YOUR VOICE: KHALSA RAAJ vs. KHALISTAN

The Error at the Heart of Modern Sikh Political Theory

(Your Voice is a reader-led initiative where our readers contact us with their own opinion pieces based on discussions facilitated in our chat threads. While we understand that your voice is important, due to the amount of correspondence received, we reserve the exclusive right to publish what we deem acceptable and insightful to and for our other readers).

The 10th Master famously declared ਰਾਜ ਕਰੇਗਾ ਖਾਲਸਾ, inspiring the Sikhs to pursue this goal for 150 years after his demise. Since 1849, interpretations of Khalsa Raj have become increasingly muddied. There are broadly, two modernist schools of Khalsa rule: the spiritualists and the Khalistanis.

The canonical Guru Granth.

The spiritualist scholars argue that Khalsa Raj is more about spiritual sovereignty, where the "pure" (Khalsa) achieve a high spirituality within themselves and society, not necessarily tied to an existing nation state. This interpretation sees Khalsa Raj as a kind of state of mind and as a society where justice, equality, and righteousness prevail, regardless of who is in charge. Most of the same scholars are non-confessional in their spiritual view of Khalsa raj, plainly stating that such a state will benefit all religions and races and may not even involve Sikh political power in anyway.

The primary error with the spiritual view is that it is essentially 20th century liberalism. It is universal to a fault, and its values are whatever values the left wing of the West has declared to be “justice” in the last ten years or so and would be completely unrecognizable to the Khalsa of the 18th century. The secondary error with the “spiritual” view is that no part of Sikhi is “spiritual”, and each Guru since the 6th Master has emphasized both Miri and Piri. Sikhi includes exterior elements as well as internal progress because life itself is physical! Jaap requires physical chanting, Kakkars cannot be spiritual.

Dharam Yudh requires physical weapons, physical death and physical suffering. Spiritual parshad is not given at the gurdwara but actual parshad. Rule implies politics, and politics requires physical force. Nowhere else is the term “raj” implied to be an internal state in Gurbani. The Khalistanis are somewhat more believable but fall into other modernist errors. Yes, an independent Sikh state is a good thing. I confess this. However, pretty much all other Khalistani ideas, after that basic point of agreement, are quite idiotic and are waylaid by modernist Western failings.

The first such error is the ink spilled to spell out Khalistani constitutions and proposed government structures, such as parliaments, judicial branches, how the executive is accountable, etc. Inevitably, such attempts devolve into an attempt to imitate Western republican structures and present an end product that is remarkably similar to the Republic of India, except with some additional Sikh tweaking of various state guarantees and structures. The basic, identifiable aspects of post-World War 2 states are all there- elections, media guarantees, “bills of rights” and so forth. Why is the Khalistan flag in English anyway?

The Khalistan Banner.

The basic error in this kind of Khalistani thinking is that it is Westernized and divorced from Sikh theocratism. The careful construction of statutes, constitutions and checks-and-balances is based upon the idea that “ambition must be made to counteract ambition” (Federalist 51). Simply, what Western systems have attempted to do since the liberal revolutions is to engineer a system that can put bad people in positions of power and still produce good governance due to ambition and venality of the politicians being limited by the self-interest of other politicians. Prior to the liberal revolutions, every political thinker, East or West, believed that garbage in = garbage out.

It is only in modernity that the idea that garbage in can produce gold has taken root.

And so, this careful balancing of authority, impeachment procedures, strict legal codes and the like for some “Khalistan” are, in my opinion, totally missing the point. Our spiritual ancestors, riding with Banda Singh or Jassa Singh Ahluwalia, would have instinctively understood that putting bad people in charge was, inherently a bad idea. This should be obvious to the reader of the statement “Raj Karega Khalsa”. What is Khalsa and why does only the Khalsa deserve to rule? The 10th Master elucidates:

“Khalsa is the one who does not slander others.

Khalsa is the one who fights in the front line.

Khalsa is the one who conquers the 5 thieves.

Khalsa is the one who fulfils all duties. Khalsa is the one who renounces self-pride.

Khalsa is the one who remains faithful within marriage.

Khalsa is the one who abandons sexual desire for others than the spouse.

Khalsa is the one who is blessed with Akal’s Name.

Khalsa is the one who loves Waheguru.

Khalsa is the one who fights bravely in battle.

Khalsa is the one who helps the needy.

Khalsa is the one who overpowers the enemy.

Khalsa is the one who chants God's Name.

Khalsa is the one who rises above the evil ones.

Khalsa is the one who is attuned to the Maker’s wisdom.

Khalsa is the one who breaks false rituals.

Khalsa is the one who becomes a crusader.

Khalsa is the one who fights the war daily against internal and external enemies.

Khalsa is the one who is always ready with weapons.

Khalsa is the one who destroys all evil.”

- Bhai Nand Lal, Tankahnamah.

In addition to being an initiated Khalsa, the above qualifications are steep indeed, but necessary for dharmic raj. But we must accept that this is what Guru Sahib meant by the rule of the Khalsa- for it was these ideals and standards that he demanded from his Sikhs. Laws always have exceptions, and any halfway intelligent person can think up many situations where a good rule requires an exception. This goes for constitutions and political structures as well as criminal and civil laws- and normally we trust in a wise person, such as a judge, to determine if an exception applies in a particular case.

In my opinion, the emphasis on laws and structures misses the overall point, which is that what is most important is that Khalsa Shall Rule. If the Khalsa is in existence and can keep itself to the Guru’s exacting standards through accountability panchayats, internal policing and the like, then the Khalsa will be worthy to rule. Such a Khalsa would be wise enough to decide every exception; to change rules or state structures when needed; wise and brave enough to determine the use of violence without bureaucratic procedures; and aggressive enough to not permit bad actors to hide behind various “constitutional rights” or obfuscations.

The most important part of Raj Karega Khalsa is not the raj, it is the Khalsa. In this way, the Khalistanis and spiritualists have betrayed the lofty principles of the Khalsa. People used to ask Sant Jarnail Singh why there was no Khalsa Raj. He would answer, “because you are not Khalsa.” In the next instalment, we will cover the reasonable steps that can be taken to attempt to resurrect such a Khalsa in the future.