The British imperialists ruled India by introducing and deepening identity-based divisions within the unified Hindu society. One significant divide they cultivated was between Sikh Hindus and non-Sikh Hindus. To understand this more clearly, let’s delve into this from a historical perspective.
Throughout the medieval period, the abundant prosperity of Punjab attracted numerous invasions, leading to repeated atrocities by Islamic invaders. These invasions caused widespread destruction of Hindu temples and forced religious conversions. Hindus were persecuted for practicing their religion. In order to sustain their religious practices under Muslim rule, many Hindu spiritual leaders adapted their worship methods and embraced Bhakti movement. Among them was Guru Nanak Dev, born in 1469 CE in Punjab (now in Pakistan) to a Vaishnava family. He was extremely influenced by the Advaita Hindu philosophy of the Upanishads and yogic traditions. Drawing from these influences, he shared his beliefs in the local language through verses, and it resonated deeply with the Hindus of Punjab. As his message spread, followers began to gather, calling themselves Sikhs, meaning ‘disciples,’ and thus, Sikhism emerged as a distinct spiritual sect within the larger Hindu society.
After Guru Nanak Dev, the Sikh sect was promoted by nine other Gurus. The rise of Hindu spirituality through Sikhism alarmed Muslim religious leaders, posing a perceived threat to Islam’s spread. In response, Mughal Emperor Jahangir commanded the execution of the fifth Sikh Guru, Arjan Dev, making him the first martyr in Sikh history. In retaliation, the sixth Guru, Har Govind, established a small army to defend themselves against the Muslim oppression, which provided protection for a while. However, during the reign of Aurangzeb, Guru Tegh Bahadur was captured and executed publicly for defending the Kashmiri Pandits against forced conversion to Islam. This infuriated the Sikhs, compelling them to take up arms for their defense. The transformation of Sikhs from a spiritual sect to a martial group started with Guru Har Govind and culminated with the tenth Guru, Govind Singh, who established the Khalsa (the group of the pure) in 1699 CE. In 1705 CE, one of the most tragic events in Sikh history occurred when Guru Gobind Singh’s young sons, Zorawar Singh (9-yearold) and Fateh Singh (7-year-old), were captured by Wazir Khan, the Nawab of Sirhind. Despite being offered wealth to convert to Islam, they bravely refused and faced execution by being bricked alive within a wall. Even as the wall was being built around them, the young Sahibzadas showed no fear, continually reciting prayers and remaining committed to their faith.
After Guru Gobind Singh’s death in 1708, he appointed Banda Bahadur, a Rajput from Jammu to protect against the tyranny of Muslims. Banda Bahadur moved throughout Punjab, defeating Muslim armies. Eventually, he was captured and was brutally executed, leaving the Sikhs to endure numerous hardships as they continued their struggle against Mughal oppression and later Afghan invasions. Between 1748 to 1767, Ahmed Shah Abdali attacked Punjab province several times and destroyed the Harmandir Sahib, which was later rebuilt by both Hindus and Sikhs. Maharaja Ranjit Singh (1780–1839) eventually drove out the Afghan invaders, uniting the divided Sikh groups and formed a strong Empire by 1801. He modernized his army with European weapons and tactics, making it one of the strongest in India. His empire covered Punjab, Kashmir, and parts of today’s Pakistan, creating a society where Hindus and Sikhs prospered under a unified rule.
After gaining control of Punjab in 1849, the British realized that the Sikhs were a formidable warrior community within the broader Hindu society. So, by creating divisions between Sikhs and Hindus, they could diminish the strength of a unified Hindu community, thereby reducing any potential threat to the British rule in future. To create this separation, they implemented a two-fold approach. First, they spread a misleading narrative highlighting the fundamental differences between Sikhs and Hindus, and to validate this claim, they sought assistance from the British and trained Sikh scholars. Second, they adopted a more direct approach by enlisting Sikhs into the British army, offering them prestige and wealth, and by establishing Sikh political organizations that gradually distanced themselves from the larger Hindu community.
To promote a misleading narrative, the British enlisted scholars such as E. Trumpp to distinguish Sikh scriptures from Hindu texts. However, despite his efforts, he found that while Sikhism may not reflect every aspect of Hinduism, everything in Sikhism—its language, stories, beliefs, meditation practices, and rituals—comes from Hindu scriptures. The ragas used by the Gurus to set the hymns and songs of the Adi Granth are rooted in classical Hindu music. Rituals like parikrama, offering incense, presenting sacred food, and distributing prasadam bear a striking resemblance to Hindu traditions. Yet, to make a case, he propagated that Sikhism needed to preserve external symbols such as ‘turbans’ and ‘beards’ to maintain its identity, or else Sikhs might be perceived as Hindus, thereby stirring the ‘Sikhism is in danger’ sentiment. This notion was further advanced by scholars like Lepel Harry Griffen and Max Arthur Macauliffe. Through his extensive six-volume work on Sikhism, published by Oxford University Press, Macauliffe emphasized Sikh separatism, portraying Sikhs as loyal allies of the British and encouraged them to distance themselves from Hindu traditions, aiming to weaken the unity within Hindu society. To further this divide, some scholars, influenced by colonial and missionary goals, argued that Sikhism was more aligned with Christianity and Islam than Hinduism. They focused on its belief in one God and the sacred text, the Adi Granth, comparing it to the Bible and Quran, and pointed out that Sikhism, like Christianity, had spiritual leaders (the ten Gurus) and rejected idol worship, unlike Hinduism. However, this perspective overlooks the fact that the Sikh Gurus stood against the oppressive ideologies of Islamic invaders while promoting humanism, universalism, and pluralism—values that resonate with Hindu spirituality. Confining Sikhism to a rigid monotheistic framework disregards these principles and distorts the true essence of Sikhism as articulated by the Gurus.
All these measures take time to bear its results so on a more immediate level, preferential treatments were given to the Sikhs of Punjab in military enlistments. The British were fully aware of the Sikhs’ exceptional military capabilities and, recalling how numerous Brahmins from Punjab had participated in the 1857 revolt against British rule, they chose to enlist only Sikhs who adhered strictly to Khalsa traditions. This selective recruitment fostered a sense of separateness and exclusivity among the Sikh community. To deepen this sense of distinct identity, the British mandated that Sikh soldiers undergo the baptismal rites outlined by Guru Gobind Singh and employed religious Sikh priests within their regiments. The British further strengthened this exclusivity by incorporating Sikh religious greetings (Wahe guruji ka Khalsa, Wahe guruji ki Fateh) in their interactions with Sikh soldiers. This approach not only cemented their distinct identity but also encouraged Sikhs to view themselves as fundamentally different from Hindus.
At a political level to advance Sikh distinctiveness, the British facilitated the establishment of the Singh Sabha movement in 1873, which was predominantly made up of former Sikh soldiers loyal to the British. These Sikhs endorsed the brutal crackdown on the Namdhari Sikhs, who had initiated the Swadeshi movement, and even labeled the ‘Ghadarites’ as rebels. Later, two branches emerged— one in Amritsar, which maintained the idea that Sikhs were part of Hinduism, and the other in Lahore, which championed the idea of a separate Sikh religion. The latter, known as the Tat Khalsa, gradually gained dominance, setting the stage for Sikh separatism. These organizations worked to emphasize Sikh distinctiveness by revising religious practices and rituals that had been traditionally shared with Hindus. For example, Brahmins, who had traditionally served as priests in Sikh ceremonies, were removed from their roles in Sikh temples, and idols of Hindu gods, which were present in places like Harmandir sahib, were expelled. In this manner, the British effectively instilled a minority mindset among the Sikhs and further fragmented the Indian society. Eventually, the Sikhs started viewing themselves separately from the broader Indian Society.
The British political agenda culminated by the passage of the Sikh Gurudwaras Act in 1925, which officially handed over control of major Sikh shrines to the newly formed Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC). This effectively excluded non-Khalsa Sikhs and cemented the position of the Khalsa as the dominant force in Sikh religious life.
By the time of Indian independence, the British had successfully sowed the seeds of division between Sikhs and Hindus. Even after the British left, the narrative of Sikh distinctiveness persisted, contributing to future political tensions in independent India. Sikh separatism, carefully cultivated by the British, serves as a historical example of how colonial powers manipulate social and religious identities to serve their political ends. Today, the challenges posed by these historical divisions remain a critical issue for Indian unity and governance.
Leave a Reply