Karma, Equality and Sikh Discrimination

Introduction

The five beloved (Panj Piyare) ones who administer Khande di Pahul should not include a disabled person, such as a person who is blind or blind in one eye, lame, one with a broken or disabled limb, or one suffering from some chronic disease. – SGPC Rehat Maryada

The practice of equality is seen as an integral part of Sikhism. Many Sikhs believe that this right ought to be exercised unconditionally so as to oppose all forms of oppressive and discriminatory social constructs, such as, social class, external appearance, and gender among others.

They are quick to point to the example of their Gurus who were especially strict, for example, in their condemnation of and efforts towards eradicating the discriminatory caste system of Hinduism, which was considered the very epitomisation of inequality. Sardar Jasleen Singh emphatically declares that the “superficial caste system was rejected by Guru Nanak along with the inferior status of women, and he replaced it by equality for all” [1] (bold, underline ours).

This paper, on the other hand, will argue that Sikhism, by its own practical standards, fails to fulfil such an impracticable right because of the inherent problems associated with its implementation.

This will be done by examining the well-known Sikh ritual called Amrit Sanskar (Nectar Ceremony), or Khande di Pahul (Ceremony of the Double-Edged Sword), in order to show that Sikhs are guilty of paying empty lip-service by exercising double standards and consequently discriminating against, and thus marginalising, their own co-religionists.

The Discriminatory Khande Di Pahul

No one can escape the consequences of one’s deeds or Karmas.

Khande di Pahul, also known as Amrit Pahul, is an important baptismal ceremony which admits the initiate with formal rites into the Khalsa Panth (pure; movement, path). [2] In the case of this research, however, we are not concerned so much with the ceremony’s significance as we are a particular part of the ritual which seems to violate the “equality for all” claim.

Specific details regarding the ritualistic procedure have been explained in a number of works. Arguably the most important in Sikhdom is the current Rahit Maryada, or the official Code of Conduct, published by the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC). Prof Avtar Singh gives the following short historical summary of its development and publication:

Although the professor clarifies that the Rahit Maryada “does not attempt to lay down all the detailed principles of the Sikh ethics for the obvious reason that its role is mostly explanatory and in the ultimate analysis the Adi Granth is the final and complete guide”, he, nevertheless, recognises and acknowledges both the scale, magnitude and grandeur of the project, as well as its universal acceptance and importance within Sikhdom:

In fact, according to the following prominent Sikh scholars, the significance of the Rahit Maryada is such that Prof Nirbhai Singh, for example, declared:

Whereas Prof Harnam Singh Shan emphasised that since its approval in 1945, the Code has been “accepted as an authoritative manual and regarded as the standard guide for the WHOLE COMMUNITY” [6] (bold, underline, capitalisation ours).

In turning, then, to the details of this ceremony as found in the SGPC’s Rahit Maryada, we are confronted by the following problematic clause:

While describing SGPC as “the premier statutory Body of the Sikhs” who “have the general approval of the theologians, head-priests of Sikh Seats of Authority, called ‘the Thrones, takhats, and Sikh congregations in various parts of India, and other parts of the world, such a Malaya, Canada, Burma, U.S.A., and Africa”, [8] the well-known Sikh scholar, Sirdar Kapur Singh, also delineates the organisation’s “Rules and Regulations” for said ceremony by repeating:

Similarly, in its own uniquely distinct Gurmat Rahit Maryada, the Damdami Taksaal unequivocally declares that “[t]he Panj Pyare are not to be one-eyed, [or] bald” because:

From those that we get initiated from – we take some of their virtues as this is what they invest in the Amrit, that is why someone of high Sikhi discipline is to be sought to get initiated from.”

What this effectively implies is that a person with a particular impairment or one who is naturally bald, cannot be considered in Sikhism to possess “high Sikhi discipline” and, therefore, can never be of the Panj Pyare. In addition, to make certain that these officiates fit this criterion, the Jathedar [10] questions them individually during which they “face the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Jee and reply humbly that with the Guru Jee’s blessing … I am physically complete, fit and healthy …. After the questioning is over – if all are suitable, one Singh becomes the Granthi Singh and the rest join the Jathedar in becoming Panj Pyare”. [11]

Prof Waqar Ihsan-Ullah Ahmad of Middlesex University in Britain has conducted extensive research into the issue of race, health and social care. He cites:

In light of this definition, the fact that “a whole class of people (with impairments) … systematically disadvantages them compared to the mainstream of society” vis-á-vis the Amrit ceremony is a proof of “disablist marginalization”. [12]

Thankfully, such marginalisation has not gone unnoticed by other more conscientious Sikhs. For example, in his article published on the Singh Sabha of New York Inc. website, Mohan Singh laments:

In reply to Mohan’s email inquiring over this injustice, this “premier statutory Body of the Sikhs”, viz. the SGPC, callously responds:

What more is there to be said? Sikhs are expected to “obey the Sikh code of Conduct”; period. In other words, Sikhs are expected to marginalise the disabled and those suffering from chronic diseases and, thus, discriminate against them. So much for “equality for all”.

As can be imagined, Mohan is unimpressed to say the least and correctly observes:

The United Nations (UN) has a human rights body called the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) which has ratified a Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The Convention’s preamble includes:

All States signatories to this Convention, including India which signed on 30 March 2007, are, therefore, subject to the following criteria:

However, far from prohibiting or eliminating all such forms of discrimination against the disabled community, Sikhism is guilty of actively promoting it while hypocritically espousing the opposite view.

What is more, given that the SGPC administers the Golden Temple, the sanctum sanctorum of Sikhdom, situated in Amritsar, one wonders whether the Indian government is aware of this incriminatory law, and, if so, whether it has taken any steps towards holding the SGPC to account?

Given that the Amrit ceremony comprises a series of peculiar rituals which include, among other things, “each petitioner … required to fix his gaze, with open unwinking eyes, into the open unwinking eyes of the Amrit administering officiant” it could be argued that only an Amrit-administering officiant with fully functioning eyes would be able to fulfil this condition and, thus, properly fulfil the baptismal rites. However, this argument is self-defeating because if such a disability is not considered an impediment for the petitioner, then the same must also be true of the officiant. That is to say, if baptism is not hindered by a blind or one-eyed petitioner staring unblinkingly into the eyes of the officiant, then the same would be true for the officiant, thus, rendering this condition meaningless.

Moreover, during the administration of the Amrit, the officiant is required to “dip his right hand into the bowl and pour about an ounce of Amrit into the cupped right hand of the petitioner, which the petitioner should hold up with the out-stretched left hand as its base”. [15] However, given that a person without a right hand is presumably not barred from becoming baptised, the suggestion that the officiant must necessarily have a right hand for the proper completion of the ceremony is again self-defeating.

Further to this, if it be argued that these are unimportant formalities that can easily be overlooked, then why not amend the offensive tenet altogether by expunging those discriminatory clauses?

In order to be consistent, it would have to be concluded that any Sikh who does not possess the ideal physique required to properly fulfil the rites of the Amrit ceremony in toto can never have the opportunity of becoming one of the Panj Pyarai.

But, what was the original reason for including and advocating such a rigid and inflexible rule which not only positively discriminates against disabled or chronically ill persons, but also directly opposes what many Sikhs constantly peddle as one of their religion’s most important laws: the right to equality? If this is a continuation of the Khalsa tradition established by Gobind Singh, then such a right is certainly negated in this regard. Either equality in Sikhism exists as an absolute rule for all people of all times, or it does not and people with impairments, even if they could under more equitable circumstances fulfil these stringent conditions to the best of their ability, must be marginalised and discriminated against.

Being a physician, Mohan not only questions how SGPC understands the vague term “chronic diseases”, but also highlights the potential pitfalls and confusion that would invariably result from enforcing a tenet that rests on such ambiguously broad language:

Karma, Disabilities and Discrimination

God has destined us from the very beginning for certain Karmas. We cannot escape them.

But, a question that begs to be asked is this:

A clue to this answer exists in the Damdami Taksaal’s Gurmat Rahit Maryada which states that “those that we get initiated from – we take some of their virtues as this is what they invest in the Amrit”. [20] What this effectively implies is that any Sikh deemed to be physically incomplete and unhealthy with unappealing personalities, i.e. a bad physique and/ or bearing, cannot be considered virtuous enough to invest in the Amrit.

Why?

The answer is as disturbingly revealing as it is depraved and troublesome. According to Sikh theology, physical and/ or visual impairments, illnesses and other ailments are the consequence of bad karma accrued from unrecollectable sins committed in some previous life for which the guilty party is made to suffer in the present.

Describing it as “the moral law of causation”, Prof Surinder Singh Kohli explains that:

Sohan Singh explicates this unjust concept further:

But, Sohan’s evaluation is incomplete. In the last paragraph, he fails to point out that there are some seeds that are predetermined to grow into plants that will remain unchanged regardless of the surrounding environment and conditions. In other words, karma necessitates, for example, that an incurable lifelong disability was always going to occur no matter what. Hence, a person’s circumstances in life can have no bearing whatsoever if said person has planted a karmic seed that sprouts and yields its effect in the form of irreparable and permanent impairments which are either congenital or acquired incidentally over the course of one’s lifetime.

Trilochan Singh’s explanation of the “theory of karma” [23] is, thus, more nuanced than Sohan’s in this respect since he differentiates between the spiritual level and what he calls “the level of Nature or animal existence”:

However, while acknowledging that “[a]t the level of Nature or animal existence, we no doubt reap what we sow”, Trilochan is wrong in making the contradictory claim that “[i]n Sikhism, the law of karma according to which we reap what we sow is not inexorable”. As argued above, the manifestation of the “taint of karma” in the form of physical impairments at the “level of Nature or animal existence” cannot be anything but inexorable. Even if “the Guru’s word erase [sic] the blot of thousands of evil deeds of the past, and the greatest sinner can become the greatest saint”, [24] Trilochan nevertheless recognises a level of inexorability in his acceptance of “[t]hose who lead a purely temporal life at the level of the sense, [and] ‘their deeds follow them and they reap what they sow'”. [25], [26]

Kulwant Singh makes it clear that “[e]vil and wicked deeds cannot escape Divine wrath and Divine retribution” to the point that “[n]emesis always catches up with the sinners and the wicked”. He continues:

As Kohli succinctly puts it:

Prof Kohli, in fact, divides karma into three categories:

In this regard, the manifestation of said impairments seems, therefore, to be a form of Sanchit Karma which must occur inexorably.

Whatever the case, what is indisputable according to this law is that any form of worldly suffering is the result of one’s karma. Jaswinder Kaur Dhillon states:

Dr Nirbhai Singh too associates sorrows and suffering to karma:

Trilochan Singh attributes the classification of sorrows into five categories to Guru Nanak:

While Kohli views that “life on earth is full of three kinds of suffering and pain”, he states that in the Sikh scripture, the three types of suffering, which he classifies as: “Adhyatmik, which is due to intra-organic psychological causes and includes all physical and mental sufferings. The second is Adhibhautika, which is due to extra-organic natural causes like men, beasts, birds, thorns etc. The third is Adhidaivika, which is due to the supernatural causes like the planets, elemental agencies, ghosts, demons, etc“, are called “Teen Taap”, which can also be interpreted as:

In other words, body ailments and mental and spiritual diseases are forms of sorrow which inevitably materialise due to the guilty person’s past karma, thus, again proving inexorability. As Harnam Singh puts it:

Harnam, in fact, asks the profound rhetorical question of “[h]ow … we account for all this diversity and dissimilarity” where there exists “an amazing range of differences between man and man” to the point that “some are healthy, others are sickly …. Some see the light of the day in a smiling home with broad acres surrounded by love and warmth; while others are born in the midst of squalor, poverty, ignorance and the lowest strata of the society. In the life’s voyage; all along the same accidents of chance and freak [sic] meet us at every step”? He answers:

In a revealing and detailed evaluation on this entire subject, Dr Sukhbir Singh Kapoor poses the following damning questions:

Before venturing an answer, he echoes the position of the scholars already cited in this paper that “as explained by the Sikh Gurus … we live a life of cause and effect, and consequences of all actions are bound to happen”. He, then, reiterates the Sikh belief:

Since this natural law is not subject to change, the inexorable nature of the karmic theory necessitates, therefore, that “bad actions, committed both separately and collectively with others, have corrupted the whole fibre of human life, and have left multitude of evils which effect [sic] other members of their own family, the society they live in and also the succeeding generations. These may manifest themselves as hereditary or family diseases, deformities, early deaths, poverty and hunger” (bold ours). These evil actions must be punished because the “[a]ctions of people, unless punished and consumed, go from life to life”. Hence, the reason why “Karmas must bear full cycle of their consequences, except when they are pardoned by the grace of God”.

What would the good doctor, therefore, have to say of children who suffer from lifelong physical and/ or visual impairments?

Little wonder, given such an unjust weltanschauung, that rebirths are seen in a negative light and as signs of imperfection. Prof Avtar Singh details:

Given that rebirths are generally perceived to be a punishment for failure, it stands to reason, thus, that imperfections in the form of said impairments and deformities constitute even clearer signs of punishment for sins committed in past lives. Hence, those who exhibit these negative external indicators are not considered to have sufficiently “good bearing” and “appealing personalities” to “invest in the Amrit” from which the initiate can then “take some of their virtues”; and for this reason they have been barred from being accepted into the elite group of the Panj Pyarai who are allowed to administer the Amrit.

Moreover, if the sufferer is made to feel imperfect and sinful for these impairments, then not only could this bring about feelings of guilt and shame, but could again lead to incidents of discrimination and marginalisation. In fact, with regards the latter, there exists evidence to support the contention that disablist discrimination occurs due to the belief in the theory of karma.

Karma, Sikh Carers and the Disabled

But this is a fact that the actual Karma determines the stratum of the society the age and the surroundings with the abundance or otherwise of the good things of the world, including health, illness etc. of the body in the next birth, but the thoughts which a person thinks in one life, determine his character.

Studies on ethnicity, disability, chronic illness and social care by leading researchers in the field have highlighted the problems experienced by minority ethnic disabled and chronically ill people and their families vis-á-vis their religious beliefs.

For example, Prof Waqar I.U. Ahmad found that “[f]or some (especially Hindus and Sikhs), association of disability with notions of retribution for past sins created numerous problems”. [41] S. Katbamna, P. Bhakta and G. Parker elaborate by recognising that “[m]any female carers across the four communities drew on their respective religious beliefs to find explanations for their relative’s disability and why the responsibility of caring had fallen on them”. What was of significant note was the difference in attitudes between Muslim carers and their Sikh and Hindu counterparts:

For example, one pessimistic and seemingly despondent Sikh mother says of her 17-year-old physically disabled son:

A more recent report prepared on behalf of the Appearance Research Collaboration and published by The Healing Foundation analysed ‘BME Community Views to Facial Disfigurement and Visible Differences’. The focus group study explored “the role of the family, reactions from others, social exposure, cultural differences” among “four South Asian communities” that included the “Indian (Punjabi) Sikh”.

The report found that ‘Disfigurement’ had a range of definitions “from ‘ugly‘ to any abnormality or unevenness in the colour, shape or features of the face and included scarring and amputation” which “could be either congenital or acquired”. What was of significant note vis-á-vis our research was that:

This association between disfigurement or visible differences and mental and/or physical disability is precisely the reasons given against those who do not have “good physique, good health and good bearing”, “appealing personalities” and are not “physically complete, fit and healthy”.

The report found that religion was the “predominant causal explanation of visible difference that cut across the different religious beliefs”. It was found that in terms of individual culpability:

With one older Sikh male reasoning that “that child is paying for their karma”. [43]

Further research conducted by Waqar I.U. Ahmad et. al. again found that for some Sikh “families their child’s impairment was associated with the sins of a previous life” which “reflected the response of the wider Sikh community, even if the parent did not agree with it”. It is completely understandable why parents would reject the Sikh soteriological position that their children’s impairment was a consequence of their sins. After all, which morally conscientious parent would accept that their innocent child is, in effect, guilty of sins so terrible as to justify their sorrow and suffering? Only bigoted blind followers with a twisted moral code would accept the notion that a child, which does not possess the full faculties of reason and comprehension, deserves to suffer for misdemeanours from unrecollectable past lives.

The researchers quote:

Although we completely empathise with Gurupal’s frustration and his appeal to reason, the sad reality, as we have shown, is that Sikh theology is to blame for this discriminatory and blameful attitude. We have already quoted Sikh scholars who argue that since “no one can escape the consequences of one’s deeds or Karma” and because “rebirth is sometimes viewed as a punishment for having failed to realize the goal”, these impairments are only the results of karmic seeds planted in a previous life which have “sprouted and yielded their effects” in the present one.

Conclusion

The individual’s, or the mother’s past actions, were believed to be responsible for disfigurement. Blame was attributed to the individual’s Karma (action/attitude in previous life), the mother, an accident or as a result of fighting.

When all is said and done, what is the inevitable conclusion to be drawn vis-á-vis the inexorable and infrangible law of karma?

Sikhism’s belief in the transmigration of souls includes the acceptance of the law of karma being all-pervading. Dr Surjit Kaur elaborates:

Hence, it can be inferred that since animals are not exempt from suffering these external imperfections, then ipso facto the same is also true of children, adults and the whole of humanity. As we have argued, Karmic seeds sown in past-lives can manifest themselves, either congenitally or during the course of life, as imperfections of a permanent nature in the form of physical or visual impairments.

We have further argued that Sikhism’s baptismal ceremony of Amrit Pahul positively discriminates against the disabled and those with said impairments. Given that Waheguru established the inexorable law of karma as the mechanistic cause for these impairments that serve as the underlying reason for this discriminatory marginalisation; hence, Waheguru is responsible for this discrimination and is to blame for this injustice.

Sikhs who peddle the unjust notion of “equality for all” are in a veritable catch-22 situation because they must either accept that their religion is discriminatory towards the disabled and, therefore, reject equality in the absolute sense, or endeavour to address our accusations that Waheguru is at fault for establishing, through the divinely-led Khalsa Pant, the unjust rules of the Amrit ceremony and the law of karma. For them to remain silent by burying their heads in the sand will only be interpreted by their opponents as acknowledgment and admittance of these allegations.

Finally, and as alluded to in the introduction of this paper, there might also be a case of Sikhism again [46] employing double standards if its condemnation of the caste system of Hinduism is predicated on the idea of karma. And there certainly seems to exist a strong case for such an accusation given that:

In fact, Sardar Jasleen Singh reveals:

Hence, it seems clear that Sikhs are guilty of exercising double-standards for following in the footsteps of their Gurus and condemning the karma-driven Hindu caste system whilst all the while upholding their own karma-driven practice of discrimination and marginalisation.

What more can be concluded except that Sikhism does not uphold “equality for all”; rather it discriminates against those with impairments highlighted in this research. Muslims, on the other hand, are able do unreservedly condemn the Hindu caste system for all the same reasons as the Sikhs, i.e. for fostering an environment of injustice, discrimination and marginalisation, but without being exposed in the same way precisely because of their rejection of the right of “equality for all” as impracticable, inherently unnatural and, thus, not approved by God.

How true is Gajindar Singh in saying that:

We hope the irony of this statement will not be lost on those who have considered our arguments carefully.

Subhanakallaahuma wa bi hamdika, ash-Shahaadu al-Laa ilaaha illa Ant, astaghfiruka wa atoobu ilayka.

[1] S.J. Singh (2007), Sikhism, (Institute of Sikh Studies; Abstracts of Sikh Studies, vol. IX, Issue 3, July-Sept/ 539 NS; accessed: 17 Nov 2011).
[2] According to Harnam Singh:

See: H. Singh (1955), Sikh Religion Karma and Transmigration, (Lahore Book Shop, Ludhiana), p.160.
[3] A. Singh (1996), Ethics of the Sikhs, (Punjabi University, Patiala; 3rd ed.), p.139.
[4] Ibid., pp.139-140.
[5] N. Singh (2003), Sikh Dynamic Vision, (Harman Publishing House, New Delhi), p.238.
[6] D. Singh, K Singh (1997), Sikhism – Its Philosophy and History, (Institute of Sikh Studies, New Delhi), p.210.
[7] S.G.P.C. (Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee), Amrit Sanskar (Ceremony of Khande di Pahul), (Sikh Reht Maryada; accessed: 15 Nov.2011).
[8] Fn.1: Sikh Rahitmaryada (Punjabi), published by Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Sri Amritsar, 1950, pp. 1-9.
[9] S.K. Singh (1993), Sikhism: An Oecumenical Religion, (Institute of Sikh Studies, Chandigarh), pp.194-5.
[10] S.G.P.C. (Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee), Jathedar, (Sikh Reht Maryada; accessed: 15 Nov.2011):

Literally, jathedar means, ‘a captain’. In Sikh parlance it means a Chief of a band of Sikh volunteers who have enrolled themselves into a unit for whole time service in the cause of the Panth, or Sikh objectives.

[11] Damdami Taksaal, The Provision of Amrit & the selection of the Panj Pyare, (The Official Website; Rehat Maryada – Page 7; accessed: 15 Nov. 2011).
[12] W.I.U. Ahmad (2000), Ethnicity, Disability, and Chronic Illness, (Open University Press, University of Michigan), p.1.
[13] M. Singh (2001), At Least For Decency, (Sikhe.com; accessed: 19 May 2013).
[14] Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, (UN Division for Social Policy and Development Disability; accessed: 19 April 2018).
[15] S.K. Singh (1993), op. cit., pp.199-200.
[16] M. Singh (2001), op. cit.
[17] S.K. Singh (1993), op. cit., pp.194-5.
[18] S.G.P.C. (Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee), op. cit.
[19] Damdami Taksaal, op. cit.
[20] Ibid.
[21] S.S. Kohli (2006), Guru Granth Sahib Speaks-1 Death and After, (Singh Brothers, Amritsar), p.75.
[22] L.M. Joshi (2000), Sikhism, (Publication Bureau Punjabi University, Patiala), pp.164-5.
[23] Ibid., p.77.
[24] Fn.49: Guru Granth, p. 1195.
[25] Fn.48: Ibid, 1183.
[26] L.M. Joshi (2000), op. cit., p.76.
[27] K. Singh (2006),Spiritual Insights in the Adi Granth – A Personal Response, (Institute of Sikh Studies; Abstracts of Sikh Studies, Vol. VIII, Issue 2, April-June/ 538 NS), pp.23-4.
[28] S.S. Kohli (2006), op. cit., p.77.
[29] Harnam Sigh attributes these two categories of Sinchat and Prarabdh karma to Hindu philosophy. See: H. Singh (1955), op. cit., p.75.
[30] S.S. Kohli (2006), op. cit., p.78.
[31] Fn.38: Guru Granth Sahib, pp. 1130, 1349, etc.
[32] D. Singh (2004), Guru Granth Sahib among the Scriptures of the World, (Publication Bureau Punjabi University, Patiala), p.124.
[33] N. Singh (2003), op. cit., p.252.
[34] L.M. Joshi (2000), op. cit., p.79.
[35] S.S. Kohli (2006), op. cit., pp.96-7.
[36] H. Singh (1955), op. cit., p.112.
[37] Ibid., pp.1-2, 4.
[38] S.S. Kapoor, M. K. Kapoor (2005), The Sikh Ideology – A Conglomeration of Fundamental Philosophical Issues, (B. Chattar Singh Jiwan Singh, Amritsar), p.197.
[39] Ibid., pp.197-8.
[40] A. Singh (1998), Philosophical Perspectives of Sikhism, (Publication Bureau Punjabi University, Patiala), p.89.
[41] W.I.U. Ahmad (2000), op. cit., p.6.
[42] Ibid., p.19.
[43] H. Williamson, J. Hughes, H. Naqvi, E. Williams (2008), Focus Group Data Analysis of BME Community Views to Facial Disfigurement and Visible Differences, (The Healing Foundation; August), pp.126,128-9.
[44] W.I.U. Ahmad, K. Atkin, Y. Hussain (2002), South Asian Disabled Young People and their Families, (The Policy Press and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation), p.5.
[45] S. Kaur (2010), Sikh Perspective on Modern Scientific Technology, (Institute of Sikh Studies; Abstracts of Sikh Studies, vol .XII, Issue 4, Oct-Dec/ 542 NS; accessed: 17 Nov 2011).
[46] In our refutation of Bijla Singh, we argued in the article titled Awakening the Sleeping Guru Granth how Sikhism’s condemnation of Hindu idol-worship while at once affirming divinity for Sri Guru Granth Sahib was a clear case of double-standards.
[47] G. Singh (2010), A Call to Unison, (Institute of Sikh Studies; Abstracts of Sikh Studies, vol. XII, Issue 1, Jan-March/ 541-42 NS; accessed: 17 Nov 2011).
[48] S.J. Singh (2007), op. cit.
[49] G. Singh (2010), op. cit.