Itihaasology

Explore

Itihaasology

Itihaasology

The Misuse* of History Among Sikhs

The Politics* of History Among Sikhs

⁠

By Ranjit Singh |

Substack⁠

⁠

This is a sort of additional Vichaar I wanted to share after reading

The Misuse* of History Among Sikhs⁠

. I share the author's hesitancy in calling it a "misuse" because a lot of what we call Itihaas isn't really history anyway in my opinion (

Itihaas is NOT just History⁠

). In fact, for me, history is secondary to mythology. It isn't what actually happened that shapes the mindsets, attitudes, cultures of the present. It is the story of what happened. The lens in which we look at history through is far more consequential.

For example, if a man kills another man, it is the story that determines how it is later considered as either a justice or an injustice. If the story is constructed in such a way that the one who is killed is the "good guy" and the killer is the "bad guy", then the outcomes will be very different if the labels were reversed. But there are different roles in process of collecting and the assessment of the facts (or as accurate as they can be determined) which informs the final conclusions.

For instance, historians are bit like detectives or crime scene investigators, who are trying to determine the facts and context to the best of their ability. They piece together the evidence to form a story as accurate to the actual happenings as possible. Yet an "Itihaasorian" or storyteller is a but bit more like a lawyer where it is more important to represent the story in a way to fit a specific purpose (such as to defend your client and/or convict an accused). The lawyer already has this purpose in mind from the start, their conclusion is already set. Whereas the crime scene investigator is simply trying to determine the facts of the matter as accurately and impartially as possible.

The aim of a Itihaasorian is to portray a story to derive some sort of utility or benefit. Often, with spiritual traditions and religion, this is to convey wisdom. Particularly those traditions aiming to establish new or shape existing civilisations. For instance, if you want a society based on compassion, then you would shape a narrative of the society’s founder in such a way that portrays those qualities, regardless if they were actually factually like that or not (or even if they existed at all). Instead of the founder killing a dog for fun, the storytellers (civilisation builders) spin it in a way where he was putting them out of their misery. A coward can become a hero, and a brave man may become a tyrant. The actual facts becomes secondary.

This may make storytellers seem like some insidious cabal of the most powerful figures in society, who are able to bend reality to their malevolent will. In some, perhaps many, places this is true. But they are also many powerful storytellers that convey deep wisdom that help society flourish or attain deep spiritual satisfaction. Reading long texts discussing the intricacies of metaphysics can simply be quite boring for many people, and only a subsection of society has the capacity for such discourses. What a storyteller can do is translate those esoteric concepts into a memorable story that more people can relate to. The stories then become vessels for wisdom that can disseminated throughout a population, which in turn informs their mindsets and establishes whole civilisations out of. Famous examples of these include The Iliad and Homer’s Odyssey for ancient Greek civilisation, and the Ramayan and Mahabharat for Indic civilisations (including Sikhi!).

The Gurus also tapped into these stories, retold and remodelled them for their own unique purposes of establishing a new culture of spiritual-warriors, able to attain both spiritual and temporal rule. However, even the Gurus themselves transcend into mythos with a unique Sikh Itihaas tradition that arose based on their life stories too. From Janamsakhis, Panth Prakash to Suraj Prakash, we too developed the same storyteller technology to convey the Guru’s wisdom (as per the unique interpretations of their authors)

However, stories take on a life of their own as they traverse through people and time. As I mentioned, the Gurus also contributed to the reinterpretations of existing myths of their times too:

“...with Guru Gobind Singh even writing his own version of the Ramayan, emphasising the Bir Ras more so than in any other version before it.”

—
Itihaas is NOT just History⁠

The Ramayan itself has had many variations and retellings since Valmiki’s original. New characters may be added, all new events occur, whereas some sections are emphasised more whilst others are downplayed or removed entirely. Stories are reforged over and over. Each retelling is a variation in of itself, even if the words are the same, the tone in which it conveyed may be different to emphasise some parts over others.

But even when you share identical stories, the interpretations of them may change listener to listener, as they build their own unique relationship with it, and even this changes over the course of ones life as new experiences change their outlook. Some individuals may become sources of guidance, helping others by sharing their interpretations. The more value these individuals can give to people’s lives, the more successful they are as storytellers.

Crucially however, the wisdom itself is paramount, not the aesthetics of the story so much. As long as that can be extracted, the story has served its purpose. This is why there can be mentions of so many fantastical, but unrealistic things, but the story is still memorable and able to shape attitudes in society. Modern western examples of Itihaas could be seen in things such as Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, Harry Potter etc. These are more Mithiaas (mythology) since they are clearly not based on any real events from the outset, and that is made obvious to the viewers. However with a show like Vikings, it is based on real events, but loosely and there are many inaccuracies according to historians. Yet, it still provides so much value to people with the themes it conveys and the “truths” it displays, hence its success as a story regardless. These things may not be strictly factual, but they can still be true.

I mean we have whole industries around this called such as "Hollywood". Yet their influence on society is undeniable and they way movies and shows can ressonate so deeply amongst so many people. In very much the same way we have Ramayan, Illiad, Bible etc etc. The historicity of events is secondary to the “itihaasocity”.

A good example of this is the current resurgence of Nihang Matt and the whole idea of how Puratan Khalsa used to be so different, and now it has been suppressed etc. Now a historian could comb through and find evidence to support this (and you can indeed find a lot to support it) or moderate the extent of it. But the real value for me is in it's ability motivate and inspire. To break boundaries, reject a hollowness, blind ritualism and the rigid dogmatism I see and experience in the present. It also holds explanatory power when assessing the reality of the Panth’s current lack of any large scale political success. Ultimately it valuable to promote an Azaad mindset, that can ready a population of modern Khalsa to attain and do Raaj. The accuracy of the history may augments this purpose, but the main focus is the psychological outcomes.

Another example is Khalistanis, particularly Neo-Khalistanis, who become immersed in modern “Taksalism” and participate in the Sant Babai culture and often downplay history not too long prior to 80s in order to put more emphasis on events during the 80s/90s. Each group is serving a particular purpose so will present evidence or share stories in such a way to achieve their aims. This doesn't mean exclusively though, you will definitely get Nihangs sharing the Khalistan material with respect and reverence for the Shaheeds, same way you will get Taksalis and Khalistanis do similar for Khalsa Shaheeds and stories of their prowess.

Various groups and backgrounds will retell stories to promote particular narratives or achieve particular aims. Sikhs have been doing this since our inception, the Gurus themselves did this, and so did all the civilisations before us. If you recognise stories more as tools and not so much as solely objects of academic study, then they can utilised for great effect.

Now I personally try to find some balance but I do consciously skew towards the Nihang/Khalsa side of things more, not only because of the historicity of it but more so because of the mythology of it. I feel like it applies to reality now in such a way that prepares a mindset to secure Raaj more effectively. To make such claims in a way that portray this a “revival” and that there is a “Khalsa supremacy”, in manner that is so confident for sure has its risks, but it is part and parcel of the mythology and how it is spread. For Nihangs, the whole spiel at the moment is to “revive, revive, revive”, but I definitely recognise and have my reservations against some of the extent of this revival (I do indeed think there is a bit of an overcorrection, and also a mis-correction in places, but will detail this elsewhere).

I think the authors concern is more accurately directed at blind conservatism in general which is a attachment to tradition (or more accurately, the perception of how things were) and a rejection of progressivism (testing the boundaries and looking in the future). The irony is that the Conservatives conserve what the progressives of the past progressed. For instance the ancient Jewish Pharisees were the conservatives, whereas Jesus and the early Christians were the progressives. But after some time when the institutions built up and the new path became more systemised, making it easier to adopt, more ordered and structured etc. then those who maintain that system become the new conservatives. Then you have subsects of new progressives and perhaps even new religions entirely which push back and start the cycle again. This is not to say that blind progressivism is the antidote to blind conservatism either. There are legitimate reasons why conservatives become resistant to progressives, as the latter can push boundaries that were there for good reason and established by old wisdom. Not all movement is progress.

To conclude, I think the word the author may have been looking for was “politics”. There is a “politics of history among Sikhs”, but this isn’t a new phenomena, nor a unique one to Sikhs. History, combined with mythology and applied to reality has always been like this. But balance is needed. A balance between conservatism and progressivism, how much we bend reality and mythologise history and vice versa. Although I have mentioned how much stories are tools, every tool has the capacity to become a weapon. The difference lies in intentions and outcomes.

Gallery

Want to print your doc?
This is not the way.

Try clicking the ⋯ next to your doc name or using a keyboard shortcut (

CtrlP

) instead.