Waheguru ji ka Khalsa, Waheguru ji ki Fateh. Here is an article I spent some time writing today. Enjoy it and feel free to offer feedback.

Sikhs are HINDUS - it just depends on how you define what Hinduism is.

Does the word Hindu have a geographical-cultural-civilization meaning like it originally did according to the literal definition? Then yes, Sikhs ARE Hindus by this definition, seeing as Sikhism is a byproduct of Indic civilization, culture, and geography. The word 'Hindu' originally just meant 'Indian', hell even the word 'India' is derived from 'Hindu'! The word was simply transmitted and adopted by different cultures but originates from Sanskrit itself:

Sindhu (Sanskrit) → Hindu (Persian) → Indios (Greek) → India (Latin)

This actually means that 'Hindi' does mean 'Indian' in the truest and original meaning of the word, so yes. There is such thing as speaking ‘Indian’ after all.

Some naysayers may claim that Sikhism has "Islamic influences" but it truly does not - you have misunderstood what Sikhism is. All of this supposed "Islamic influence" is actually really superficial and shallow, it is just adopted Islamic terminology to explain Sikh beliefs (which is entirely Indic at its depth). For example, the word 'Khalsa' comes from an Arabic word but is there anything like what the Khalsa actually means as a system and philosophy existing in Islam? It's just adopted terminology, nothing substantial like philosophy or practices. We do not circumcize, we do not acknowledge nor claim descent from the Abrahamic “prophets”, nor do we make pilgrimages to Mecca.

Oh and claiming that there are writings of “Muslims” in the Adi Granth is disingenuous seeing as actual Muslims (not the mystical Sufi ones who were heavily influenced by Indic beliefs and practices) would call Kabir a “kafir” and rally for his execution. Do not believe me? Just look at what actual Muslims did to Al-Hallaj in the 10th century, they executed him and Kabir would face the same fate under Shariah. As for the ’Sheikh Fareed’ in the Adi Granth, that author is not the Fareed Shakarganj historical figure that it is commonly attributed to by ignorant Sikhs - it was actually written by a personality who was called ’Sheikh Brahm’ who was a contemporary of Guru Nanak and was coincidentally also called ’Sheikh Fareed - do not mix the two people up. This has to be one of the biggest and most popular misconception and misunderstanding about Sikhism, the confusion for attributing the ’Sheikh Fareed’ author to Fariduddin Ganjshakar (who lived between the 1100s and 1200s) when the actual identity of this person was Sheikh Brahm. Please explain why traditional stories of Guru Nanak involve him meeting this Sheikh Fareed if it was Fariduddin Ganjshakar, seeing as that Fareed died over two centuries before Guru Nanak was born? Sheikh Brahm was contemporary with Guru Nanak and is the true identity of the Fareed in the Adi Granth.

Why do some Sikhs believe they are not Hindus? Because they are thinking of 'Hindu' with a different connotation in-mind. For them, Hindu means someone who participates in “idol worship” (murti-pooja), discriminates based on caste, and engages in rituals. But this does not make any sense as there people who call themselves 'Hindu' who do not engage in any of the above. So what is a Hindu?

Some may define a Hindu as one who ultimately traces their beliefs to the Vedas. Is there anything in the Sikh canon that rejects the Vedas outright? I have come across verses that downplay its authority and finality (claims that there are even limits to the knowledge found within the Vedas) - but nothing that said the Vedas are themselves wrong. In-fact, many verses seem to praise Vedic knowledge and praises the Gurus as having “mastered the Vedas”. So this cannot be used as a criteria to separate Sikhism from Hinduism like it is used for Buddhism and Jainism (who did reject orthodox Brahmanism in ancient India). Not to mention that there are folk beliefs and practices of Hinduism known as ‘folk Hinduism’ and Agamic sects which are non-Vedic but classified as ‘Hindu’.

What about claims that Hindus engage in "idolatry" and are polytheistic whilst Sikhism rejects both things? This is another misunderstanding. There is a lot of delicate nuance to this subject so pay attention. Many Sikhs today claim that our religion is "monotheistic", which just hilariously shows how far they have fallen to Abrahamic propaganda. First of all, Sikhism in its truest sense is best described as non-dualistic, monistic-panentheism. That is what it is. It IS NOT “monotheistic” like Islam and Christianity is. Sikh philosophy and conception of the divine is literally the same one that is found in Advaita Vedanta. There is no difference. I even asked educated Sikhs what the difference is between Gurmat and Advaita Vedanta and they could not list any concrete reason. What did they say? They claimed the difference is that Vedantists were "elitists who believe that only highly educated people can reach moksha" whilst "Sikhs believe anyone, including the general public, can reach moksha; they do not have to be educated", are you serious? That is the only thing separating Sikhism from a Hindu school of thought? Such a flimsy reason based on social-class and education-status, no fundamental philosophical difference? Sikhism is literally just an offshoot of Hinduism (a highly divergent one at that). It is a result of the influence from the Bhakti movement, the longstanding Sant-tradition of India, and Vaishnavist Hinduism (read ‘Chaubis Avatar’ in the Dasam Granth, which was written by Guru Gobind Singh himself, if you have any doubts regarding this one).

What about "idolatry" and polytheism? First of all, most Sikhs rely on translations of Gurbani that were written during the colonial and post-colonial period that is heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian terminology and beliefs. Many of these translations of the Sikh scriptures were done by Christian missionaries themselves or by “Sikhs” who studied at Christian missionary educational institutions. Therefore, you can be incredibly misled by them if you do not understand the actual language that Gurbani is written in. Gurbani is in Sant Bhasha and was originally written in Larivaar (unbroken) Gurmukhi script. Therefore, even the spacing between words you find in modern-day Gurbani is based on interpretation by later people in our history - it was not done by our Gurus.

Essentially, Sikhs worship what Hindus call ‘Para-Brahman’, this is completely synonymous with the Sikh concept of Waheguru. This is wherein the difference between modern-day Hindu belief & practice and modern-day Sikh belief & practice lies. Hindus do not concentrates their worship on Para-Brahman/Waheguru, they prefer to worship the divine using a deity (‘sargun saroop’ of the divine) - Sikhs consider these deities like Shiva or Vishnu to be qualities of the true divineness which is Para-Brahman/Waheguru and they are not used as means for worship. This is the crux of the issue between Hindus and Sikhs. Our Gurus never said that Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, Rama, Krishna, Chandi, or any other deity never existed - they simply said they are qualities and agents of the supreme that is even above them which is Para-Brahman/Waheguru itself and it is best to meditate upon and focus our worship on that, not “lesser” elements like individual deities. Do not think of Para-Brahman/Waheguru as some sort of separate entity, it is reality itself. It is a primal force that has always existed and will always exist that interconnects all of us. It permeates the Universe and beyond. Guru Nanak’s Mool Mantar describes what Para-Brahman/Waheguru is.

What is life in Sikhism? It is a divine play. Imagine that Para-Brahman/Waheguru is a dreamer and we are characters in this dream, in-fact this metaphor is used in Gurbani itself. We are not separate entities - we are actually Para-Brahman/Waheguru but our ego (‘haumai’) does not allow us to realize our true divine nature. This is the non-dualistic philosophy of Sikhism. This is exactly the same in many schools of thought within Hinduism, please read the Bhagavad Gita and the concept of “leela” (लीला). Where is this supposed difference between Sikhism and Hinduism? I am not seeing any so far!

On the topic of “idolatry” (murti-pooja), you need to be very careful. The act of murti-pooja itself is not an evil or heretical act like it is portrayed as in Abrahamic religions like Islam and Christianity. Nobody is automatically destined for hellfire in Sikhism just because they waved a fire around an idol. What is the position of murti-pooja within Sikhism? The Gurus never claimed that this was an offensive, heretical, or evil act that offended some sort of mister God sitting in the clouds somewhere. It is simply a very fickle matter and it is very difficult to do true aarti in a murti-pooja. A true murti-pooja is ascending beyond the material world and using the idol as a means to connect to this greater divineness - it is not actual worship of physical material or depictions. The reality is, many people do not understand this and they fall into empty rituals and do not connect to the divineness - this is what the Gurus warned us against in-regards to murti-pooja. But there are many saints, whose writings were included in the Guru Granth Sahib, who were avid practitioners of murti-pooja and used actual stones as their idol, such as Bhagat Dhanna the Jat. Murti-pooja only works if your entire being is dedicated, devoted, and full off pure love for the divine. It is not effective if done as an empty ritual. The Gurus believe that one does not even need an idol as a means for connection, we can use the ‘tenth door’ (dasam duar) that is found within ourselves! Therefore, you can do murti-pooja but you have to be very careful or else it will be fruitless and a waste of time. Do you honestly believe that if the Gurus thought the very act of murti-pooja itself was offensive and not the intention behind it, that they would include writings of “idolaters” in their sacred Guru Granth Sahib? Give me a break!

Historically, Sikhs celebrated our shared Indic mythology, canon, practices, beliefs, and iconography with Hindus. The Gurus themselves wore tilak & earrings (go look at contemporary depictions of the Sikh Gurus, not colonial and post-colonial ones made by Abrahamicized Sikhs), and fully understood the teachings of Indian civilization. The armies of Ranjit Singh carried flags showing Indic deities like Chandi! The Gurus explained the teachings of Sikhism using pre-existing Indic terminology and deities as a metaphor - not once did they reject to this Indic heritage. They were active protectors of it.

Sikhism is a divergent offspring of Hinduism with some new inventions like the Five K’s, placement of importance on maintaining uncut hair, kar seva, sant-sipahi idealism, community of the Khalsa, and a few others (Indic civilization is constantly inventing and adapting to the times). Why was Sikhism needed? It was an Indian civilizational response and development to the challenges that Islam had brought to our land. The Kshatriya traditions of Hinduism were ailing and people were abandoning this civilization and adopting the robes of Islam - a befitting reply, that was born philosophical and martial in-nature, was needed to safeguard this civilization from this enemy.

In-fact, Sikhism was successful at reversing the inroads that Islam had made in the northwest regions of the subcontinent. Let me quote Mughal Emperor Jahangir as evidence:

"In Goindwal, which is on the river Biyah (Beas), there was a Hindu named Arjan, in the garments of sainthood and sanctity, so much so that he had captured many of the simple-hearted of the Hindus, and even of the ignorant and foolish followers of Islam, by his ways and manners, and they had loudly sounded the drum of his holiness. They called him Guru, and from all sides stupid people crowded to worship and manifest complete faith in him. For three or four generations (of spiritual successors) they had kept this shop warm. Many times it occurred to me to put a stop to this vain affair or to bring him into the assembly of the people of Islam."

• Emperor Jahangir, Tuzuk-i-Jahagiri (“Memoirs of Jahangir”)

Let us not forget that the Sikh Confederacy and Empire was the first time that indigenous Indic people ruled the northwestern part of the subcontinent for over a millennia! Even the Khyber Pass was safeguarded under Indic-control and the Afghan menace was repulsed beyond the Hindu Kush. It was the fault of the British that Islam revitalized in the subcontinent.

Why is this shared Indic connection being abandoned and distanced from by modern-Sikhs? Because they have been eating-up Abrahamic propaganda and distortions ever since the British set foot in this land. This is why Sikhism has been in-decline in the modern-era. How can something thrive if it’s not even being understood or followed properly by the vast majority of its adherents? Time for Sikhs to wake-up. We ARE Hindus but in some ways, we are also not (it depends on how you want to define what a Hindu is). Time for us to face truths that is bound to make many in the community feel uncomfortable but the Truth will always prevail and triumph in the end.

Do you know what the last words of Guru Tegh Bahadur were to Aurgangzeb before he was executed in Delhi for objecting to the forced conversion of Kashmiri Hindus?

“My answer is that I am a Hindu and I love Hindu dharma. How can anyone destroy it? It provides happiness both in this world as well as in the other world. There is no other religion like it. Only a deranged person or a fool would leave it to become vile. Hindu dharma would remain in the world for ever. It is not going to be destroyed by your efforts.” - Tegh Bahadur’s reply in Hindi to Aurangzeb when he was asked to become a Muslim. Source: Kshitish Vedalankar: Storm in Punjab, p.178.

“Listen All! Said Tegh Bahadur: Those who stick to their Dharma are called brave. I know my Hindu Dharma to be the best. How can I forsake that which is very dear to me? It (Hindu Dharma) gives immense joy in this world and the next. Even life is trivial compared to honor. The fool whose intellect is corrupted, That idiot alone will forsake it. I will endure harm to establish Hindu Dharma in this world. It will never be destroyed even if you try.” - Attributed in Sri Gur Pratap Prakash written between 1835-1843 CE by Kavi Santokh Singh

Guru Gobind Singh quote:

“Let the path of the pure [khâlsâ panth] prevail all over the world, let the Hindu dharma dawn and all delusion disappear. May I spread dharma and prestige of the Veda in the world and erase from it the sin of cow-slaughter.” - Gobind Singh, quoted in Shourie, Arun (1993). A secular agenda: For saving our country, for welding it. New Delhi, India: Rupa. also quoted in Elst, Koenraad (2002). Who is a Hindu?: Hindu revivalist views of Animism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and other offshoots of Hinduism. ISBN 978-8185990743

Before you call me a “Hindutva propagandist”, you should know that I was born in a typical Jatt Sikh family in the Western-based diaspora. Growing-up, I also thought Sikhism was alien to Hinduism and India. I was even a proponent and supporter of Khalistani separatism. It is only through educating myself throughout the years that I have understood what our Gurus started and what Sikhism really is. It all makes complete sense now - none of it made sense when I was younger. There were always contradictions, fuzziness, and things that did not make sense in the mainstream modern interpretation and following of Sikhism by the masses. I hope all Sikhs come to the same realization that I did so we can bring about the changes in Kali Yuga that we are destined to be the saviours of.

Bole So Nihal Sat Sri Akaal!

Author: tera_tera

Date of Writing: April 17th, 2021 CE / Shanivaar, 4 Vaisakh, 553