- -
- -
Imperialism thrives on divisions and it sows them even where they do not exist. the British government invited one dr. e. Trumpp, a German indologist and missionary, to look at Sikh scriptures and prove that their theology and cosmology were different from those of the Vedas and the Upanishads. but he found nothing in them to support this view.
Dr E Trumpp found Guru Nanak dev ji a "thorough Hindu," his religion "a pantheism, derived directly from Hindu sources." in fact, the influence of Islam on subsequent Sikhism was, according to him, negative. "it is not improbable that Islam had a great share in working silently these changes, which are directly opposed to the teachings of the gurus," he says.
However, to please his clients, he said that the external marks of the Sikhs separated them from the Hindus and once these were lost, they relapsed into Hinduism. hence, Hinduism was a danger to Sikhism and the external marks must be preserved by the Sikhs at all costs. precisely because there was a fundamental unity, the accidental difference had to be pushed to the utmost and made much of. from then onwards, "Sikhism in danger" became the cry of many British scholar administrators.
Lepel Henry Griffen postulated that Hinduism had always been hostile to Sikhism and even socially the two had been antagonistic. one Max Arthur Macauliffe, a highly placed British administrator, became the loudest spokesman of this thesis. the Sikhs "may go that way," he warned. he felt the imminent danger to the British empire, in that “the Sikhs regarded themselves as Hindus.” so he tutored Sikh theoligans to put words into the gurus mouths and fraudulently allege that this was, "in direct opposition to the teachings of the gurus."
It is a proven fact that Max Arthur Macauliffe put words into the mouth of the gurus and invented prophecies by them which anticipated the advent of the white race to whom the Sikhs would be loyal. ie he decided to insert terms such as Sikhs only bowing before the Granth and nothing else. he described "the pernicious effects of the upbringing of Sikh youths in a Hindu atmosphere." these youths, he claimed, "are ignorant of the Sikh religion and of its prophecies, which are in favour of the English and contract exclusive customs and prejudices to the extent of calling us malechhas or persons of impure desires, and inspire disgust for the customs and habits of Christians."
It was a concerted effort in which the officials, the scholars and the missionaries all joined. the Singh Sabha, the brainchild of professor Leitner, kings college was to become there most lethal weapon in putting into practice their plan to separate the Sikh sect of Hinduism from Hinduism.
In order to separate the Sikhs, they were even made into a sect of Islam. for example,one Thomas Patrick Hughes, who had worked as missionary for twenty years in Peshawar, edited the dictionary of Islam. the work itself is scholarly but, like most European scholarship, it had a colonial inspiration. the third biggest article in this work, after Muhammad and the Quran, is on Sikhism. it devotes one fourth of a page to the Sunnis and, somewhat more justly,seven pages to the Shias, but devotes eleven and a half pages to the Sikhs! probably, the editor himself thought it rather excessive; for he offers an explanation to the orientalists who "may perhaps be surprised to find that Sikhism has been treated as a sect of Islam." indeed, it is surprising to the non-orientalists too. for it must be a strange sect of Islam where the word 'Muhammad' does not occur even once in the writings of its founder, Nanak. but the inclusion of such an article "in the present work seemed to be most desirable." it was a policy matter.
Macauliffe and others provided categories which became the thought equipment of subsequent Sikh intellectuals but the British government did not neglect the quicker administrative and political measures. They developed a special army policy which gave results even in the short run. while they disarmed the nation as whole, they created privileged enclaves of what they called martial races.
The Poorabiya soldiers, many of them Brahmins, played a rebellious role in 1857. so the British sought other elements. the Sikhs were chosen. in 1855, there were only 1500 Sikh soldiers, mostly mazhabis. in 1910, there were 33 thousands out of a total of 174 thousands, this time mostly Jats, just a little less than one fifth of the total army strength. Their very recruitment was calculated to give them a sense of separateness and exclusiveness. Only such Sikhs were recruited who observed the marks of the Khalsa. They were sent to receive baptism according to the rites prescribed by Guru Gobind Singh. Each regiment had its own granthis. The greetings exchanged between the British officers and the Sikh soldiers were 'wahguruji ka khalsa, wahguru ji ki fateh'.
A secret c.i.d memorandum, prepared by D. Patfie, assistant director, criminal intelligence, government of India (1911), says that "every endevour has been made to separate them (Sikh soldiers) from Hinduism ," thanks to these measures, the "Sikhs in the Indian army have been studiously nationalized," Macaulille observed. About the meaning of this "nationalization", we are left in no doubt. Petrie explains that it means that the Sikhs were "encouraged to regard themselves as a totally distinct and separate nation."
No wonder, the British congratulated themselves and held that the " becoming and preservation of Sikhism as a separate religion was largely due to the action of the British officers," as Maccauliffe put it.
Also refer to post #19, Re: Western Writers' thinking about Sikhism and Gurbani
HERE
Thanks
- -
- -
- -
Imperialism thrives on divisions and it sows them even where they do not exist. the British government invited one dr. e. Trumpp, a German indologist and missionary, to look at Sikh scriptures and prove that their theology and cosmology were different from those of the Vedas and the Upanishads. but he found nothing in them to support this view.
Dr E Trumpp found Guru Nanak dev ji a "thorough Hindu," his religion "a pantheism, derived directly from Hindu sources." in fact, the influence of Islam on subsequent Sikhism was, according to him, negative. "it is not improbable that Islam had a great share in working silently these changes, which are directly opposed to the teachings of the gurus," he says.
However, to please his clients, he said that the external marks of the Sikhs separated them from the Hindus and once these were lost, they relapsed into Hinduism. hence, Hinduism was a danger to Sikhism and the external marks must be preserved by the Sikhs at all costs. precisely because there was a fundamental unity, the accidental difference had to be pushed to the utmost and made much of. from then onwards, "Sikhism in danger" became the cry of many British scholar administrators.
Lepel Henry Griffen postulated that Hinduism had always been hostile to Sikhism and even socially the two had been antagonistic. one Max Arthur Macauliffe, a highly placed British administrator, became the loudest spokesman of this thesis. the Sikhs "may go that way," he warned. he felt the imminent danger to the British empire, in that “the Sikhs regarded themselves as Hindus.” so he tutored Sikh theoligans to put words into the gurus mouths and fraudulently allege that this was, "in direct opposition to the teachings of the gurus."
It is a proven fact that Max Arthur Macauliffe put words into the mouth of the gurus and invented prophecies by them which anticipated the advent of the white race to whom the Sikhs would be loyal. ie he decided to insert terms such as Sikhs only bowing before the Granth and nothing else. he described "the pernicious effects of the upbringing of Sikh youths in a Hindu atmosphere." these youths, he claimed, "are ignorant of the Sikh religion and of its prophecies, which are in favour of the English and contract exclusive customs and prejudices to the extent of calling us malechhas or persons of impure desires, and inspire disgust for the customs and habits of Christians."
It was a concerted effort in which the officials, the scholars and the missionaries all joined. the Singh Sabha, the brainchild of professor Leitner, kings college was to become there most lethal weapon in putting into practice their plan to separate the Sikh sect of Hinduism from Hinduism.
In order to separate the Sikhs, they were even made into a sect of Islam. for example,one Thomas Patrick Hughes, who had worked as missionary for twenty years in Peshawar, edited the dictionary of Islam. the work itself is scholarly but, like most European scholarship, it had a colonial inspiration. the third biggest article in this work, after Muhammad and the Quran, is on Sikhism. it devotes one fourth of a page to the Sunnis and, somewhat more justly,seven pages to the Shias, but devotes eleven and a half pages to the Sikhs! probably, the editor himself thought it rather excessive; for he offers an explanation to the orientalists who "may perhaps be surprised to find that Sikhism has been treated as a sect of Islam." indeed, it is surprising to the non-orientalists too. for it must be a strange sect of Islam where the word 'Muhammad' does not occur even once in the writings of its founder, Nanak. but the inclusion of such an article "in the present work seemed to be most desirable." it was a policy matter.
Macauliffe and others provided categories which became the thought equipment of subsequent Sikh intellectuals but the British government did not neglect the quicker administrative and political measures. They developed a special army policy which gave results even in the short run. while they disarmed the nation as whole, they created privileged enclaves of what they called martial races.
The Poorabiya soldiers, many of them Brahmins, played a rebellious role in 1857. so the British sought other elements. the Sikhs were chosen. in 1855, there were only 1500 Sikh soldiers, mostly mazhabis. in 1910, there were 33 thousands out of a total of 174 thousands, this time mostly Jats, just a little less than one fifth of the total army strength. Their very recruitment was calculated to give them a sense of separateness and exclusiveness. Only such Sikhs were recruited who observed the marks of the Khalsa. They were sent to receive baptism according to the rites prescribed by Guru Gobind Singh. Each regiment had its own granthis. The greetings exchanged between the British officers and the Sikh soldiers were 'wahguruji ka khalsa, wahguru ji ki fateh'.
A secret c.i.d memorandum, prepared by D. Patfie, assistant director, criminal intelligence, government of India (1911), says that "every endevour has been made to separate them (Sikh soldiers) from Hinduism ," thanks to these measures, the "Sikhs in the Indian army have been studiously nationalized," Macaulille observed. About the meaning of this "nationalization", we are left in no doubt. Petrie explains that it means that the Sikhs were "encouraged to regard themselves as a totally distinct and separate nation."
No wonder, the British congratulated themselves and held that the " becoming and preservation of Sikhism as a separate religion was largely due to the action of the British officers," as Maccauliffe put it.
Also refer to post #19, Re: Western Writers' thinking about Sikhism and Gurbani
HERE
Thanks
- -
- -