The Place of Colonial Terminology within Religious Studies – Sikhi, “Sikhism,” Sikhism, or Sikhi(sm)

[…] what I’ve often discovered, you know, plenty of the studies or books or courses and what-not will pay lip-service [emphasis mine] to the [project of decolonising] . . . they’ll say “Religion is a constructed category, bound up in colonial history and referring to Protestant Christianity.” And then, “Let’s just get on with using it, just like we would normally do.” That’s something that we should try and avoid!

Malory Nye and Christopher R. Cotter, “Decolonizing the Study of Religion,” The Religious Studies Project (29/06/2020).

This essay will focus on debates into whether the term “Sikhism” is sufficient and whether it is necessary, appropriate, and realistic to change the terminology into the more accurate term of Sikhi. First, I explore the debates of Sikh identity and the issues of the term “Sikhism”. Secondly, I explore where the term religion comes from and the impositions this carries on to a Sikh identity. Thirdly, I explore specific debates about the problems of English translations, not only by orientalists, but by Sikhs as well.

There is a consensus within Sikh studies that the term “Sikhism” is a western word coined by Christian outsiders.[1] These outsiders carry their impositions of what European religion looks like and apply this agenda into the making of a Sikh World Religion.[2] The word Sikhi comes from the word Sikh. Its etymology begins in the Sanskrit word Shishya, in Panjabi this would be the word Sikhna.[3] The concept of learning and being a disciple is such a key concept in Sikhi, that the word Sikh means to be a learner or disciple. This meaning is philosophical, theological, historical, and metaphysical; where the Sikh would Sikh(na) [learn] from the Guru, the word “Sikhism” doesn’t have this meaning. The term “Sikhism” is insufficient and inaccurate in its general presentation of “Sikhism” as a World Religion, where Sikhs are presented as a homogenous and unified community.[4] However due to the diaspora, migration, and settlement this is not true.

I suggest the use of the term Sikhi is not used to evoke a romantic sense of returning to a pre-modern version of the religion,[5] it is a form of decolonisation. Using the term Sikhi is a recognition of moving past problematic colonial terminology that has presided over and influences Sikh studies. Sikhi, in the terminology that I propose, recognises the religion of the Sikhs not as a “World Religion”; that is understood in Protestant terms, but as a tradition that must be understood as it is lived and used within its vernacular form. Rather than a rigid de-politicised entity. I seek not to only change the term “Sikhism” within academia, which is something I believe Arvind-Pal Mandair is also seeking to do within his term Sikhism.[6] I want to change and challenge how Sikhs are viewed in society and in their daily religious and non-religious life, where Sikhi informs both aspects of it. Current scholarly debates into the Sikh diaspora do not acknowledge the colonial implications of the term “Sikhism.”

Another debate within scholarship is the issue with the terminology of “religion” and the colonial project of “religion making.” The main issue with the term “religion” as Talal Asad argues, is that it suggests and supports the trend to universalise a Christian Protestant notion of religion.[7] The term religion, as argued by Timothy Fitzgerald, doesn’t exist as an analytical category, as it differs in it meaning within different cultures.[8] This is an issue inherent to understanding “Sikhism” as the Christian Protestant notion of religion relegates “Sikhism” to the private sphere. Through focusing on the practice of religion in individual and de-political ways. This has implications for the Miri–Piri (temporal/secular realm and spiritual/religious realm) dynamic and the role of the Sangat (congregation).[9] The term “religion” has its origins in Western terminology, the history, and impositions it carries emerge out of colonial white European Christian traditions.[10] Western impositions and expectations that influence the study of religion can be difficult to meet. Especially with the baggage that religions carry – they must operate in the private sphere, must have a sole focus on creed, text, and founders, and finally their texts must be translated vernacular language.[11]

There remains a sharp racial divide between the colonised and the coloniser where binary opposites between the two are made within the politics of religion. With the mode of translation and language being the main application of this.[12] These binary opposites include the divide and rule tactic between Hindu and Sikh, Britishness and Indianness, and the superiority of the Protestant model of religion over pre-colonial forms of religion. These themes are largely ignored within the study of Religion, especially in religious education within British primary and secondary schools that relies heavily on the World Religions paradigm. Although there are calls to move past this and recognise the issues of the term “World Religions.”[13]  

The issues of “Sikhism” as a “World Religion” are largely overlooked. To combat the issue Protestant modes of studying religion bring; lived religion and the recognition of what it means when the term “religion”[14] is used are extremely important. Whether that be in a classroom, university setting, institutional setting, or in research.

The problems of terminology, highlighted in the literature and exemplified by my fieldwork interviews, demonstrated that Sikhi is the correct and appropriate term for discourse. There is a cause for caution when using the terms “religion” and “Sikhism”. Despite the discussion of terminology, issues of the Christian translations haunt Sikh texts. Jasjit Singh recognises the politics of translation, where there is a rejection of Sikh terms, such as Sikhi, Gurmat, or Dharam in favour of Christian terms. Even when these terms are not necessary and impact understandings.[15] This is an issue so ingrained in Sikh thought that even Sikh translators such as Sant Singh Khalsa are guilty of it.[16] Khalsa’s translation of Siri Guru Granth Sahib reinforces Christian norms, whereby the translated word becomes the meaning of the text. For instance, the focus on the term “God” in his translation of Japji Sahib[17] transforms the term into the norm in Sikh thought, texts, and translations.

What is yet to be discussed is the issue and implications of colonial translations in Sikh and Religious Studies. English words carry impositions and certain Panjabi/Gurmukhi words can be difficult to translate. This becomes even more problematic if certain words are rooted in Sanskrit, Persian, or Arabic etymology, where a word may have a double meaning. I propose instead of translating Sikh texts word for word into English, some words can stand in their original Gurmukhi/Panjabi and can be explained in a commentary, or as a footnote. This would mean placing central importance on the reading of important teachings such as the terms shabad-Guru[18](commonly translated as the “special sound that is transmitted by a teacher,” yet has a more philosophical meaning in reality), nirgun-sargun[19](translated as “form” and “formless”), and anand[20](translated as “eternal happiness”).[21]

This would follow suit with Biblical Studies, where some concepts are explained using the Hebrew word which is especially important for names.[22] Sikh studies could use commentaries to explain important Sikh concepts, for example, in most Sikh translations of the word anand, it is translated as “ecstasy.”[23] Its philosophical, mental, spiritual, and physical meaning is reduced to the English translation, rather than explaining what the term anand means. Nikky-Guninder Kaur Singh mentions the issue of the English language carrying impositions.[24] As English words carry impositions, they avidly affect Sikh identity. I attempted to rectify this in within my research process.

I made detailed notes about what I see in a variety of Gurdwaras in Birmingham. One of the most interesting developments I have seen in the Gurdwara is in the realm of prayer for Sikhs: a projector screen is used to display the translations of the scriptures. One line would be the original Gurmukhi or Panjabi line, one line would be a translation of the text into the English, and a further line would be a transliteration of the text in Panjabi to be read out (mostly by the Sangat).

This interesting development comes about due to the digital age that we live in now. Jasjit Singh outlines a number of translations that can be downloaded such as ‘SikhiToTheMax’ which contains has English translations and is being used by Gurdwaras.[25] This use of digital methods is not exclusive to the diaspora, but is also employed through the broadcast of Japji Sahib and Kirtan or the Rehras Sahib and Kirtan on the tv channel “PTC Punjabi” or on Youtube. These translations use English-Christian-gendered language such as “thou” or “God,” “Soul,” “Lord,” etc. Future research may have to include interviewing committee members to see if they recognise the issues of using Christian-English language in the institution of the Gurdwara, and to investigate methods to move past these, providing a platform, programme, or recommendations for this.

I have noticed that Sikh prayers are available to be downloaded on smartphones, yet phones are recommended to be switched off in the Darbar Sahib. I wonder if phones are allowed to be used within the Darbar Sahib to read or sing scripture, but I have seen some Kirtan Jathas (kirtan groups) use their phones because of the ease of finding Shabads (prayers) to sing. I wonder about the exact Maryada (rule) for this. Despite the ambiguity of the rules behind this, it is important to note that this is mainly done by the young members of the Sikh diaspora. They have easy access to platforms that provide English translations that I deem as problematic, yet simultaneously rely on the Panjabi or Gurmukhi to sing Kirtan. This observation shows how important the digital age is to the modern Sikh diaspora.

Pashaura Singh notes that no translation can ever do justice to the original text and English translations by Indian authors are inadequate for academic use due to a lack on quality.[26] Singh roots his propositions in recognising the colonial project of translation as a tool used to create a vision of religious traditions that could be used to manipulate and control the general public.[27] These issues lead to Singh proposing for an international team of translators[28] to do justice to the Sikh text, working in unison to protect the teachings and present the academic value that Sikh texts possess.[29] This project is reminiscent of projects in Biblical Studies, whereby a team of translators combine to translate Hebrew, Greek, or Latin texts. This method allows for honest and necessary insights into the issues of the use of the English language.

The New Revised Standard Version translation of the Bible acknowledges the use of Hebrew terms instead of English noting ‘where it was deemed appropriate to do so, information is supplied in footnotes from subsidiary Jewish traditions…[hence recognising] occasionally it is evident the text has suffered in transmission and that none of the versions provides a satisfactory restoration.’[30] This is something Sikh translations do not do. Instead, they mostly translate into English word for word from the original Gurmukhi. If the move for an international effort to translate Sikh texts takes place, its methodology must recognise the shortcomings of colonial translations and how certain modern Sikh English translations have replicated these shortcomings; it must strive to move past these.

---

References

[1] Arvind-Pal Singh Mandair, Sikhism: A Guide for the Perplexed (Bloomsbury, 2013).

[2] Ibid., 3.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Tony Ballantyne, Between Colonialism and Diaspora: Sikh Cultural Formations in an Imperial World (Duke University Press, 2006), 25.

[5] A fair criticism, as Arvind-Pal Singh Mandair notes that returning to pre-colonial elements of Sikhi can evoke romanticism. See: Mandair, Sikhism, 13.

[6] Mandair, Sikhism.

[7] Pal Ahluwalia, “At Home in Motion: Evolving Sikh Identities,” Sikh Formations, vol. 7, no. 2 (2011): 98.

[8] Timothy Fitzgerald, The Ideology of Religious Studies (Oxford University Press, 2000), 4.

[9] Sikh traditions highlight the importance of the community as demonstrated through the creation of the Khalsa.

[10] Malory Nye, “Decolonizing the Study of Religion,” Open Library of Humanities, vol. 5, no. 1 (2019): 43.

[11] Whitney A. Bauman, Richard Bohannon, and Kevin J. O’Brien Grounding Religion: A Field Guide to the Study of Religion and Ecology (Taylor & Francis, 2017), 28.

[12] Sunit Singh, “On the Politics of the Sikh Diaspora,” Diaspora: A Journal of Transnational Studies, vol. 14, no. 1 (2005), 159.

[13] Commission on Religious Education, Final Report: Religion and Worldviews: The Way Forward: A National Plan for RE (Religious Education of England and Wales, 2018), 5, 74. The alternative term proposed is “Religion and Worldviews.” It seems to be focused on incorporating “Spiritualities” and “New Religions Movements” rather than directly fixing the issues of the World Religions paradigm of treating religion as a ‘de-political’, private, creedal identity.

[14] Fitzgerald, The Ideology of Religious Studies.

[15] Jasjit Singh, “Lost in Translation? The Emergence of the Digital Guru Granth Sahib,” Sikh Formations: Religion, Culture, Theory, vol. 14, no. 3-4 (2018): 346.

[16] Sant Singh Khalsa, “English Translation of Siri Guru Granth Sahib,” SikhNet (2017).

[17] Ibid., 1.

[18] Shabad is translated to mean sound, however, its meaning is a lot deeper than this. Shabad is a sound of wisdom that dispels the ego, the Guru is the one who gives the knowledge of this Shabad. 

[19] This concept shows the duality and understanding of Akal Purakh (meaning “Timeless Being”) as both nirgun and sargun, transcendent and immanent. This concept was wrongly understood by Ernest Trumpp, he translated these qualities as separate entities, accusing Sikhs of believing in pantheism and thus showing the need for care over translations. See: Ernest Trumpp, Adi Granth, or The Holy Scriptures of the Sikhs, Translated from the Original Gurmukhi, with Introductory Essays (WM. H. Allen & Co., 1877).

[20] Anand is more than happiness; it is a term that most Sikhs struggle to translate as it has a metaphysical quality. Anand is immense joy and an inspiration in everyday life, it is inspiration on a physical, mental, and even spiritual level.

[21] Ananda Abeysekara, “The Past Future of Postcolonial ‘Category’ Religion, Theory, and Translation: A Symposium on Arvind-Pal Mandair’s ‘Religion and the Specter of the West’,” Method & Theory in the Study of Religion, vol. 23, no. 2 (2011): 125.

[22] For example, the name Sarah, in English it can be difficult to understand what this name might signify, however in its Hebrew/Greek it means princess; this concept can be and is extremely useful for understanding a text and the role of the character (Fitzmyer, 2002, 149).

[23] Khalsa, “English Translation of Siri Guru Granth Sahib,” 917.

[24] Nikky-Guninder Kaur Singh, The Name of my Beloved: Verses of the Sikh Gurus (AltaMira Press, 1995), 35.

[25] Singh, “Lost in Translation? The Emergence of the Digital Guru Granth Sahib,” 342.

[26] Pashaura Singh, “New Directions in Sikh Studies,” in The Oxford Handbook of Sikh Studies, edited by Pashaura Singh and Louis E. Fenech (Oxford University Press, 2014), 632.

[27] Ibid., 635.

[28] Research being undertaken by the Sikh Research Institute through The Guru Granth Sahib Project is tackling some of the issues currently seen in English translations of Sikh scripture.

[29] Singh, “New Directions in Sikh Studies,” 636.

[30] The Bible (New Revised Standard Version), xiii.

---

© Vishal Sangu, 2022.

This work is licensed under Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0).

Cover Image: “Amritsar, Golden Temple” by Arian Zwegers is licensed under CC BY 2.0.