This book is third in the series: "Selected Works of Sirdar Kapur Singh", edited by Madanjit Kaur and Piar Singh and published by Guru Nanak Dev University.

The late Kapur Singh (1909-86) had a very interesting, nay, challenging mind and a broad understanding of matters metaphysical, historical, and religious. In this incomplete translation of the Sukhmani he displays his vast intellectual arsenal most impressively. It is more than a translation; of greater value is the accompanying commentary. The book also contains an article by Kapur Singh on the martyrdom of Guru Arjun. Newer historical information on Guru Arjun’s martyrdom is provided via an article by the late historian Ganda Singh at the end of the book.

The introductory chapter by the editors contains useful information on the life of Guru Arjun, compilation of the Guru Granth, and also some ancillary historical information. contrary to the general understanding, the editors opine that Guru Arjun went to see Prince Khusrau and sought his audience rather than the other way around. It is commonly conceded, as Kapur Singh does, that while Khusrau was on the run, he and his men were fed at the Guru’s kitchen. It seems unlikely then that the Guru went to him.

Kapur Singh in his essay suggests that Guru Arjun’s martyrdom occurred because Emperor Jehangir was afraid of the growing political power of the Guru. According to Kapur Singh Guru Arjun was martyred according to yasa, the Mongol Law. The editors and Ganda Singh differ and instead posit that the real reason was bigotry and fanaticism of Muslim clergy at that time. Ganda Singh also wonders if the Guru ever met Prince Khusrau.

Kapur Singh makes a good analysis of the secular political vision of Akbar, the non-secular vision of his followers and the universal vision of the followers of Nanak. Following this are useful and interesting analogies to the attitudes of the dominant present day, modern political parties of the subcontinent: The Muslim League, Congress party, Hindu Maha Sabha and the Jan Sangh.

According to Sikh tradition Guru Arjun composed the Sukhmani in Rag Gauri at Ramsar probably before 1604 but the editors or author do not say when. It is the longest single composition in the Guru Granth. It is also perhaps the most popular and impressive of Guru Arjun’s writings. It is rich in poetic imagery and the philosophic depths of Sikh belief. Since then Sikhs and many non-Sikhs as well have depended on the reading and contemplation of this composition to transport them into a state of spiritual equanimity particularly when the burdens of life appear too heavy.

The Sukhmani consists of 24 octonaries (astapadis), each consisting of a shaloka and eight pauris. Kapur Singh was able to translate and comment on only 5 octonaries before his death and they form the bulk of this book.

Kapur Singh presents a fascinating analysis of the Sikh concept Ek Onkar. he sees in it a triple concept of reality and compares it to similar metaphysical ideas of trinity in many major religious systems, such as Buddhist, Hindu, Christian and even Islamic. Finally, he suggests that Plato might call the three modes of reality the "idea"", the "image" and the "perception".

Kapur Singh then follows with the derivation and detailed analysis of each concept found in the text of the Sukhmani such as Nidhan, Sudhakar, Smriti, Parupkari, Kamal bigasan, Khin (Ksin), to name a few. What shines through most clearly is his mastery of the classical Vedic mythology and philosophy. But he does his analysis in a most systematic and precise manner, line by line and word by word.

The mode of presentation is very scholarly and useful: First is the original in Gurmukhi script followed in order by the original text set in Roman script, its translation in English free verse, and finally several pages of painstakingly detailed notes and annotations. This scheme is followed for each shaloka and then for each pauri of each octonary.

Many of the commentaries are like minisermons. As an example of how comprehensively each concept is treated, the notes on music and keertan following octonary IV(6) are most detailed and enlightening on the nature of music, the musical sense of the Greeks and Hindus, and the Sikh comprehension of music.

The book carries an excellent index and a separate doctrinal index of concepts and terminology. Madanjit Kaur and Piar Singh, the editors, have checked and updated references because in this matter Kapur Singh was somewhat careless. A bibliography of selected sources in English and other European languages, Sanskrit, Persian, Arabic, and Punjabi is useful but incomplete; page references are not provided.

This is the kind of book which would make excellent raw material for a series of seminars or discussions for adult Sikhs, somewhat like a continuing education series; our gurdwaras and other institutions should think about such programs.

For the reader the regret remains that Kapur Singh did not get to complete his work. Five astapadis out of 24 are barely 25 percent of what could have been. But it is instructive writing which also manages to remain interesting.

Harjot Singh Oberoi’s book "The Construction of Religious Boundaries: Culture, Identity and Diversity in the Sikh Tradition" seems to be a motivated attempt to distort Sikh identity by purposely ignoring the historic role of Sikh ideology in establishing an entirely new system as opposed to earlier Indian traditions. The book does not differ materially from formulations of his mentor, W.H. McLeod who was the examiner for his Ph.D. thesis. That has now been published in the book form. The book is a systematic misrepresentation of Sikhism, its basic beliefs, ideals, institutions and history. By twisting the Sikh history, Oberoi has tried to cast doubts regarding the well-entrenched and long cherished Sikh traditions and thus to erode the very foundations of Sikh identity. His approach is not only biased but also lop-sided and negative. The author’s difficulty seems to be that he is absolutely ignorant of the history and growth of religions; nor does he seem to be interested in knowing it.

A major drawback of Oberoi’s work relates to the methodology adopted by the author in the study of Sikhism. A proper study of religion involves a study of the spiritual dimension and experiences of man, a study which is beyond the domain of Sociology, Anthropology and History. Any materialistic interpretation of religion, perceived by senses is bound to be lop-sided, limited and partial. religion has its own tools, its own methodology and principles of study which take cognisance of a higher level of reality and a world-view which is comprehensive and not limited. The study of religion requires sharp insight into the totality of life, including transcendental knowledge concerning God, the universe and the human spirit.

Harjot Oberoi’s book is typical example of verbose style through which he can succeed, to some extent, in misleading the lay reader. But those who have knowledge and understanding of the history of religions cannot be duped. In the introduction of his book, he writes : "It is all very well for historians of religion to think, speak and write about Islam, Hinduism and Sikhism, but they rarely pause to consider if such clear-cut categories actually found expression in the consciousness, actions and cultural performances of the human actors they describe. When reading religious histories, biographical texts, mythical literature, archival materials, political chronicles, and ethnographic reports from nineteenth century Punjab, I was constantly struck by the brittleness of our textbook classifications. There simply wasn’t any one-to-one correspondence between the categories that were supposed to govern social and religious behaviour on the one hand, and the way people actually experienced their everyday lives on the other hand." (pp. 1-2).

The premises on which the author is trying to build his thesis are too flimsy to make an indepth study. It is within the knowledge of every student of history that the pre and post 1947 history of the Indian sub-continent is nothing but the history of ethnic, linguistic, cultural, social and communal tensions, clashes and even massacres. In the pre-Muslim India, the Buddhists were the victims of a religious crusade launched against them by the Hindu orthodoxy. The Bodhi tree at Gaya under which Budha had attained his Nirvana was burnt and in its place a Hindu temple was erected. A large scale massacre of Buddhists and the burning of their monasteries took place, resulting in the virtual disappearance of Buddhism from India. The Hindu rule that followed is looked upon by the Hindu historians as the golden epoch in the Indian history. This past was closely linked with the ideology of caste which over the centuries has been the foundation of religiously ordained social fabric. The Maratha Peshwa rule, a period of Hindu revival, was known for the rigid perpetuation of the Brahmanical caste system. In that rule some lower castes could not enter the city of Pune before 9 a.m. and after 3 p.m. because their long shadows could defile the higher castes, especially the Brahmins. The Muslim state in India was entirely subordinate to its clergy and waged a relentless religious war (Jehad) against the non-Muslims, who had to suffer political and social disabilities and pay toll tax (Jazia) and pilgrimage tax. Under Aurangzeb, there was large scale destruction of non-Muslim religious temples and other religious institutions in Northern India. In sharp contrast to this, the Sikh rule under Ranjit Singh witnessed a policy of religious tolerance and large hearted liberalism which had its roots in the Sikh ethos. During his reign, there were no outbursts of communal fanaticism, no forced conversions, no attempts at bloody revenge, no language tensions, no second class citizens, no repression, no bloodsheds, no executions and no tortures. These being the historical realities well known to students of history, Oberoi’s vision and senses seem too blurred to see the evil depths of division that have marked and ruined the course of Indian history leading to four divisions of the Indian sub-continent in the span of one generation. This reminds us of prof. Neol King’s warning that in the field of history and religion, it is very necessary to know the background of the person. For, Oberoi’s perceptions seem to be typical of  a town bred sheltered school boy, who lacks sense of proportion and assessment.

The author emphasises that ’the Sikhs studies need to fully open up to the gaze of the history’ but at the same time he chooses to ignore the overwhelming strong historical evidence, which distinguishes Sikhism from other religions. The martyrdom of the Sikhs Gurus was to uphold the religious freedom of their own followers as well as of others. Four sons of the Tenth Master laid down their lives for the same cause. Catholicity of Sikhism with its emphasis on universal brotherhood and tolerance of other people’s beliefs need not be confused with the lack of religious solidarity among the Sikhs. Even the contemporary Muslim chronicler Mohsan Fani bears testimony to the clearly demarcated features of Sikh ideology and ethos. The spirit of the Sikh Gurus was carried on by Banda Singh Bahadur and his men, who fought against the Mughals under the most inhospitable circumstances. But they stuck to their faith and principles till the end of their lives. The Sikh devotion to their religion and their spirit is evident from the fact that out of 740 Sikh prisoners of war, who were executed in Delhi, along with Banda, not one deserted the faith, even while given the choice to do so.

Kazi Nur Muhammad, who came to India with the famous invader Ahmed Shah Abdali testifies, in emphatic words, to the separate religious identity and ethos of what he calls the followers of Nanak. Was it not the religious ideology of the Sikhs that equipped them to face intense persecution during the mid-18th century. If, as stated by Oberoi, the religions boundaries were not clearly defined before the advent of the British, then, who were those Sikh heads on whom the Mughal administration, that knew its enemies very well, fixed the prices. Sikhism has had a long chain of sacrifices - martyrdoms which find no parallel in  other Indian communities. It was surely on account of its glorious heritage of sacrifice that the Sikh community played a vital role not only in stemming the tide of invaders but also in the country’s struggle for independence, a role which is out of all proportion to their  small numbers.

The partition of India into two countries in 1947 was preceded by a long period of communal turmoil and clashes extending over the past few centuries. Seen in this light, Oberoi’s assertions that communal boundaries in India crytallised only in the 19th century are absolutely baseless. Oberoi’s entire understanding of the past that there were no deeply marked communal boundaries appears too naively simplistic, for, it leads to the suggestion that the blood baths of Blue Star attack at Amritsar, the large scale November 1984 massacres in the capital and elsewhere and the Babri Masjid episode at Ayodhya are just post-independence developments that have no roots in the past.

Oberoi is fond of suggesting terms like ’multiple identities in Sikhism’, ’several competing definitions of a Sikh’, ’religious diversity in Sikhism’, ’religious fluidity in the Sikh tradition’, ’religious pluralism in Sikhism’, ’amorphous growth of religion’, etc. facilely to prove that Sikhism has no clear definition. This is typical of a person quite ignorant of the Sikh scripture, which rigorously defines the doctrines and a world-view which are entirely independent and different from the fundamentals of contemporary religious systems. Had Sikh identity been vague or plural, the entire history of persecution and martyrdoms of the 18th century becomes meaningless and ununderstable both for the Mughal administration and the Sikhs. Oberoi’s major failing is that he does not understand that, like Protestantism or Vaishnavism, Sikhism is not a sociological growth or sect. It has its ten Prophets, who created entirely a new society with radically different motivations, ideals and ethos, as distinct from the old Hindu society.

In fact, Sikh history is nothing but the expression of Sikh ideology. In sharp contrast to the dichotomous and life-negating systems, Guru Nanak’s system is a whole-life system, like Islam and Judaism, and takes an integrated view of the spiritual and empirical aspects of the life of man. Consequently it categorically rejects monasticism, asceticism and withdrawal from life. It sanctions a householder’s life, full of social participation and social responsibility. Brotherhood of men and equality of man and woman and of all castes is repeatedly emphasised in the Bani and the lives of the Sikh Gurus. It is a radical departure from the Hindu social ideology of Varn Ashram Dharma, looked upon as divinely ordained. Hierarchical caste system is the pivot of the Hindu society and has religious sanction. Guru Nanak’s egalitarian mission provides the key to the understanding of the social significance of the Sikh movement. While putting Hindus and Sikhs in the same category, Oberoi again shows his typical ignorance of religion and religious history and he observes : "Religion was basically a highly localised affair, often even a matter of individual conduct and, individual salvation... Islam may have been the only exception to this." (p. 14). Sikhism like Islam and Judaism is basically a societal religion. No serious scholar can deny that the Sikhs have always been in the forefront in any struggle for universal causes and human rights. They have been trained to resist and confront injustice, wherever it could take place.

Oberoi includes Guru Nanak’s religion of ’naam simran’ (remembrance of the Divine Word) in the ’paradigm of interior religiosity.’ Here the author fails to understand that Guru Nanak set himself apart from the crowd of quietistic Sadhus, Bairagis and Udasis who, mused over life’s futilities and mourned over the state of man in an evil world and who in the pursuit of their spiritual aims, sought alienation from the world and its problems. Guru Nanak had a positive outlook on life, in contradiction to denunciation and renunciation of worldly life. With the Guru, Sikhism became a religion of the householders. It was given an explicitly social character through a series of measures adopted by the Guru. The institutions of Dharamsalas (the earlier nomenclature of Gurdwaras, meant for public worship), Sangat (a corporate body of the Sikhs), Pangat (seating the devotees in rows to stress the egalitarian principle), Langar (public kitchen) and Kirtan (singing of hymns in public) have come down to the Sikhs from the days of Guru Nanak. The Guru did not confine his activities to Naam Simran in the seclusion of his home. He was very mobile. He undertook extensive travels and organised Sangats at a time when foreign travel was taboo and caste Hindus felt themselves defiled by it. Guru Nanak looked upon the world as real and meaningful and not as ’Maya’ or illusion.

Guru inaugurated a virile movement with an activistic approach to the problems of life. His heart melted at the sight of debilitated Indian society and the tyranny of the foreign invaders. He clearly saw that by neglecting to take proper steps for the defence of his subjects against the onslaughts of Babur, the Lodhi sovereign of Delhi was preparing his way for his ultimate ruin. "The dogs of Lodhi have spoiled the priceless inheritance, when they are dead, no one will regard them?" And very soon circumstances took such a turn that Guru’s prognostication was literally fulfilled. The Guru regretted that the yogis of spiritual worth had hidden themselves in the safety of high mountains. His own response to the challenge was reflected in identifying the task. He wanted his successors to take up the task and devise practical responses according to the gravity of the challenge. We have to judge Guru Nanak as we might judge Buddha or Christ or any other prophet of a movement who left the work of its organisation still incomplete. But Guru Nanak purposely appointed a successor to complete it.

Oberoi makes vague and irrelevant observations regarding Sakhi Sarvar, Guga, Seetla and ancestor worship among the Sikhs, about which he gives no data at all in support of his argument. A correct evaluation of Sikhism cannot be made by a lop-sided or isolated study of a few rituals and beliefs prevalent instray sections of the community during a period when some Hindus found it convenient to enter the Sikh fold. Any student of Guru Granth Sahib knows that it is full of hymns rejecting the spiritual character of Devis, Pirs, gods, goddesses, etc. and both the Guru Granth and the Sikh history record that the Gurus deprecated these practices and the Singh Sabha never invented anything. Mis-statement of Oberoi is coupled with another suppression by him of H.A. Rose’s clear observation (whom he otherwise quotes) that in the Sikh villages there was known enmity between the Sikhs who did not worship Sakhi Sarvar and the Hindus who believed in Sakhi Sarvar. Apparently, Oberoi has concealed this clear observation of Rose. Instead, he makes the distortion that the Singh Sabha leaders were the first to object to these wrong practices. Such mis-statements, coupled with suppression, are generally made by partisan propagandists interested in misrepresentation of Sikhism but not by academicians. To draw conclusions about ideology from a microscopic minority of converts being Sakhi Sarvarias in the 19th century and to ignore the evidence of all injunctions and doctrines in the Guru Granth, of over two hundred years of the lives and practices of Gurus, and of four centuries of Sikh history contradicting profusely the worship of Devis and Pirs is an epistemological absurdity. It is worth while to stress that religion can be usefully studied only with the tools of its own discipline.

Oberoi tries to theorize that ’the colonial state and its institutions played a significant role in the emergence of a homogeneous Sikh religion’ (p. 423). It is well known that the British efforts were concentrated not on promoting but undermining the Sikh identity. As in the case of the suppression of the conclusion of Rose’s study, here again, Oberoi seems to avoid known facts or Punjab history, namely, large scale missionary onslaughts under the wings of the colonial administration. Darbar Sahib and all the major Gurdwaras were controlled by the mahants and the Pujaris, who were under the Government patronage. The colonial rule had been extra vigilant about the control of the Sikh shrines, as is clear from the letter written by Lt. Governor R.E. Egerton to Lord Ripon, the Viceroy, on August 8, 1881. "I think it will be politically dangerous to allow the management of Sikh temples to fall into the hands of a Committee, emancipated from government control, and trust Your Excellency will resist to pass such orders in the case, as will enable to continue the system, which has worked successfully for more than thirty years." (British Museum Additional Manuscript No. 43592, Folio 300-301). It was after a prolonged struggle that the Gurdwaras were liberated in 1925.

It is well-known that Trumpp, a missionary commissioned by the colonial Government to please his masters wrote a deliberately damaging and distorted translation of the Sikh scripture and version of the Sikh ideology. On the other hand the same government in one form or the other punished and disgraced historians and scholars like J.D. Cunningham and M.A. Macauliffe, who gave an authentic account of the Sikh history and religion. The anti-Sikh bias of the colonial missions is so strong that another functionary  W.H. McLeod has gone to the extent of making what are called blasphemous and unethical attacks against the Sikhs.