Necessity:
In the race to dilute our faith for westernised liberal consumption, a section of our Sikh brethren have unwittingly fused Judeo-Christian precepts with Sikh principles to produce a doctrinal travesty that mitigates Sikhi’s unique doctrines. Although it can be argued that this is the natural outcome of western hegemony in all spheres of global paradigms, it is also crucial to note that distinctions need to be made from time to time by Sikhs themselves to reassert the uniqueness of their ethos and the subsequent identity it bequeaths them. It is in this vein that we write the below article focusing on how the Sikh notion of love is far removed from that of what many modernists portray it to be.
Love:
Much has been made out about the necessity of love over the past two centuries. The twentieth century was heralded as the cumulative step towards global peace and scientific progress at its onset with its promise of the dawn of a loving age for mankind. The first world war effectively ended this premature belief. As the contemporaneous world powers slowly recovered from the genocidal bloodletting unleashed by the conflict, they seeded the catalyst for a second even greater global war resulting in even more atrocious atrocities and the erosion of the love mythos. Subsequent conflicts and the twenty-first century’s ceaseless low-intensity conflicts have raised a cynical generation that pins for love but can barely define the concept. What is love? Is love the bane of mankind’s existence? Is our pursuit of love our undoing?
Rome:
The 16th century political realist Machiavelli reflected upon love while in exile. During his heyday, love was defined through Judeo-Christian mores. One was expected to love one’s enemy; proffer tyrants their other cheek and refuse neither friend nor foe in terms of any aid. A dedicated pragmatist, Machiavelli identified Christianity’s emphasis on love as being a primary factor in the eventual decline and collapse of the Roman empire. The Romans, raised through the mysticism of the sword and the brutalities of war, had succumbed to the temptation of political oneness through the ambit of religion in the form of Christianity. But Christianity with its emphasis on otherworldly salvation unlocked through belief in a supernatural Being hung on a cross and unfettered love had nullified Roman utilitarianism until Rome’s famed practicality was extinguished by the notion of love. Its ensuing decline was further compounded through invasions and religious adulteration until the Roman identity was rendered obsolete.
The Problem:
Machiavelli identified love’s greatest problem: loving individuals rarely succeeded in life. There was a significant difference between realists who barely incorporated love in their sociopolitical calculations and lovers who lacked the guile to maneuver reality for the triumph of their own vision as they saw fit. No amount of amalgamation or ideological intermixing could ever meld the two into a successful hybrid. Rather, lovers fell to the overall fragility of love while realists achieved great victories even when buried in their graves. This differentiation, while seemingly superficial on the surface, imparts a profound lesson: love cannot overcome tyranny. The current crop of liberals are making the same deplorable errors as their historic counterparts: a warm heart; eloquent rhetoric; kindness and dialogue rarely ever succeed in altering reality. Rather, they only ever further aggravate existing terror. It is all well to vocally argue that love can overcome barriers, history however evinces another incontrovertible truth: love always fails.
Guru Nanak:
In one of those rare historic coincidences, the 16th century also witnessed the dynamic mysticism of Guru Nanak, the progenitor Sikh Guru. Having rejected the superstitious dramatism and otherworldliness of religion, the Guru too imparted his disciples a sense of militarism. He underscored a love of reality and self-discipline tempered with a strong sense of pragmatism disallowing his Sikhs from disassociating themselves from the world. Machiavelli would lament that love as propounded by religion,
“…has glorified humble and contemplative men, monks, priests, humble and contemplative men rather than men of action. It is assigned as man’s highest good humility, abnegation, and contempt for mundane things…”
in comparison to the primitive era that emphasized,
“…(goodness) with magnanimity, bodily strength, and everything that conduces to make men very bold…”
-Introduction To Political Philosophy, Lecture XI.
Predating Machiavelli by several centuries and worlds apart, the ascetical iconoclast Farid would embody his observation of religious men in general when he would advise:
ਫਰੀਦਾ ਜੋ ਤੈ ਮਾਰਨਿ ਮੁਕੀਆਂ ਤਿਨ੍ਹ੍ਹਾ ਨ ਮਾਰੇ ਘੁੰਮਿ ॥
ਆਪਨੜੈ ਘਰਿ ਜਾਈਐ ਪੈਰ ਤਿਨ੍ਹ੍ਹਾ ਦੇ ਚੁੰਮਿ ॥੭॥
“Farid, if others attack you with their fists then refrain from retaliating. Rather, kiss their feet and be on your way to your homes.”
-Guru Granth, 1378.
Yet this emphasis on unreciprocated love was dangerous in itself. After all, what was preventing the attacker from continuing further until no life was left in the victim to even flee let alone eat humble pie? Farid’s unrealism was refuted by Guru Nanak himself who would contrastingly advise,
ਮੂਰਖ ਗੰਢੁ ਪਵੈ ਮੁਹਿ ਮਾਰ ॥
“The bond with a fool is one of a fist in the face.”
-Guru Granth, 143.
Effectively ending Farid’s unrealistic insistence on pacifism.
What Guru Nanak knew:
In the same vein as Machiavelli and other political realists, Guru Nanak knew that love was not the effective weapon which many a weak man claimed it to be. Pleading with a foe and overt acts of humility only increased the rate of tyranny. Love for principles was higher than love for another as principles provided the relational framework between humans. Love on its own terms was a double-edged sword equally forming bonds and destroying bonds. If tempered with pragmatism, however, it could become a far greater weapon against human degeneracy. His emphasis on realism bore this out well. Loving individuals had to direct their love towards achieving concrete goals. It was not enough to retain good intentions and a clear-heart (dil-saaf) as humans are never the sum of what they intend but rather what they achieve.
ਭਈ ਪਰਾਪਤਿ ਮਾਨੁਖ ਦੇਹੁਰੀਆ ॥
ਗੋਬਿੰਦ ਮਿਲਣ ਕੀ ਇਹ ਤੇਰੀ ਬਰੀਆ ॥
ਅਵਰਿ ਕਾਜ ਤੇਰੈ ਕਿਤੈ ਨ ਕਾਮ ॥
ਮਿਲੁ ਸਾਧਸੰਗਤਿ ਭਜੁ ਕੇਵਲ ਨਾਮ ॥੧॥
“You have received this human form to meet your Maker. Do not do anything else to impede this cause. Enter the company of the virtuous and seek the wisdom therein.”
-Guru Granth, 12.
As the above verse by the fifth Guru implicitly clarifies, it is ultimately achievements and not intentions that form one’s success in life. Intentions may be important to a certain degree, but achievements provide a discernible medium through which to judge the fruits of one’s endeavours.
Within one’s own self:
There is another innate element to Guru Nanak’s unique conception of love based on his principles of discipline and realism. This establishes the supremacy of Sikh principles above Judeo-Christian precepts. As humans, our psychological evolutions finds failure distasteful. In our primitive past, failure was synonymous with death. The failure to successfully evade or flee a predator resulted in a swift death between the jaws of a savage beast. Over time as our psyche has greatly expanded, we have cloaked our fear of failure and inability to accept it with various justifications: we failed because we were too loving and will receive our divine reward in the next life. Some supreme power intended our failure. Our past life incited our failure in this life. These excuses are our means of veiling our own weaknesses.
The powerful rarely ever suffer from such bouts of depression. They have learnt their lessons well that love alone cannot triumph over another opposing force. The love of liberty is stronger than the love of one’s neighbour and this love of liberty can be oriented to impel oneself to seek victory but cannot provide victory all by itself. Guile, realpolitik and subterfuge bring battlefield victories. Honour is as relevant to war as chastity is to a prostitute. This is why Khalsa warriors preferred guerilla tactics that were derided by their foes as jackal tricks but nonetheless proved successful in the long-term. We also see this in the cloak-and-dagger assassination techniques favored by the likes of Bhais’ Mehtab Singh and Sukha Singh as well as the Dal Khalsa’s savage cleansing of Jalandhar alongside Sodhi Vadbhag Singh.
Our self-justifications for our own weaknesses are ceaseless and their brutality is often diluted when we add love to the mix to incredulously fool ourselves that our greatest strength is love and we failed because we were too strong. It only makes sense if one does not muse on it for too long. This is exactly where Gurbani hits us, it reminds us of cold reality.
ਜੇ ਜੀਵੈ ਪਤਿ ਲਥੀ ਜਾਇ ॥
ਸਭੁ ਹਰਾਮੁ ਜੇਤਾ ਕਿਛੁ ਖਾਇ ॥
“If you exist to live then you forfeit all sense of honor. All you touch and do is rendered sinful.”
-Guru Granth, 142.
Why bother living if we are only intending to retain some warm hearted feelings and keep our hearts clean? This in itself is no great achievement but a sin. In essence, if one is to succeed in this world then one needs to remember that reality (Hukam) is the greatest teacher bequeathed to us by our Maker. We selfishly propose that our lack of achievements, our lack of power, our absence of strength emanates from our sense of love and purity. Gurbani reveals to us that no, we have misunderstood love. Love is not the sole purpose beyond the existence of life. It is but one unique element that we have allowed to become our weakness. Rather, our love of principles should drive us to become ever more powerful in lieu of making them a stumbling block when confronting the trials and travails of life.
History:
Divorcing Judeo-Christian precepts from Sikh precepts amplifies Sikhi’s distinct approach to sociopolitical realities. The life of loving Prophets and Princes were tragically ineffective nullifying their achievements. Subsequent generations emulating their example also cut off their own feet. The Sikh Gurus were well aware of this and solidified a tradition now lost that called for Sikhs to study political stratagems and utilize them for the prosperity of their own people. This has been supplanted with an ineffective and insidiously gullible approach to sociopolitical affairs in which one-sided solidarity for heavenly real-estate; unnecessary wasting of Langar on ungrateful communities in which the norm opposes Sikhi’s very existence and the total rejection of any emphasis on aiding poverty-stricken Sikhs is made the sum-all of Sikhi. All this in the name of a love that not only the Gurus, but even lesser men rejected centuries prior.
Can you clarify your opinion on helping poverty stricken Sikhs?
How do you reconcile or reinterpret Sheik Farid ji's line with Guru Nanak dev ji's position in SGGS?
Mayb as one should fight battles against people who deserve it but also be ready to accept criticism (eating the punch) with reflect within (return home) humility (kissing feet - this has been used in other places in Gurbani), structure of this line makes it seem like this is the interpretation not to mention to take it literally would make the action itself liable to be an empty/hypocritical ritual which is a big no-no in Bani too.