Premise:
What is forgiveness? It is generally argued that forgiveness should be unconditional. It is typecast as an act of love through which an amnesty is granted to culprits saving them from the consequences of their transgressions through the agency of their victims. But is this truly forgiveness? In a sense, does this prevent injustice from transpiring and inspire effective rehabilitation? Is forgiveness conditional on the fact that one escape the fruits of their misdeeds?What is the Sikh worldview on forgiveness and how it should be affected?
Rule:
In late 2003 an ageing Robert Rule confronted his daughter’s slayer in court, the infamous Green River serial killer: Gary Ridgway. As families cursed and threatened the impassive Ridgway, Rule silently awaited his turn before mounting the podium to directly confront him. Indifferent to the tumultuous emotions surrounding him, Rule calmly informed Ridgway that he had forgiven him for the murder of his daughter causing the stony-faced murderer to burst into tears. Rule’s great restraint and herculean effort of will in doing what he had just done was applauded globally. Subsequent interviews bore out his own reflections, Ridgway was imprisoned. He was suffering the consequences of his atrocities. What good was it then for Rule to continually allow him and what he had done to his daughter to guide the rest of his life? Forgiving Ridgway, for Rule, was not unconditional. Rather, it confirmed Ridgway’s own helplessness now in undergoing torment for what he had done to countless others.
Forgiveness:
Forgiveness is not unconditional. Unconditional forgiveness emanates from weakness. It is a sign of victimhood and oppression under tyranny. The weak must endure the torments imposed on them by the strong while continuing to pardon them because no other alternative is available to them until they arise to fight back. Unconditional forgiveness is a toxic venom. It derives one of their dignity and renders them morally crippled. True forgiveness is conditional. It emanates from a position of strength. Only the morally and the physically powerful can truly forgive.
Consider Guru Hargobind’s pardoning of Jahangir. The alcoholic emperor having realized his own gullibility, and how it was exploited by the fanatical Muslim honcho Ahmad Shah Sirhindi, begged the Guru’s forgiveness after liberating him from Gwalior. The Guru with his prestige augmented by Jahangir’s confession to incompetence retained a higher stead in the court of public opinion. As such, he forgave the emperor while retaining greater power over the conversant masses as well as his fellow royal prisoners.
Another more salient example is that of Guru Har Rai, the seventh Nanak. Fully armed and battle ready, the Guru was approached by the enfeebled Shah Jahan looking for aid in curing his heir Dara Shikoh. Retaining greater prominence in the court of public opinion as well as prestige given that the Delhi court was openly pleading with him, he pardoned Shah Jahan’s waging of war against the Sikhs.
In both cases we perceive one similar underlying current: both Gurus possessed greater power than their imperial tormentors in terms of influence. Guru Hargobind was seen as an astute negotiator who had rapidly outmanoeuvred Jahangir by many royal retainers while Guru Har Rai’s apothecary was his means of power. Essentially, forgiveness is an act of pardon conversant on the other party undergoing the consequences of their wrongdoings. Jahangir’s remorse was impacted by his own fractured reign and the discord arising among both his sons and subjects. Shah Jahan’s pride was rightly shattered compounding his frailty further by his inability to source a cure for his son through his regal powers compelling him to beg for aid from his sworn foes, the Sikhs.
What then are the requirements for true forgiveness?
(a) The power imbalance between the wronged and the wrongdoer be offset by the victim retaining any form of greater power over the transgressor.
(b) Irrespective of the transgressor’s own ability/inability to submit before any circumstance or adjudging power, they be forced to undergo the consequences of their actions.
In essence, can one evade the consequences of their actions? Gurbani emphatically informs us,
ਨਾਰਾਇਣ ਨਿੰਦਸਿ ਕਾਇ ਭੂਲੀ ਗਵਾਰੀ ॥
ਦੁਕ੍ਰਿਤੁ ਸੁਕ੍ਰਿਤੁ ਥਾਰੋ ਕਰਮੁ ਰੀ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
ਸੰਕਰਾ ਮਸਤਕਿ ਬਸਤਾ ਸੁਰਸਰੀ ਇਸਨਾਨ ਰੇ ॥
ਕੁਲ ਜਨ ਮਧੇ ਮਿਪ਼ਲ੍ਯ੍ਯੋ ਸਾਰਗ ਪਾਨ ਰੇ ॥
ਕਰਮ ਕਰਿ ਕਲੰਕੁ ਮਫੀਟਸਿ ਰੀ ॥੧॥
ਬਿਸ੍ਵ ਕਾ ਦੀਪਕੁ ਸ੍ਵਾਮੀ ਤਾ ਚੇ ਰੇ ਸੁਆਰਥੀ ਪੰਖੀ ਰਾਇ ਗਰੁੜ ਤਾ ਚੇ ਬਾਧਵਾ ॥
ਕਰਮ ਕਰਿ ਅਰੁਣ ਪਿੰਗੁਲਾ ਰੀ ॥੨॥
ਅਨਿਕ ਪਾਤਿਕ ਹਰਤਾ ਤ੍ਰਿਭਵਣ ਨਾਥੁ ਰੀ ਤੀਰਥਿ ਤੀਰਥਿ ਭ੍ਰਮਤਾ ਲਹੈ ਨ ਪਾਰੁ ਰੀ ॥
ਕਰਮ ਕਰਿ ਕਪਾਲੁ ਮਫੀਟਸਿ ਰੀ ॥੩॥
ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਸਸੀਅ ਧੇਨ ਲਛਿਮੀ ਕਲਪਤਰ ਸਿਖਰਿ ਸੁਨਾਗਰ ਨਦੀ ਚੇ ਨਾਥੰ ॥
ਕਰਮ ਕਰਿ ਖਾਰੁ ਮਫੀਟਸਿ ਰੀ ॥੪॥
ਦਾਧੀਲੇ ਲੰਕਾ ਗੜੁ ਉਪਾੜੀਲੇ ਰਾਵਣ ਬਣੁ ਸਲਿ ਬਿਸਲਿ ਆਣਿ ਤੋਖੀਲੇ ਹਰੀ ॥
ਕਰਮ ਕਰਿ ਕਛਉਟੀ ਮਫੀਟਸਿ ਰੀ ॥੫॥
ਪੂਰਬਲੋ ਕ੍ਰਿਤ ਕਰਮੁ ਨ ਮਿਟੈ ਰੀ ਘਰ ਗੇਹਣਿ ਤਾ ਚੇ ਮੋਹਿ ਜਾਪੀਅਲੇ ਰਾਮ ਚੇ ਨਾਮੰ ॥
ਬਦਤਿ ਤ੍ਰਿਲੋਚਨ ਰਾਮ ਜੀ ॥੬॥੧॥
“You foolish being, why do you blame the sinless Maker for whatever befalls you in life? Pain and pleasure, in whose hands are these but yours? The moon is said to dwell in the deity Shiva’s forehead and is reputed to bath in the Ganges and has a lineage exalted by the birth of Vishnu as Krishna among its kinfolk; yet even then it cannot conceal the blemishes on its face resulting from its transgressions.
The sun is said to be his protector and he its charioteer, leading it to light the world everyday while Garuda the emperor of the birds is counted among his relatives yet even then Aruna remains a cripple due to his transgressions.
The deity Shiva is worshipped as the annihilator and the Lord of the three worlds. But because of his unwarranted decapitation of Brahma, he roams ceaselessly from temple to temple.
Ambrosia, the moon, the desire fulfilling bovine, the goddess of wealth, the tree of life, the sun’s mount and the physician-all are said to have arisen from within the mighty ocean that is the lord of all rivers. But because of its transgressions, the ocean remains forever salty.
Hanuman the simian burnt the Lanka fortress, destroyed the gardens of Ravana and brought the life-giving herbs for resurrecting Laxman and accrued Rama’s pleasure. But because of his transgressions, he was forever bound to his loincloth.
The consequences of our transgressions are never fully effaced my beloved life and this is why I dedicate myself to my Maker’s path. This is Trilochan’s only plea.”
-Guru Granth, 695.
Forgiveness is never unconditional in the sense it alleviates the necessity to undergo consequences. This would be strikingly unfair to the wronged. Rather, it is an expression of forbearance.
Forbearance:
The strong forgive as a means of progressing on after ensuring that the culprit will now weather well-deserved consequences irrespective of whether they desire to or not. For them forgiveness is not a concession. Rather it is a sign, they can harm the transgressor but will refrain from doing so because justice has been served to their satisfaction and they must move on. They will not allow themselves to be chained in a time stasis. This essentially is forgiveness. Neither an act of forgetting what has been done or refusing to learn lessons from it. Rather, a symbolic assertion that if a wrongdoing was committed than justice was also served. This is forgiveness from a place of power. In doing so they also underscore their forbearance,
ਕਬੀਰਾ ਜਹਾ ਗਿਆਨੁ ਤਹ ਧਰਮੁ ਹੈ ਜਹਾ ਝੂਠੁ ਤਹ ਪਾਪੁ ॥
ਜਹਾ ਲੋਭੁ ਤਹ ਕਾਲੁ ਹੈ ਜਹਾ ਖਿਮਾ ਤਹ ਆਪਿ ॥੧੫੫॥
“Kabir, where there is divine wisdom there you will also find righteousness. Where there is falsity, there you will find sin. Where there is avarice there is death. Where there is forbearance there is yourself.”
-Guru Granth, 1372.
Forbearance connects us to our true self. It does not denote repressive tolerance i.e. the toleration of repression. Rather, it is the acceptance of reality that the undesired has transpired. This is true forbearance where we forbear reality after expressing forgiveness. Grief and wrath disallow us from experiencing the existing reality after culprits are condemned. It is then that our inner selves wrestle with our emotions and base selves to initiate our survival mode-the element that allows us to hunger to live life. This is where forbearance plays an important role.
ਇੰਦ੍ਰੀ ਪੰਚ ਪੰਚੇ ਵਸਿ ਆਣੈ ਖਿਮਾ ਸੰਤੋਖੁ ਗੁਰਮਤਿ ਪਾਵੈ ॥
ਸੋ ਧਨੁ ਧਨੁ ਹਰਿ ਜਨੁ ਵਡ ਪੂਰਾ ਜੋ ਭੈ ਬੈਰਾਗਿ ਹਰਿ ਗੁਣ ਗਾਵੈ ॥੩॥
“Internally reside the five deluders (lust, hubris, wrath, fear, obsession), if their (human) host can overpower them then they enjoy forbearance and contentment through the blessings of Gurmat. Twice blessed is that individual who is so perfect and humble to achieve the latter by immersing themselves in detachment from the trivial by imbibing the Creator’s virtues.”
-Guru Granth, 1334.
Conclusion:
Only the powerful forgive when they become conversant with the fact that effective retribution has been served. For the sixth and seventh Gurus forgiveness was a moral as well as a strategic decision. On the other hand, neither does forgiveness entail evading consequences. We must reap the harvests we sow. Rehabilitation only transpires when we accept what we have done after forsaking our hubris. In this sense, both the wrongdoer and the wronged have a similar path. The wrongdoer must forbear the results of their misdeeds; the wronged must forbear what they have suffered. In no way is it expected from a Sikh perspective that the victim unconditionally pardon the culprit. This is not true forgiveness but a farce enacted for the benefit of the culprits. True forgiveness dispatches a powerful message to the forgiven: you will now suffer for what you have done. I will move on with forbearance. Let me see whether you can forbear what you have done or not.
I found this very interesting. What would you say about repeated aggressions, but not from the individual perpetrator, but rather from the community, which have a similar moral framework. For example,the rise of Hindu nationalism within India and aggression towards Sikhs, especially in 1984 and even today. When it’s community driven aggression, is the path to forgiveness any different?
Also doesn’t the approach rely on either the aggressor giving power willingly, the victim taking power by force or relying on external people/institutions with power? And which is the most effective of the three based on Sikh history?