simply state the same thing as Guru ka Khalsa, he could have just used those words. Instead, Chaupa Singh and Kesar Singh Chhibber write that upon the administration of pahul, the newly-initiated is made to recite “Vaheguru ji ka Khalsa, Vaheguru ji ki Fateh,” and to the extent this new greeting is mentioned, it is never in the form of “Guru ka Khalsa” or “Guru ki Fateh.”119
So, I think the best reading of “Vaheguru” as used in the Khalsa greeting is to refer to the “fundamental, unchanging element” that is the “only ‘thing’ that is actually true” but “cannot actually be named.”120 This is confirmed by later variations of the Khalsa greeting, which seem to imply that “Vaheguru” was interchangeable with other phrases known to refer to the same idea. As noted by Grewal,
“In two hukamnamas of the time of Banda, the sangats of Bhai Rupa and Jaunpur are ‘Akal Purkh jio da Khalsa’ (the Khalsa of the Immortal Being). In the hukamnamas of Mata Sundari and Mata Sahib Devi, the Khalsa belong to Akal Purkh … In a hukamnama issued from the Akal Takht (Amritsar), the issuing authority is referred to as ‘Sat Sri Akal Purkh ji ka Khalsa.’”121
More will eventually need to be said as to what the Akal Purakh is, generally translated to “Immortal Being.” But in short, while this is a correct literal translation, it fails to appreciate that this divine is a horizon that the Sikh is supposed to go toward, a vision of something greater, that being the truth of Oneness.122
And so, the creation of the Khalsa was completed. Its political mission is manifestly evident from the instructions said to have been laid out to it by the Guru. According to Sainapat, “the Khalsa [was] created to destroy demonic and evil-minded men.”123 Koer Singh, writing at the time of Afghan-Sikh conflict in the mid-eighteenth century, writes, “Deg, teg, and fateh (triumph) were ordained for the Khalsa. They were to rule in all three worlds.”124 In the eyes of Bhangu, writing near the height of Sikh power, the Guru prophesized, “Every Khalsa horseman would become a sovereign ruler.”125 The militaristic nature of the Khalsa’s injunctions are also relevant here.
The social entity of the Sikh Sangat was thus transformed into the political entity of the Guru Khalsa Panth. The interpretation of Sikh doctrine that disavows the Nondualist Objection, represented by Guru Hargobind’s Proposal, was refined by Guru Gobind Singh and deliberated upon by the Sangat until it was accepted in full by the Panj Pyare, codified by their answer to the call for heads. The masands were ejected from the Sikh world, and the institution of the Living Guru was handed off to the Khalsa, who are to be directly connected to the Oneness at the heart of Sikh belief. The Khalsa was indeed a political entity, a nation born without a formal state, who are to base their collective action upon the belief of the eradication of the friend-enemy distinction (at least, I believe it should if it would like to hold true to what being the Guru means).
IV. THE KHALSA’S UNWRITTEN CONSTITUTION
Of course, it may have not been as smooth as I just summarized. After all, we are discussing events that occurred in the past with no real way of knowing what exactly happened.
But here I must inform the reader that the purpose of this endeavor is not to simply describe what may have been the Khalsa’s constitution at a given point in time. No, as I stated in Part I, “I do believe that there, in fact, does exist” a political entity that may be properly deemed the Sikh nation, “a body of people such that even ‘if their government were destroyed by war or revolution, they would still tend to hold firmly together.’”126
In Ackerman’s view, there is a deep significance to the fact that “modern Americans tell themselves stories that assert the deep continuity of two centuries of constitutional practice.”127 To him, although other countries may continue to see themselves as the same people, the identification with the Constitution of 1787 is a feature distinctive to American culture—”[w]hile the French have run through five republics since 1789, we have lived in only one.”128
We, as Sikhs today, also tell ourselves a story that asserts a continuity with the past, one that usually involves the Khalsa’s creation at Anandpur. We may disagree as to whether the Khalsa is a nation, but very few of us would find the Panj Pyare leading a nagar kirtan as out of place. The story of the Khalsa’s Founding is one that almost every Sikh at least somewhat locates in their consciousness—it is one whose “continual re-telling plays a critical role in the ongoing construction of national identity,”129 much in the same way Americans tell and retell the story of the American Founding.
This is why it would not really change matters for Khalsa constitutionalism if we have the story wrong—if there was no call for heads, if Daya Ram did not stand in response, if there were no goats slaughtered to convince the Sangat that answering the Guru’s call meant certain death. What matters is we identify with this story, and what it represents. Koer Singh, writing in the mid-eighteenth century, could only be relying on secondhand accounts or oral tradition when he writes about the Guru’s call, yet he still finds it relevant to do so. Bhangu, writing in the next century, locates the sovereignty of the Panth he is so proud of in this moment as well. When we retell this story, whether by word or by act, and feel connected to the Khalsa Panth created as a result, this is implicitly a signal of the values we hold as a people today. This is why we may fight about what the significance of Vaisakhi is—is it the creation of a nation, the revival of a lost tradition, or simply the founding of a sect that will soon be forgotten in history? Because we know the story to be foundational to who we are as a people.
I have argued that Vaisakhi was the creation of a nation—the culmination of the Sikh Sangat into a political entity, a nation tasked with a mission to obtain sovereignty and bestowed with the status of the Living Guru himself to help it do so. The Khalsa may have the characteristics of a tradition, a sect, or even a cult, and I am sure some may be able to muster historical data to argue against the idea of the Khalsa’s nationhood. But to the extent the reader can reasonably see the Khalsa as a nation, the question is then, what is the Khalsa’s constitution?
Of course, the early Khalsa did not have a written constitution. But over the course of its history, it certainly had national institutions—being first constituted as one fighting force, then split into different warring groups as they attained territory in Punjab, sometimes uniting through the practice of the gurmatta before Maharaja Ranjit Singh combined a large number through force and marriage into the Sikh Empire—known internally as the Sarkar-i-Khalsa, or the Khalsa Government.
These institutions are relevant to understanding the Khalsa constitution, and the respective rise and fall of each may even be their own constitutional moments—instances of profound change to the existing Khalsa constitutional regime. However, we do not see any event in our history (at least, most of us don’t) as having forever terminated the continuity between the Panth’s creation and the (now global) Sikh community today. We locate the beginning of this story with the Sangat of Guru Nanak, and Vaisakhi at Anandpur functions as a constitutional moment in which the Living Guru facilitated the nation’s self-discovery.
It is beyond the scope of this Article to be able to offer a full description of the Khalsa’s unwritten constitution at the time it “arrived at a consciousness of its own identity.”130 However, what may instead be possible is an attempt to flesh out the constitutional principles of the Khalsa, as it existed at its creation.
Relevant here is Ackerman’s “problem of multigenerational synthesis,” which he uses to describe the duty of the Supreme Court in the wake of an American constitutional moment.131 For example, following the passage of the Reconstruction Amendments resulting from the Civil War, the Supreme Court’s task (whether they understood it or not) was to “identify which aspects of the earlier Constitution had survived Republican reconstruction.”132 Important here is the idea that by terming these changes as “amendments,” these were not breaks with America’s Founding, but were rather “fragments of an evolving whole that began in 1787.”133
So too was the Khalsa born out of a process that began long before its culmination, with every commentator on its Founding rooting its rise in the doctrines of Guru Nanak and the early Sikh community. And so the question is not just what are the principles of the Khalsa, but also what is “the impact of its new ideals on a host of other traditional principles.”134
But I will offer that, as properly understood, the principles of Guru Nanak and the Khalsa—both in substance and structure—are one and of the same. An activist interpretation of Sikh doctrine regarding self-falsity that seeks to check the unmitigated ego of any entity, be it a human individual or an empire, is a direct result of Guru Nanak’s assertion that only Oneness is true.135 But belief in this doctrine was not forced on anyone—Guru Nanak spread his message through reason and emotion, much in the same way Guru Gobind Singh convinced the Sangat of the correctness of Guru Hargobind’s Proposal.136 The function of many of the practices of the early Sangat and of the Khalsa are also similar—it is to help its members realize the elemental truth, because “this a process that can only be felt.”137 The Guru tests whether the Sangat has fully internalized this, and just as when Lehna passes, he becomes Guru—so too does the Khalsa Panth become the Guru Panth.138 The Guru Panth is blessed with the sovereignty of the Guru, first asserted by Guru Nanak himself against the strictures of existing belief.139
The substantive principles of the Khalsa as created at Vaisakhi are thus of justice, duty, equality, and freedom of thought. The structural principles are of democracy, republicanism, horizontal sovereignty, and authority vested in the present. To understand this last point on authority, it must be made clear that it was the Sangat who first gave the cry for the Living Guru, it was the Sangat who made Guru Nanak theirs, it was the Sangat who accepted Guru Hargobind’s Proposal, and it was the Sangat, in the form of the Khalsa Panth, who thus became the Living Guru.
Others may identify additional values, indeed I make no claim at all that the above list is comprehensive. Maharaja Ranjit Singh is once said to have dreamt of the following sentence, which he promptly had written down for him: “Wisdom, plan, distribution, country, politics, well-equipped troops and ever increasing prosperity by the grace of Immortal God.”140 These aren’t really all values per se, but perhaps one day they may be used in a Preamble to a written constitution for the Khalsa nation.
V. CONCLUSION: THE MATTER OF INTERPRETATION
Would the fact that the Khalsa did not have a written constitution mean it cannot ever have one? To the extent that we can even understand the workings of the early Khalsa constitution, how should we then apply its law to our own lives? Should we endeavor simply to understand how its early citizens understood their nation to function, and apply those same understandings today?
Some may believe so. The matter of interpretation, in their view, is simply one of original expected application—once we answer “how people living at the time … would have expected it would be applied,”141 the inquiry is finished. Of course, the world has changed since the time of the Khalsa’s founding, but to this interpreter, one can simply analogize “new phenomena and new technologies” to “phenomena and technologies that existed at the time of adoption.”142 So, one may argue, because Khalsa Sikhs may have been commanded to keep long-range weapons at the time of the Founding,143 they must each have access to the missiles or drones of today.
I believe such an approach, while well-intentioned, may be misguided.144 For it forgets who made the Khalsa in the first place, and who makes it now. Again, it was the Panj Pyare who stood to answer their Guru’s call—the Sangat—whose actions created the Khalsa at the behest of the Guru. Yes, the Signal came from Guru Nanak, the Proposal from Guru Hargobind, and the Call from Guru Gobind Singh, but it required acceptance (ratification) in the hearts of the Sangat to be given any authority. And it was this Sangat that was made into the Living Guru.
I will close by arguing that by handing Guruship to the Khalsa, the Guru himself made a choice about the best method of interpretation. In a written constitution, one may consider the choice to use a specific rule, a broad standard, or a vague principle as a choice “about what to settle at the time of adoption and what to delegate to future construction.”145 The Guru made a choice by resting his authority in the Panth—it was to trust us. It was to trust that his mission and that of his predecessors was safe with the Panth, that his Sikhs will read the Guru’s writings and in imbibing their meanings become like the Gurus, and so their choices will be equivalent to those of the Guru’s.
A constitution, whether written or unwritten, must set out rules and procedures, but it “must also be our law.”146 The Khalsa constitution can only be our law when “we identify with it and are attached to it, whether or not we consent to it in any official or legal sense.”147 To identify with its constitution, we must identify with the people who created it, imagining ourselves as a “collective subject—We the People”148 to whom the constitution belongs to. To Balkin, viewing the U.S. Constitution “as ‘our Constitution’” helps this imagination.149 The act of doing so
“accepts and endorses a constitutional story about who Americans are and what America is. We are the people who broke away from Great Britain and who created and ratified the Constitution to secure our liberty, and so too will be our successors.”150
We do not have a written constitution that we can accept as “ours” in a powerful act of narrative identity. But we do still have the Guru Panth. And we have the writings of the Gurus, the same Gurus that the Panj Pyare accepted as theirs when they stood to offer their head. For the Khalsa to continue its existence then, we not only should, we must see ourselves as the same Sangat that became the Guru Panth. And so, in the matter of interpreting our constitution, we must see ourselves as “carry[ing] forward the imagined political project that metaphorically connects us to those who came before us.”151 Perhaps then, the fact that the Khalsa has only an unwritten constitution does not mean it must always be this way. Perhaps one day again the Khalsa nation will have a state to call its own, and will this time desire to write a constitution. Perhaps the Preamble will look something like this:
We the Sangat of Guru Nanak, in Order to serve Akal, protect Dharam, fire the Cauldron, raise the Sword, protect the meek, and bring Satyug to the masses, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the Khalsa Republic.
[AUTHOR’S NOTE: In Part I of this Article it was promised that later developments of the Khalsa’s national life will be examined through the constitutional moment theory. While these are planned, I have found them now sufficiently beyond the scope of this Article, and will begin a new series looking at different Khalsa constitutional moments with the depth necessary to truly understand them.]
Khem Singh, The Constitutional Moment at Anandpur (Part I of II), Substack.com (Mar. 24, 2024),
See Khem Singh, supra note 1, at Section IV.
See id. at Section V.
See id.
See generally id.
Id. at Section I (”such an instrument presupposes there to be a group of people ready to enter into such a social contract”).
Carl Schmitt, The Concept of the Political 19 (transl. George Schwab, 2007) (originally published 1932).
Id. at 20.
Id. at 26.
Id. at 27-28.
Id. at 32 (“[f]or to the enemy concept belongs the ever present possibility of combat”).
Id. at 29.
Id. at 32.
See id. at 61 (in Schmitt’s view, while these are indeed discussions a people may engage in, they do not suffice on their own to explain the political—why have people decided to constitute a state?).
Id. at 62.
Tom Rockmore, Cognition: An Introduction to Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit 185 (1997).
Andy Blunden, The Concept of Object 2 (2015), https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Concept%20of%20Object.pdf.
Id.
Schmitt, supra note 7, at 63.
Id. at 63.
It is worth questioning here whether “religious” is the best categorization of the Sikh movement, indeed it may be the case that “philosophical” is the better, albeit still imperfect, category. See Arvind-Pal Singh Mandair, Philosophy (Sikhism), in Sikhism (Encylcopedia of Indian Religions) 302 (2017) (“Because of its inherent self-reflexivity Sikh philosophy has much greater potential for evolving conceptual frameworks for interpreting the teachings of the Sikh Gurus, adapting them to the lived experience of individual Sikhs and to different cultural environments and for conceptually engaging non-Sikh cultures.). I use Schmitt’s examples of religious movements because I think many readers may assume Sikhi to be more analogous to a religion. If one believes Sikhi to be closer to a philosophy, it is perhaps easier to see how it may result in creating a political entity.
Schmitt, supra note 7, at 37 (emphasis added).
Id. at 41.
Id. at 43.
Id.
Id. at 44.
Edward Tabor Linenthal, Sacred Ground: Americans and Their Battlefields 23 (1991).
Quotes in this paragraph are all from Khem Singh, What’s in a Name? Reflections on Naam, Substack.com (Mar. 26, 2024),
Id. at Section III.
ਸੋਚੈ ਸੋਚਿ ਨ ਹੋਵਈ ਜੇ ਸੋਚੀ ਲਖ ਵਾਰ ॥
ਚੁਪੈ ਚੁਪ ਨ ਹੋਵਈ ਜੇ ਲਾਇ ਰਹਾ ਲਿਵ ਤਾਰ ॥
ਭੁਖਿਆ ਭੁਖ ਨ ਉਤਰੀ ਜੇ ਬੰਨਾ ਪੁਰੀਆ ਭਾਰ ॥
ਸਹਸ ਸਿਆਣਪਾ ਲਖ ਹੋਹਿ ਤ ਇਕ ਨ ਚਲੈ ਨਾਲਿ ॥
Through simple rituals of purity one does not become pure, even if they do a hundred thousand,
By remaining quiet, inner peace is not obtained, even if one stays deeply focused for a long, uninterrupted time,
By keeping fasts, one does not appease their inner hunger, even with many worldly goods to do so,
A thousand clever tricks—heck, even make it one hundred thousand—you will not take even one of these with you.
Guru Nanak, Jap, Ang 1.
ਪੁਰਖ ਮਹਿ ਨਾਰਿ ਨਾਰਿ ਮਹਿ ਪੁਰਖਾ ਬੂਝਹੁ ਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਗਿਆਨੀ ॥
ਧੁਨਿ ਮਹਿ ਧਿਆਨੁ ਧਿਆਨ ਮਹਿ ਜਾਨਿਆ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਅਕਥ ਕਹਾਨੀ ॥੩॥
The female is in the male, and the male is in the female—one who understands reality will contemplate this,
The focus is in the melody, and within the focus one becomes Gurmukh—they can tell stories of the indescribable.
Guru Nanak, Ang 879.
Khem Singh, supra note 28, at Section V.
Vaaran Bhai Gurdas, Vaar 1, Pauri 25.
Khem Singh, supra note 28, at Section V.
Consider here the bani of Guru Amar Das in Anand:
ਆਵਹੁ ਸੰਤ ਪਿਆਰਿਹੋ ਅਕਥ ਕੀ ਕਰਹ ਕਹਾਣੀ ॥
ਕਰਹ ਕਹਾਣੀ ਅਕਥ ਕੇਰੀ ਕਿਤੁ ਦੁਆਰੈ ਪਾਈਐ ॥
ਤਨੁ ਮਨੁ ਧਨੁ ਸਭੁ ਸਉਪਿ ਗੁਰ ਕਉ ਹੁਕਮਿ ਮੰਨਿਐ ਪਾਈਐ ॥
ਹੁਕਮੁ ਮੰਨਿਹੁ ਗੁਰੂ ਕੇਰਾ ਗਾਵਹੁ ਸਚੀ ਬਾਣੀ ॥
ਕਹੈ ਨਾਨਕੁ ਸੁਣਹੁ ਸੰਤਹੁ ਕਥਿਹੁ ਅਕਥ ਕਹਾਣੀ ॥੯॥
Come my beloved saintly friends, let us tell stories of the indescribable,
Let’s tell these stories of the indescribable, through which we may reach Its door,
Let us give this body, mind, and wealth to the Guru and obtain the ability to obey the Hukam (Command),
Which Hukam is that? To sing the true words—
Says Nanak, listen my saintly friends, let us explain the stories of the indescribable.
Guru Amar Das, Anand, Ang 918.
As well as the effects of the Sangat as elucidated by Bhai Gurdas in Vaar 2, Pauri 6 (an extended metaphor in which just as the philosopher’s stone may turn copper into gold, so too can the Sangat elevate the individual into a representative of the divine—i.e., a self-realized being).
Arvind-Pal S. Mandair, Violence and the Sikhs 34 (2022).
Khem Singh, The Plea of the Shaheed: Defining Sikh Martyrdom Substack.com (Dec. 6, 2023) (section entitled “Guru Tegh Bahadur”).
Id.
As the time-period discussed is prior to Vaisakhi at Anandpur and the Guru’s own initiation in the Khalsa, the Guru does not yet carry the epithet “Singh” to his name.
Kesar Singh Chhibber, Bansavalinama 116-17 (Piara Singh Padam ed., 2005) (originally written in the 1760s).
J.S. Grewal, Guru Gobind Singh [1666-1708] : Master of the White Hawk 55 (2019) (the Minas, Dhir Mallias, and Ram Raiyyas).
W.H. Mcleod, The Chaupa Singh Rahit-Nama 44 (1987) (original document of mid-18th century origin).
I Bruce Ackerman, We the People: Foundations 287 (1993).
Grewal, supra note 41, at 68.
See id. at 76 (on The Battle of Bhangani in 1688 fought between Sikh forces and those of the Hill Kings of Northern Punjab).
The Bachhittar Natak may be found in Vol. I of Dr Rattan Singh Jaggi and Dr Gursharan Kaur Jaggi, Sri Dasam Granth Sahib (1999), https://www.searchgurbani.com/dasam-granth/page/135.
Grewal, supra note 41, at 82 (citing Chetan Singh, Region and Empire: Panjab in the Seventeenth Century 300 n.20 (1991)).
Id. at 78 (citing Bhai Svarup Singh Kaushish, Guru Kian Sakhian 94-100 (Piara Singh Padam ed., 1999).
Ackerman, supra note 43, at 286.
Grewal supra note 41, at 96.
Id. at 114 (quoting Robin Rinehart, The Dasam Granth, in The Oxford Handbook of Sikh Studies 136-46 (Pashaura Singh and Louis E. Fenech eds., 2014)).
See id. at 115.
https://www.searchgurbani.com/dasam-granth/page/124.
See Guru Nanak in Srirag on Ang 20 (“ਬਿਨੁ ਸੰਗਤਿ ਸਾਧ ਨ ਧ੍ਰਾਪੀਆ ਬਿਨੁ ਨਾਵੈ ਦੂਖ ਸੰਤਾਪੁ Without the Saadh Sangat the individual is not satisfied—without the Name, all drown in sorrow”) and Bhai Gurdas, Vaar 5, Pauri 5 (“ਸਾਧ ਸੰਗਤਿ ਗੁਰ ਸਿਖਿ ਮਿਲਿ ਆਸਾ ਵਿਚਿ ਨਿਰਾਸੁ ਵਲਾਏ The Gursikh, meeting the Saadh Sangat, lives in high hopes while also remaining indifferent to desire”).
Many translate these lines to refer to a certain category of the Sangat—elevated individuals who are somehow farther than the lay Sangat in their spiritual journey. This is likely informed by the modern usage of sadhu and sant by some as a title associated with Sikhs who command respect for their spiritual prowess. But I think it is likely that the Guru is appealing to the Sangat at large by continuing the practice in Gurbani of referring to the general Sangat using these terms as a sign of respect and endearment.
But even if one is inclined to believe that the Guru is only speaking to a certain class of “advanced” Sikhs, consider that sants and sadhus would be likely to be those who subscribe to the Nondualist argument regarding Sikh involvement in the political world, as they do today in the modern world. Such figures would be as much a part of the debate within the community, and due to their sway over the lay Sangat the Guru would likely find it necessary to convince them his mission is in line with core Sikh doctrine. So in either case, whether in response to a lay Sikh or one of renown, the Guru is responding to the Nondualist argument.
See Ganda Singh, Hukamname: Guru Sahibaan, Mata Sahibaan, Banda Singh Ate Khalsa Ji De (Punjabi) 26 (1999 ed.) (discussing the hukamnamas attributed to Guru Gobind Singh).
Grewal, supra note 41, at 130.
Bhai Gurdas, Vaar 11, Pauri 22.
Grewal, supra note 41, at 129 (translating Koer Singh, Gurbilas Patshahi 10 127-29 (Shamsher Singh Ashok ed., 1972).
See Ackerman, supra note 43, at 59 (describing a constitutional regime as “the matrix of institutional relationships and fundamental values that are usually taken as the constitutional baseline in normal political life”).
For discussion of unwritten constitutions, see Section I in Khem Singh, supra note 1.
Grewal, supra note 41, at 128 (citing Mcleod, supra note 42, at 84-85).
See id. at 128-31 (discussing similar instances in Sainapati’s Sri Gur Sobha, Kesar Singh Chhibber’s Bansavalinama, Koer Singh’s Gurbilas Patshahi 10, Sukha Singh’s Gurbilas Patshahi 10, Sarup Das Bhalla’s Mahima Parkash, Bhai Svarup Singh Kaushish’s Guru Kian Sakhian, and Ratan Singh Bhangu’s Sri Gur Panth Parkash).
See Ganda Singh, supra note 56, at 152.
See Grewal, supra note 41, at 131-32 (citing Ganda Singh, supra note 56, at documents 50, 51, 52, 54, and 59).
Ganda Singh, supra note 56, at 148 (in a hukamnama dated to August 2, 1696 to Bhai Sukhia and the Sangat of Roope).
Ackerman, supra note 43, at 73.
Id. at 71.
See Khem Singh, supra note 1, at Section V.
Ackerman, supra note 43, at 285.
Id.
Id.
Id. at 286.
Id. at 287.
Khem Singh, supra note 1, at Section IV.
Id.
Bhai Vir Singh, Puratan Janam Sakhi Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji 1-3 (transl. Joginder Singh Jogi, 2020) (noting internal evidence indicates it may have been written around the time of Guru Gobind Singh).
See id. at 130-32.
Vaar 1, Pauri 45.
Dr. Gurnam Kaur & Dr. Ranjit Singh Ghuman, Sri Guru Angad Dev: Gur Chela, Chela Guru vii-viii (2007).
See Bhai Vir Singh, supra note 77, at 135 (in the words of Guru Nanak, “‘By grace of you, the congregation is blessed’”).
Khem Singh, supra note 1, at Section IV.
Ackerman, supra note 43, at 288.
Id. at 289.
Id.
See id. at 286-89.
Kavi Sainapati, Sri Gursobha 59-60 (Kulwant Singh transl., 2014) (dated to 1711).
Grewal, supra note 41, at 133.
Id. Of course, one may still reasonably doubt whether the Guru ever actually called for heads in the manner we know today. However, it is important to note that in evaluating the later Khalsa’s constitutional regimes (which include that of today’s), the belief in this call is relevant to shaping how the Khalsa’s constitution developed over time.
Koer Singh, supra note 59, at 107.
Grewal, supra note 41, at 133 (translating and summarizing Koer Singh).
Id. (citing the same).
Id. at 134. (citing Bhai Svarup Singh Kaushish, Guru Kian Sakhian 118-20 (Piara Singh Padam ed., 1999)).
Khem Singh, supra note 28, at Section V.
Grewal, supra note 41, at 133.
Khem Singh, supra note 28, at Section II.
Id. at Section V.
See Sainapati, supra note 87, at 80.
Koer Singh, supra note 59, at 112.
Schmitt, supra note 7, at 39.
Id.
Koer Singh, supra note 59, at 112.
Id. at 133 (citing McLeod, supra note 42, at 82-83).
https://www.searchgurbani.com/dasam-granth/page/120.
https://www.searchgurbani.com/dasam-granth/page/122
Vaar 1, Pauri 45.
Sainapati, supra note 87, at 58.
Koer Singh, supra note 59, at 108.
Id. at 111.
Khem Singh, supra note 28, at Section V.
Kaur & Ghuman, supra note 80, at viii.
Koer Singh, supra note 59, at 112.
Ratan Singh Bhangu, Sri Gur Panth Parkash Volume I 88 (Kulwant Singh trans., 2010).
See Grewal supra note 41, at 136 (translating Sukha Singh, Gurbilas Patshahi Dasmi 217-19 (Manvinder Singh ed., 2016)).
The full title of Ratan Singh Bhangu’s epic (supra note 119) is Sri Gur Panth Prakash (the Revealing of the Guru-Panth.)
Ganda Singh, supra note 56, at 25-26 (author’s translation).
See Khem Singh, supra note 28, at Section IV.
Consider the following excerpt from Bachhittar Natak,
ਜੋ ਹਮ ਕੋ ਪਰਮੇਸੁਰ ਉਚਰਿ ਹੈ
Those who call me Parmeshwar (the complete divine),
ਤੇ ਸਭ ਨਰਕਿ ਕੁੰਡ ਮਹਿ ਪਰਿ ਹੈ
Will all end up in the pits of hell.
ਮੋ ਕੋ ਦਾਸੁ ਤਵਨ ਕਾ ਜਾਨੋ
Know me simply as the servant of that entity,
ਯਾ ਮੈ ਭੇਦੁ ਨ ਰੰਚ ਪਛਾਨੋ
But between that and I, recognize not even a slight difference.
These lines have been infamously used by those on either side of the argument regarding whether the Living Guru may properly be understood to be the Sikh divine itself. The first two lines are used by those who would argue that the two are different—the Guru is stating not to call him Parmeshwar. The last line is used to argue that the two are the same—the Guru is stating to disregard any differences. I offer an interpretation that may bridge these two sides: the first lines are in reference to the idea that one cannot capture the elemental reality into one living person. However, the essence of each person is actually within this elemental reality, and so the Guru clarifies that he as an individual is a servant to that underlying Truth.
See Grewal, supra note 41, at 131-34.
Khem Singh, supra note 28, at Section IV.
Grewal, supra note 41, at 145 (citing Ganda Singh, supra note 56, documents 66-67, 68, 70-72, 74-75, 77-79, 81-83, and 86).
See Khem Singh, supra note 28, at Section IV.
Grewal, supra note 41, at 135.
Id.
Id. at 134.
Khem Singh, supra note 1, at Section I (quoting Henry Sidgwick, The Elements of Politics 224 (1897)).
Ackerman, supra note 43, at 34.
Id.
Id. at 36.
I William Stubbs, A Constitutional History of England 1 (1874).
Ackerman, supra note 43, at 88.
Id.
Id. at 93.
Id. at 92.
See discussion in Section I.B.
See discussion in Section II.A.
Khem Singh, supra note 28, at Section V.
See discussion in Section II.C.
See Khem Singh, supra note 1, at Section IV.
III Lala Sohan Lal Suri, Umdat-ut-Twarikh: An Original Source of Punjab History 136 (V.S. Suri ed., 1961) (the court history of Maharaja Ranjit Singh).
Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism 7 (2011).
Id.
Grewal, supra note 41, at 136 (citing Sukha Singh, supra note 120, at 217-19).
I express no view on whether the missile example is substantively incorrect, as this is a discussion of method.
Balkin, supra note 141, at 43.
Id. at 60.
Id.
Id.
Id. at 61.
Id.
Id.