Sikh Controversies
Chairs
|
||
|
||
|
||
One interesting issue which has produced conflict and dissent within the Sikh community (particularly in Canada) is the use of chairs. This may seem like an odd source of conflict, but Sikhs have taken it very seriously - so seriously, in fact, that at least one person has been killed in connection to the matter.
Religious services at Sikh gundawar are followed by what is known as langar. The langar is a free community meal of blessed food which is served after services and which is open for all, regardless of caste, creed, gender or religion. At some major gundwaras, like the Golden Temple, a langar is served twice a day, every day of the year.
The langar is not, however, simply a community meal. Having everyone sit and eat together is a powerful and important symbol of Sikh equality - so much so, in fact, that there are important rules regarding the nature of the food. It must be vegetarian, it must be simple, it must be prepared by the faithful themselves, and those participating must sit together on the floor. The rules governing the langar are no trivial matter.
A number of years ago, some of the Sikh Temples in Canada began to serve the meals in a more traditional Western style: people ate at tables whiles sitting on chairs. This change was not made for trivial reasons. Canada has a much colder climate than India, thus making it more difficult for people to sit on the floor - and in fact, it could be exceptionally painful for the elderly. In addition, because there is no tradition of eating on the floor in the West, the meals were less attractive for younger Sikh who were more integrated with Western culture.
These Temples did not, however, neglect the symbolism of equality. They made sure that all of the furniture being used was the plainest they could find, and they ensured that every single chair was identical. Thus, even though people were using furniture, there were no identifiable differences among those who were eating together. For those in charge, the principle of equality was maintained even though the traditional rules were not being followed. One could say that they were trying to adhere to the spirit of the law rather than the letter.
Naturally, such efforts did not satisfy everyone. In 1996, some Sikhs in the Canadian communities complained to religious authorities back in India. In 1998, a hukamnama (decree) was issued which condemned the use of chairs during langar for any reason. This decision was appealed, but the original decision was later reaffirmed. Although some agreed to abide by this decision, not all did, and on May 30, 1998, the leaders of 21 Sikh group in British Columbia and Alberta publicly stated that the furniture would remain.
Religious authorities responded on June 8, 1998, by suspending three Sikh leaders in Canada. At the same time, other Sikhs went on "strike" in order to convince the managers of various Temples to remove the offending furniture. In August of that year, the police were forced to shut down the Ross Street Temple in Vancouver because disturbances between liberals and conservatives were getting out of hand. On November 18, someone assassinated Tara Hayer, the publisher of a Sikh newspaper who was also an outspoken supporter of the progressive side in this disagreement.
Is this debate, which has still not be resolved, really just about the use of chairs? No, it is about two things: the principle of absolute equality and how Sikhism can (or should) adapt to differing cultures.
Obviously, the question of equality cuts right to the heart of Sikhism. Anything which undermines this principle will also undermine much of what the Sikh faith stands for - even progressives agree with this. If they didn't, they wouldn't have worked so hard to ensure that the chairs and furniture were all plain and all identical.
This is where the culture clash comes into play: in Indian culture, sitting at a table rather than on the floor is regarded as a sign of elitism. For conservative Sikhs, even if the use of chairs is done with good intentions, it still represents a break with the past and a weakening of Sikh traditions - traditions which serve to differentiate Sikhs from others.
In the West, however, the use of tables and chairs is not regarded as a sign of elitism and hence does not violate the principle of absolute equality of all. Because the cultural context is different, it raises the question of how much Sikh traditions can "bend" to adapt to the new culture. Progressives are willing to accept some changes in the interest of ensuring that Sikh communities retain as many members as possible, while conservatives deny that any comprise is legitimate, no matter what the situation.
-->