Introduction

For much of the world and many Americans, the religious community of the Sikhs is an invisible minority. Despite them being one of the largest religions in both the world and the US, Sikhs have been unable to carve out a separate nationalist identity. This is likely due to the Sikhs' inability to rule over a state. However, there was a time when the Sikhs dreamed of an opportunity to do so. The turbulent political history of the Sikhs in their home nation of India spanning from the 1940s to the 1980s ushered an age of Sikh defiance, prompting greater and greater calls for greater self-autonomy and even independence for the Sikh community. The primary exigence for the Sikhs’ disgruntlement with India stemmed from that of governmental policy, more specifically Indian centralization. Post-Britain India had the monumental task of building a nation that was administratively fragmented and economically backward. It went without saying that the government’s first order of business was to optimize its administrative structure in order to further the nation's interests. Centralization commitments, therefore, saw Sikhism’s birthplace in India, the state of Punjab, land and water access partitioned via the Punjab Reorganization Act of 1966. Nation-building efforts by India occurred simultaneously in order to incept a new, uniquely Indian nationalist identity in a bid to unify one of the most linguistically and religiously diverse nations in the world. The amalgamation of these conditions inflamed tensions for the Sikhs residing in Punjab. These Sikhs were now economically reliant on water to fuel their farms and also felt they had a distinct linguistic and religious connection to the region. As a result, Sikhs were becoming increasingly alienated by the new conception of Indian identity being predominantly religiously Hindu and Hindi speaking. The circumstances inspired action in the Sikh community beginning in the 1970s. Thus, leading to the increasing popularity of a Sikh socio-political united front called the Dharm Yudh Morcha (Righteous Campaign) and a rising Sikh political consciousness that helped bring a political party dubbed the Akali Dal Party to parliamentary prominence. Politically, both groups, united by the charisma of Sant Jarnail Bhindranwale, primarily espoused the ideas of autonomy from the Indian state as its solution to Sikh grievances; while, the idea of separation from India remained a fringe solution, until the 1984 Sikh Genocide, which made it clear to many Sikhs that diplomatic solutions may no longer have been a possibility. Socially, both groups also served as intermediaries for discourse regarding Sikh identity as leaders and the community became hopeful for some level of political change. Evidently, the pursuit of autonomy or independence became the advents for questions about which bodies were allowed in India and in Sikh spaces, and whether this new brand of movement was new Sikh nationalism, or just Sikhism in practice.

I argue in this exploratory article that Sikh’s religious nationalist identity has been powerfully influenced by historical and regional language ties and, thus, is not wholeheartedly reflective of Sikhism itself; in addition, I will showcase how the acceptability of particular Sikh bodies in Sikh circles was almost completely inspired by attacks on Sikh symbols through referencing the works of many prominent religious scholars. There are two primary sources that will serve to evidence the claims listed above: Bhai Bharpur Singh's 1984 Speech and the Anandpur Sahib Resolution. Bhai Bharpur Singh’s speech is illustrative of the Sikh perspective advocating for an independent Sikh state, whereas the Anandpur Sahib Resolution seemed to support Sikh autonomy within the national framework of India. The varying perspectives, I hope, will illuminate similarities and differences of the Sikh identity discourse amongst the leaders of Sikh movements. Also, perhaps, provide some context regarding the grievances that Sikhs had in the face of Indian encroachment and further shed light on modern day militancy in Punjab.

The Conception of Sikh Autonomy

The Anandpur Sahib Resolution was a textual resolution submitted by the Akali Dal Party in 1973 calling for the creation of an autonomous northern India state that adhered to Sikh tenets and principles, and also served as a declaration of intent to the central government of India committing to the idea of autonomy. Created by a committee of Akali Dal Party members, the document was more of a symbolic manifesto than practical, at first, as it was initially published as a party platform. As mounted attacks against the Sikhs increased, the resolution began to be seen as a document effectively voicing the grievances of the Sikhs against the Indian state. This legitimized the document as a potential solution to the hardships Sikhs were facing, and led to its endorsement by prominent Sikh leaders like Sant Jarnail Bhindranwale. The Indian government, unsurprisingly, painted the document as secessionist in intent and was later used as pretext to escalate ideological and violent attacks on Sikh leaders in an effort to destroy both the independence and autonomous movement.

The document itself makes Sikh desires for autonomy very clearly known, but also provides some very much needed insight into interpreting the identity of the Sikh being promulgated by Sikh autonomy movements. The resolution begins with a firm statement affirming that the “Sikhs have been a recognizable political entity of the world ever since the inauguration of the Khalsa'' (when the identity of the Sikhs was given to Sikhs by the 10th prophet) in 1699. When the Guru Gobind Singh Ji (10th prophet) created the Khalsa in 1699, it was meant to provide the Sikhs with articles of faith, referred to as the 5 Kakars, only reserved to those that would undergo the baptism. In understanding the significance of the first postulation of the resolution, there is an immediate quandary that we have to address, in that the meaning of the term “Khalsa” has multiple meanings. It's possible that the writers of the resolution just took the Khalsa to mean the modern definition, which often refers to the global community of Sikhs as a whole, or the one I described above, which was established in the Guru Granth Sahib (Holy book of the Sikhs), and only applies to the community of baptized Sikhs. While discussion on this point may seem incredibly semantic, if we were to discern the definition of Khalsa that was meant to be used, it would provide further comprehension of the Sikh nationalist movements’ ideas regarding their perceived normative citizenry. Specifying the date seems to help make the deliberate connection to the original definition as opposed to the more modern and paradoxical definition. Thus, in the context of the document, it seems somewhat clear that the resolution seemed to herald Amritdhari Sikhs (baptized Sikhs) as the premier representation of Sikhs as a political entity.

The resolution is also very adamant in achieving the political goal of the reunification of Punjab in the following areas: “Karnal, Ambala Districts of Haryana, Kangra District of Himachal Pradesh, Chandigarh, Pinjore, Kalke, Dalhousie, Nalagarh Desh, Siraa, Guhla, Ratia areas, and the Ganganagar District of Rajasthan”. These areas all have ties to the Punjabi language or have significant Punjabi speaking minorities as a part of the province populations. The resolution goes so far as to demand independent language surveyors, in particular, to decide which areas should be reabsorbed into Punjab. Officially, the reasoning for integration is that this super Punjab state would have unified the contiguous Sikh community. Anderson’s ideas on language in Imagined Communities, I believe, are fantastic at illuminating how these demands are the mark of a burgeoning nationalism and why the reasoning above may have more to it than meets the eye. Anderson mentions how religious languages featured as the first lingua franca of their times, and also served as precursors to modern national identities. Christians had Latin, Muslims had Arabic, and the Chinese had Mandarin. These written languages served to unify large parts of the world, despite spoken word vernacular differences. Once one learned one of those three ‘truth’ languages they became a part of their respective religious communities. In the modern day, people can learn to be a part of an imagined community by taking deliberate actions like learning a vernacular and, by that virtue, identifying as part of that group as opposed to another. Since the role of language is one of differentiation and belonging at its core, it's evident that when Sikh leaders saw Punjabi to be their historical language, they wanted to reunify all Punjabi speakers. However, I think that their claims were not just nationalist in nature, rather I believe they were practical. I presume in the same way ‘truth’ languages helped unify regions of the world, despite language differences, Sikhs might’ve endeavored to establish Punjabi as their own ‘truth’ language in an effort to unify Punjab, despite the religious diversity in the area. The plans in the Anandpur Sahib Resolution would’ve functionally consolidated a majority Punjabi-speaking state, and also would’ve provided the autonomous state stability to survive because of the establishment of an all-pervading identity marker to rally around. I believe the desire for Punjabi Sikhs' linguistic kin to be unified does not really stem from any Sikh theological doctrine. While the Guru Granth Sahib is written in Punjabi, there have been numerous translations and publications of the religious material into other languages. The dual identity of being a Punjabi and Sikh is not supposed to be mutually exclusive, but is clearly exhibited sentimentally in this resolution. Thus, implying the existence of a newer, different Sikh nationalist identity that seems to find pride in their language just as much as their religion.

The resolution then goes on to, finally, lay out the social goals that the Akali Dal Party would like to be accomplished as party manifesto. The aims of the organization were described to be the “propagation of Sikhism, conservation of the Sikh identity as a nation, the destruction of poverty through the redistribution of wealth, vacation of the caste or creed based discrimination, protection of the health of the Sikh nation from disease but also intoxicants (drugs and alcohol), grooming the next generation of preachers and poets at the Sikh Missionary College, the baptism of large numbers of Sikhs particularly in Universities, respecting the work of Sikh intellectuals and promoting their exploration into ancient and modern Sikh history, recovering the long lost practice of dasvandh (donating 1/10th of ones earnings), and streamlining Gurdwara (Sikh house of worship) administrations”. Talal Asad’s Genealogies of Religion may give us an interesting perspective as to how and why these objectives have emerged from Sikh leaders. Asad states in Genealogies of Religion that religion is historically specific, arising from social and political conditions. Asad takes Foucault’s famous question of “how power creates truth”, and applies it to religion. Religious power institutions end up creating truth tenets of discipline. These institutions help adherents of faiths internalize what symbols mean, while discipline produces power, which then produces the truth for believers. Meaning, that religion is a time and place that is relevant in different ways throughout all of history. Sikhism’s inception was similarly influenced heavily by social and political circumstance; many religious scholars consider Sikhs to be the manifestation of backlash to the dominance of the Hindu Brahmin Pandits and Muslim clerics in social life and Muslim ruler’s influence in political life. Since Hindu Brahmins and Muslim clerics served as the stewards of temporal authority (power institutions) for their respective faiths, Sikhism’s designation as this syncretic protestant religion, breaking the molds of temporal authority, led to Sikh persecution. Initially it was at the hands of Muslim autocratic rule, but now Sikhs believe it to be perpetrated by Hindus in the modern day, albeit in a different form, majoritarian democracy. The above aim, regarding the conservation of the identity of the Sikh nation, seems to indicate a historical continuity that Sikhs are attempting to escape, that of persecution and the destruction of the Sikh way of life. Autonomy within a Hindu majority nation, would guarantee safety for Sikhs because, the writers of the resolution were acutely aware of recurring Sikh discrimination throughout history and wanted to ensure its cession through any realistic routes. The rest of the goals broach the promotion of Sikhism as a faith, or are administrative reforms. Probably, once again, in an effort to consolidate the Sikh faith wherever Sikh leaders could exert power, as Sikhs were scattered minorities all over Punjab. The Guru Granth Sahib, the holy book of the Sikhs, does encourage the propagation of Sikhism and baptism but only through living by example or inspiration. Historical context points to the writers of the resolution to desire to proliferate the faith for and through other non-religious reasoning. The desire to preserve the identity of the Sikh nation evidently stems from a history of Sikh persecution at the hands of religious majorities, while the propagation of Sikhism/baptism of Sikhs among others things is clearly an attempt at self-preservation.

The Anandpur Sahib Resolution written in 1973 served in the important dual role of the first official document outlining the injustices Sikhs were facing and also providing Sikhs a plan of action. The resolution describes the motivations for the creation of an autonomous Sikh state, and the type of bodies that might be perceived as acceptable in this said state. Discussion in the resolution regarding the ties Sikhs have to the language of Punjabi, and showcasing a prior history of persecution illustrate a deep historical context that seems to be an incentive for Sikh actions/demands in the resolution. The lack of theological grounding for Sikh motivations, thereby, cements the appearance of a Sikh nationalism.

The Prospect of Sikh Independence

The potential for Sikh independence was best described by Bhai Bharpur Singh in a 1984 address to the All-India Sikh Student Federation (AISSF), a youth wing of the Akali Dal Party. The Akali Dal Party had self-described itself as the sole representatives of all Sikh in India and, therefore, took charge in many debates regarding Sikh’s desire for independence and autonomy. Contextually, this speech was created for the purposes of disseminating information regarding the Sikh’s oppression at the hands of the Indian state to the world, but notably attempted to appeal to the sensibilities of Sikhs in general. The speech called for the creation of an independent Sikh state as its primary goal, and also served as a call to arms for Sikhs, as already stated above in the introduction. However, it must be noted that the goal, at this time, was relatively fringe in nature as I mentioned in the introduction. 

The speech itself utilizes charged rhetoric that is very reminiscent of other fiery nationalist speakers. In particular, Bhai Bharpur Singh states that “without sovereignty, the Sikh nation’s value is nothing more than a caged bird”, numerous times throughout his speech. This language, of course, for Sikhs, would evoke quite a bit of sadness and anger. Considering the historical prestige of the Sikhs in the past 550 years in both legitimately administering Punjab and military exploits, this would imply that Sikhs had lost the tenet of self-determination that past Sikhs had sacrificed so much for. This analogy might help Sikhs hark back in remembering the historical sacrifices made in the name of sovereignty, for the purposes of the wellbeing of Sikh posterity, and anyone else who was oppressed. First, I believe people would remember that the Gurus often led guerilla armies to fight against any and all subjugators, like the Mughals and Afghani tribes. Next, they may remember Banda Singh Bahadur, a Sikh, conquered Punjab and parts of Afghanistan in a period of intense Mughal repression after the 10th prophet’s death to protect religious minorities. Lastly, they would surely recall when the Sikhs later established a religiously tolerant rule in Greater Punjab under Maharaja Ranjit Singh ‘The Lion of Punjab’ despite facing the encroaching British. A bird that could not fly high under its volition would eventually be tamed, and it was felt by Sikhs that they would fiercely oppose any effort to be subdued just like their forefathers. They couldn't be tamed by the Mughal Empire or Afghans, they couldn't be tamed by the British Empire, and they would not be tamed now by an upstart Indian government. I think many Sikhs would feel independence would be the only way forward, after hearing something like this in the speech. 

The quote also seems to compliment the ideas found, once again, in Anderson’s Imagined Communities and also in Renan’s What Makes A Nation? about nationhood. I believe Renan would obviously point to the shared historical narrative by the people in this nation, as proof of binding the nation of Sikhs together. Moreover, interpreting many of these historical narratives as being indicative of shared struggles, where sacrifices and suffering were experienced, further aiding the development of a Sikh national identity. Anderson would further expound that this quote exemplifies the very existence of the “Sikh Nation” because it’s clear that millions of Sikh inhabitants conterminously exist side by side in this Sikh nation, and the fact that they all feel a level of camaraderie and emotional attachment is important. But, in order to manufacture said communities, and help people feel attachment to one's respective community, Anderson believes tools are required to awaken people’s consciousness. In Anderson’s book, novels and newspapers usually serve as those tools but, I would argue that in this case, Bhai Bharpur Singh’s speech is the vessel which facilitates the creation of the community. His analogy above, which clearly refers to all Sikhs, assists in making the connection to Sikh history noticeable to the average Sikh, and also helps Sikhs imagine a vast community that lives all over the world, affected by danger and prosperity. By shining a spotlight on the danger the community is in, Singh appeals to prior struggles that Sikhs have endured and, as a result, prompts the imagining of a Sikh political community as a necessary means to retaliate against aggressors. I believe Singh is trying to awaken a dormant Sikh pride. A pride in identity that had been in full swing in recent Sikh history, but had now died down. Perhaps, indicating that this new developing Sikh nationalism is attempting to reach the heights of its previous history through raising its national consciousness, which relates back to Renan’s ideas about nations pursuing the glory of their past achievements. Whatever the case, this makes one thing abundantly clear, and that is Singh’s brand of Sikh national identity is clearly influenced by thematic historical narratives like that of self-preservation and connection to the region of Punjab.

Bhai Bharpur Singh further continues down this particular train of thought, by referencing a number of symbols in his next couple quotes. First, Singh discusses the fact that the other powerful Sikh symbols of the “Akal Takht (political seat of Sikh power) and the Darbar Sahib (spiritual seat of Sikh power) were situated in rivalry within one another for a reason”. And, next, Singh also notes that every speaker began with stating “The Khalsa will rule, no opponent will remain” in the beginning of their speeches. I believe the proximity of the Akal Takht and Darbar Sahib symbolize a concept created by the 6th Guru, called Miri (temporal authority) Piri (spiritual authority); essentially, meaning, that Sikhs may pursue worldly authority only if it is inspired by the spiritual tenets in the Guru Granth Sahib. This is an important distinction, one, because it legitimizes the very prospect of Sikh reign in Sikhism, which supports Singh’s belief that Sikh’s can rule independent from the rules of other governments and nations. Also, two, this distinction also means that adherence to Miri Piri would signify a union of church and state being central to Sikh belief when it comes to rule. Scott’s Secularism and Gender Equality provides some very thought-provoking commentary in relation to how society is a binary of public and private spheres; we can contextualize Miri Piri’s effect on the binaries through Scott’s paradigm as they can help illustrate societal dynamics that might emerge with the application of Sikhism itself (Miri Piri in this case), although it’s important to note that Scott’s ideas are geared to explaining the phenomena of secularism in the west. Scott defines the public sphere as encompassing and being representative of: politics, secular, males, rational discourse, science, and unmarked citizens; while the private spheres are structured to include: religion, family, females, sexuality, and passion. When we apply Scott’s work to our case study, religion and family would very much be part of the public sphere, instead of the private sphere, and the secular would disappear with the addition of the religion. The family's status would be elevated due to Sikhism’s belief about raising a religiously-literate next generation of Sikh. Religion would replace the secular because the Sikh’s apparent outward belief in Miri Piri would seemingly preclude secularism logically. Miri Piri as a principle of Sikh governance, would also seem contrary to Sikh historical narrative defending freedom of religion. The statements above would all be true, if it weren’t for the unique nature of Sikh doctrine. The Guru Granth Sahib stipulates that discrimination of any kind is outlawed; moreover, individuals cannot be judged upon the laws of Sikhism if they were not Sikh, effectively, meaning that Sikhs are meant to be secular, if they are to rule, according to the holy book. This creates a rather odd dichotomy in the binaries, because the general idea of the secular is technically included in religion, but the secular is no longer formally a part of the binaries. I think Singh’s allusion to Miri Piri, at its core, is an attempt at establishing Sikhism’s status as both having the moral high ground and rebuking the Indian government’s repression of other religions and languages. However, you’ll notice that this starkly contrasts the Sikh leaders and movements in support of the Anandpur Sahib Resolution, where autonomy would still nonetheless remain subservient to the formal authority of the central government. This would prevent Sikhs from truly ruling the state of Punjab, in a manner that is true to the Sikh faith.

Moving on to Bharpur Singh’s second quote, his bringing up this particular remark from the Guru Granth Sahib is fascinating because he cites another symbol in the Sikh faith, the Khalsa. The Khalsa, according to the Guru Granth Sahib, is most often referred to as the community of baptized Sikhs, nevertheless, the term has contemporarily transcended the original meaning of the symbol to also now include the general Sikh community as I mentioned before. Turner's The Forest of Symbols studies how symbolism derived from rituals tend to impress the derivative meaning into society. Turner regards symbols in society as representative of the group, and saliently points out the abstraction of polyvalence. Polyvalence is when a symbol can unify a connection between meanings that might seem to be separate, but that are actually linked through that central symbol, while the meanings find their power in ritual. In a similar manner, both the above examples can illustrate varying meanings but are unified through the concept/symbol of Miri Piri. The Darbar Sahib holds religious service open to all, and also serves as a beacon for theological exploration. Meaning that the Darbar Sahib, ordinarily, is considered a holy place. The Akal Takht is the seat of the current Jathedar (leader of the clergy), and the place where Sikhs can go to discuss matters of politics and worldly affairs. Thus, leading to the interpretation of the Akal Takht as a place for political discourse. The repeated ritual of utilizing the Darbar Sahib as a religious place, and the Akal Takht as a political place, provides both the status of powerful symbols with unrelated meanings. Miri Piri, evoked by the image of both buildings facing one another, unifies the disparate meanings to provide an overarching meaning of how spirituality should always go hand in hand with worldly actions. Therefore, it’s clear that Sikh ritual evidently promoted a mandate for rule, and provided a set of rules that would allow for the prospect of nationhood. On the other hand, the reference to the Khalsa seems superficially vague, with one meaning being exclusionary to some Sikhs and the other being generally inclusive to all Sikhs. I think the ambiguousness of Singh’s description functions as another instance of nationalist Sikh rhetoric. Singh is most likely referring to the nation rather than the smaller in-group of baptized Sikhs, to build a more generally inclusive national identity. 

Bhai Bharpur states another related couplet from the Guru Granth Sahib which goes as follows: “Without sovereignty, there is no righteousness or justice”. Specifying that the idea of sovereignty must be discussed in the Akal Takht, however, that rule can only transpire if Dharm (justice and honor) inspires it. Bhai Bharpur’s sense of religion as a source of law and justice is a pretty banal reading of Sikh scripture, especially considering the Sikh’s role in social justice for the last 250 years, I think. For instance, I believe a major example of sovereignty inspiring justice and honor is recounting the martyrdom story of the 9th Prophet, Guru Tegh Bahadur. Hindu Brahmins came to Guru Tegh Bahadur, the leader of the Sikhs, in an effort to secure help. The Mughal Emperor, Aurangzeb, demanded that the Hindus convert and, in order to help, Guru Tegh Bahadur went forward to confront the persecution. Aurangzeb demanded that Guru Tegh Bahadur convert to Islam or die, but Guru Tegh Bahadur made a deal on behalf of the Brahmins, stating if the Mughals converted him, then the Hindus would convert as well. He was killed as a result of his refusal. Despite the fact that the Guru was not formally the ruler of a nation-state, his access to guerilla troops allowed him the “sovereignty” or authority to stand up for the downtrodden. Furthermore, the Guru’s role as both a political and spiritual figure in this instance is a literal example of Miri Piri in action. The Guru utilized his worldly authority, meaning his guerilla army (tool of authority), to then provide protection to the Hindus, an action that was taken as a result of the teachings of the previous Gurus, which are spiritual authorities that the then Guru adhered to. Singh’s intention to claim that Sikh’s have always fought against the oppression of religious minorities and themselves, is obviously a call to arms for Sikhs, but a call to arms that is clearly grounded in Sikh theology. His statements here, I believe, are therefore not unique Sikh nationalist posturing.

It’s after posting allusions to these Sikh historical narratives that Bhai Bharpur Singh gives us some insight regarding the specific violations of Sikh bodies perpetrated by the Indian state, and what that means for understanding the would-be citizenry in a uniquely free Sikh state. Bharpur Singh states that lest the Sikhs have sovereignty, the rulers of India will continue to set their sights on their beards, turbans, wealth, sacred religious places, children, and Sikh principles. Noticeably, the fear in losing beards and turbans seem to provide us with a sort of tangible identity that might come to be the identity of the average Sikh in a Sikh country. Of course, the turban and the beard are part and parcel of the identity given to Sikhs by the 10th prophet. It is important to note, however, that these are incomplete pieces of the identity for an orthodox Sikh. The 5 Ks, Kesh (hair and beard), Kanga (comb), Kachera (white undergarments), Kara (steel bangle), and Kirpan (dagger) are all part of the uniform that baptized Sikhs must carry with them or adhere to on a daily basis. So, according to what Bhai Bharpur Singh has said, we can deduce that a baptized orthodox Sikh is not necessarily the typical citizen in his perceived Sikh nation, although it doesn’t seem like the identity of the orthodox Sikh is excluded explicitly. And, while his reference to the beard and turban does not technically also exclude female Sikhs, it is a statement that does not provide any female Sikh identifiers, namely the chunni (head scarf ordinarily worn by women). But these statements do blatantly exclude those Sikhs that are called Sehejdhari (those with cut hair, but still believe in the teachings of the Guru), again this may not have been an intentional case. It is important to note that Sehejdhari Sikhs are still nonetheless definitionally Sikhs, according to the Guru Granth Sahib. As a result, Keshdhari male Sikhs (Sikhs that have kept their hair and tie turbans, but are not yet baptized) seem to be the normative citizens in an imagined independent Sikh state. This ties back into Singh's citation of the Khalsa, evidently, referring to the general community of Sikhs in the context of this speech. Going back to Scott’s Secularism and Gender Equality, she provides some great ideas through the same public and private binary, but now in terms of the “marked” and “unmarked” citizenry in societies. Unmarked citizens are considered those individuals that fit the imagined image of the typical individual in a society, as opposed to the marked individual that doesn’t conform to these standards. Scott also does state that unmarked citizens have the ability to speak within the public sphere, unadulterated without any scrutiny, while marked citizens usually face scrutiny. If we apply Scott’s ideas to Bhai Bharpur Singh’s speech, by his logic, due to Sikhs tolerant nature, they would guarantee the freedom of other “marked” citizens while the public sphere would remain generally Sikh. Sikh sovereignty would still be maintained, because the “protected” are the marked others. If Sikh leaders completely adhered to creating the marked vs unmarked binary following the tenets of Sikhism, Miri Piri would’ve disallowed other faiths and genders from being scrutinized in the public sphere. I believe this points to the fact that the above unmarked and marked abstractions expounded upon by Singh, indicate a divergence from Sikh doctrine, and very concisely showcase the oncoming of a new Sikh national identity.

Bhai Bharpur Singh’s 1984 speech to the AISSF was pivotal in grounding the independence movement of the Sikhs. The speech reveals much about the validity to the claim of nationhood, and saliently provides a half answer to the question of the identity of the Sikh that would be congruent with this hypothetical state. The Keshdhari Sikh, the poster child of the state, is not the exemplary Sikh that one would think about when discussing religious nationalists. Affirming that Sikh’s religious nationalist identity had been powerfully influenced by historical circumstance, it may be somewhat far removed from the actual application of Sikhism.

Conclusion

Sikh religious nationalism was very blatantly influenced by the historical, political, and social circumstances of India and Punjab in the 1980s. Although this may have been an unintentional consequence by Sikh leaders, Sikh identity debates were very clearly not representative of the teachings of the Guru Granth Sahib and Sikhism itself. Sikh identity wise, Bhai Bharpur Singh’s support for Keshdhari Sikhs as his unmarked citizenry in his independent Sikh state, plus, the Anandpur Sahib Resolution’s unbridled support for Amritdhari Sikhs as their unmarked citizenry in a Sikh autonomous state illustrate the worldly influence on their decisions. As we know, Sikh identity markers vary from person to person depending upon their progress on their spiritual journey. Boxing out some Sikhs because of their lack of ‘uniform’ or identity marker, all the while helping to incept an exclusionary Sikh imagined community, would be a slap in the face of Sikh theological doctrine. While Sikh leadership does see claims to nationhood affirmed by virtue of prior Sikh history and shared struggle, this new oncoming Sikh nation or autonomous state would’ve only epitomized a Sikh-inspired nation-state, nothing more but nothing less. 

Sources:

“Anandpur Sahib Resolution.” The Sikh Encyclopedia, November 30, 1999. https://www.thesikhencyclopedia.com/historical-events-in-sikh-history/the-modern-history-of-sikhs-1947-present/anandpur-sahib-resolution/.  

Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso, 2016. 

Asad, Talal. Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in Christianity and Islam. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1997. 

Bakke, Kristin M. Decentralization and Intrastate Struggles: Chechnya, Punjab, and québec. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2015. 

Bharpur Singh Balbir Archive Speech. Youtube.com, 2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0dRRnf4umU.

“Khalsa.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, inc. Accessed April 17, 2022. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Khalsa.  

Major Languages Groups Featured in India. Indissimo. Accessed April 17, 2022. https://www.indissimo.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/India-Languages-large.jpg. 

“Miri Piri.” Sikhi Wiki. Accessed April 17, 2022. https://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Miri_Piri.  

“The Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 .” Accessed April 17, 2022. https://powermin.gov.in/sites/default/files/uploads/Punjab_Re_organisation_Act.pdf.

Renan, Ernest, and M.F.N. Giglioli. What Is a Nation?: And Other Political Writings. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 2018. 

Scott, Joan W. “Secularism, Gender Inequality, and the French State.” Oxford Scholarship Online. Oxford University Press. Accessed April 17, 2022. https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780198788553.001.0001/oso-9780198788553-chapter-4.  

Sekhon, Devinder Singh. Philosophy of Guru Granth Sahib. New Delhi: Anmol Publications, 2005. 

“Sikhism.” New World Encyclopedia. Accessed April 17, 2022. https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Sikhism.

“Sikhism: The Five Ks.” BBC. BBC, September 29, 2009. https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/sikhism/customs/fiveks.shtml.  

Turner, Victor. The Forest of Symbols Aspects of Ndembu Ritual. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press, 2014.