Talk:Meat consumption among Sikhs

Revisionism movement in Sikh historiography

"In 1901 Kahn Singh Nabha moved a step closer to an authorised rahit-nama when he published Gurmat Sudhakar, a compendium of works relating to the person and period of Guru Gobind Singh. This included a selection from the existing rahitnamas, and in editing the materials available to him Kahn Singh implicitly expressed a particular interpretation of them. Although his selections were presented as abridged versions of extant rahits-namas, they are more accurately described as expurgated versions. In other words, Kahn Singh had cut items that he believed ought not be there. What this implied was that the pure Rahit enunciated by the tenth Guru had subsequently been corrupted by ignorant or malicious transmitters of the tradition. By eliminating all that conflicted with reason and sound tradition (as understood by such men as Kahn Singh) one might hope to restore the pristine Rahit, the uncorrupted original Rahit as the Guru had delivered it."

‘Sikhism’, by Hew Mcleod, 1997, P.122

RE: Nanak Singh Nishters Writing vs Other Sikh sources on the subject

Hi Fellow editor, you may not know this, but I know Nanak Singh Nishter (a Decanni Sikh). Have you an comments on what is has to say here:

It is not fair to presume that Jhatka of goat is a sacrificial act at Hazur Sahib and other Unit Gurdwaras of the Deccani Sikhs. Since thousands of years, it is a custom of warriors of India to put the Tilak of blood to their weaponry on the occasion of Dashara and Holi. In these Gurdwaras, the tilak of blood is put to the weapons, not to Guru Granth Sahib or any other idol or photograph. Though it is not in consonance with Sikh philosophy, like many other practices that have crept into the Sikh way of life, this too requires sane intervention so that it can be stopped. Mere condemnation ad nauseam will not help stopping it.

Thanks--Sikh-History 08:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Also

AS you are aware Kutha meat is forbidden for Sikhs. Kutha meat is defined as:

Kutha (Kuttha) meat is defined as "meat of animal or fowl slaughtered slowly as prescribed by Islamic law." . It has been more broadly defined as "killing an animal with a prayer" or "a sacrifice to God" .

I would say these are views of Sikhs who follow Manmat and cook up their own theories. Halal is condemned in Sikhsim because it involves pain and torture to the animal, not because it involves prayer. A Sikh is supposed to pray all the time. Why would he not pray when he has to kill in self-defence or for food? In Tilak sacrament at Hazoor Sahib prayer is definitely involved as is also clear in Bhai Thakur Singh's exegesis. The prayer is in part for the soul of animal which is liberated from a lower existence because of the prayer. Prayer also invokes the mercy of God to both the animal and to the one takes its life for unavoidable reasons. To kill without prayer is to become animal. Sikhs do not engage in such killing. They invoke mercy through recitation of Japji Sahib and courage through recitation of Chandi di var. This whole ritual is prepration for war in order to get the soldiers used to the scent and sight of blood. Please do not belittle it.--History Sleuth (talk) 16:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree 100% on the part I highlighted. "Bali". Halal, Kosher etc are a sacrifice to or for God. The Sikh ritual is a blessing. I think the word "sacrifice" does not adequately cover what this ritual is about. Please do not think I am belittling this, I have performed "Jhatka" many times myself. Blood does not phase me. After all I'm a Sikh and a Warrior. Thanks--Sikh-History 13:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

How would you incorporate these views in the interest of WP:Balance? Thanks--Sikh-History 11:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Greetings Sikh History,

Let me briefly respond to both of your point. First, the article no where alleges or insinuates that is a wide spread practice among Sikhs and not opposed by some sections within Sikhism. Nishter Singh's opinion is already quoted with proper weght. But his opinion is not the only opinion. There are are many Dechani and even Punjabi Sikhs who do not accept this view. Goat sacrifice also takes place in Punjab at Anandpur Sahib and Damadama Sahib. It used to take place at Akal Takth too before SGPC, dominated by Tat Khalsa Singh Sabha banned it.

The rewritten code of conduct (or Rahit) is not accepted fully by Takth Hazur Sahib and Takht Patna Sahib and they continue to hold goat sacrifice as a religious sacrament coming down from Guru Hargobind.

It is not for you and me as Wikipedia editor to argue and adjudicate who is right , morally or factually. We need to mirror the entire diversity of opinion on the subject , i.e., both opposing and supporting views. The opnion of one section of Sikhs simply cannot be treated as final when two important Takths or seats of authority within Sikhism , i.e Hazur Sahib and Patna Sahib, have divergent views on the issue.

Quotes like following from Sikh periodicals themselves who oppose the ritual say the following about goat sacrifice which amply proves that the sacrament is still alive in certain sections of Sikhism , although it is facing growing opposition from revisionist scholars which Mcleod metions in the quote cited above:

"Sacrifice of a goat within precints of Gurudwara on a number of occasions, apply its blood to arms/armaments kept inside the shrind, distribute its meat as Prasad ammong devotees at their home."

Your point on balance is well taken but the article already strikes the balance by sating that the practice of goat sacrifice is restricted to certain sections only and there is a debate within Sikhs society over its suitablity. If you still disagree lets involve other editors and seek their opinion. Thanks--History Sleuth (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you are misuderstanding what I am saying. I don't think this is actually a "sacrifice" (reading through the Nihung website), but more of a liberation. The Hazoori and Nihung thinking on this is that Guru Gobind Singh liberated the "souls" stuck in an animal form. The thinking is that the "collective weight" of the Khalsa is in effect the Guru. The concept of Guru Granth and Guru Panth, i.e. collectively if the Khalsa decides to liberate the soul of this animal they can. I think this is not to be confused with "Bali", which is a "sacrifice to God", or "to a God", or as the Muslims would say a "Qurbani". Then surely there is no difference between what Sikhs do and what Muslims do? The SRM is very specific about Sikhs not eating "ritually purified" meat. As a Sikh if I take meat, it is because the animal has been dispatched fast, in one blow. Not because it has been ritually purified, so as to make me feel better about it. As a Sikh we don't make excuses for anything. We eat because we are hungry, and what we chose to eat is a matter of personal conscious (i.e.meat or vegetarian). I think we need to clarify, this is a Blessing rather than a sacrifice to a God or God. Maybe the title should be Ritual Blessings in Sikhism or something like that, and also have a section to explain, the same process (as is used with Jhatka), is used prior to cutting Kara Parshad with a Kirpan. Just a thought. Thanks--Sikh-History 08:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi SH, thanks for your post. I think you are trying to interpret the tradition and the texts which we should not be doing as wiki editors. The sources , even those that oppose it, clearly mention the word "sacrifice" for this religious rite. Lets agree to disagree on whether this the sarficial lamb is not an offerting to a deity or that it is really against Sikh teaching. Another thing is that you are slightly misinformed on Nihang traditions. No Nihang will eat even Jhatka meat unless the animal has been sacrificed in prescribed manner, with recitation of Japji Sahib and Chandi di Var. This regulation also prevents from consuming meat indiscrimately. They are only allowed to eat meat when as offered as "Mahaprashad", which is fused with both mercy and grace. The meat purchased from market , even Jhatka meat, is not "Mahaprashad". It becomes "Mahaprashad" only when the slaughter is performed in prescribed manner through liturgical invocations. I do not have a citation on this as of now, but I could definitely look it up in a library in some time. The way the ritual is designed the expiation of the sin of taking life of another being even for unavoidable reason is built into it. There are are deeper moral and spiritual nuances in the rite which the current set of "reformers" simply do not appreciate.

Secondly, people would disagree if a deity or some idea of God is not being invoked in the rite. The Tilak or blood mark is being offered to Sri Bhaghauti Ji (skt. Bhagwati) symbolised in the swords. "Bhagauti" is used in Sikhs texts (and also in Rajput tradition) in dual sense. Sometimes it loosely means "sword" at other times it means the female energy aspect of God as in , i.e "Pritham Bhagauti Simariye" ("Lets invoke the Bhagauti first"), or "Bhagauti Bhagwant Bhagat Ke Rang" (Sukhmani Sahib). This is also proven by the fact that Chandi di Var, which is linked by some scholars to Devi Bhavat Puran, is integral part of the rite. Now , you may disagree following Tat Khalsa interpretation that is not the case but you would have to acknowledge that a divergent and contesting viewpoint has always existed in Sikh society which does not deny the Shakta connection of this rite and Sri Dasam Granth in general. This connection is so irrefutably present in the Sri Dasam Granth that people like Kala Afghana have started claiming that the scripure is not part of of Sikhism altogether and in this process they also dispute the authorship of Chaupai Sahib , Jap Sahib adn Sawaiye which are generally attributed to Guru Gobind Singh even by SGPC. Today, they are saying that Tilak ceremony is not part of Sikhism, or is not what Nihang traditions says it is, and the day is not far when the 3 of the 5 banis of Sikhs which are in Dasam Granth will also be discarded. Where is this going to end?

In having an exchange on the interprtive issues here both of us have extended our brief as wiki editors. I think if there is difference of opinion on the way wikipedia editorial rules have been applied on this article, lets engage third party editors. Thanks. --History Sleuth (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not interpreting anything. Please stop assuming that, and please read what the site you have used for this actually states here:

"Nihang Singhs eat Jhatka meat because of their traditions. The Guru allowed this tradition of Jhatka to be practised within his army and by his soldiers; it was not for civilians to eat. Maharaj said to them that if need be you may Jhatka an animal and eat it, not just goats or chickens but any animal you may find in the jungle. The Nihang Singhs of today still follow this tradition. When performing Jhatka on a goat, first the goat is bathed, then Japji Sahib and Chandi Di Var are read. One Singh stands by the head of the goat and upon the final lines of Chandi Di Var being read, ‘Those who sing this divine ballad will be liberated from the realm of life and death’, at this moment the goat is decapitated with one blow and the soul of the goat is liberated. The goat itself lowers its head to receive salvation”. (Giani Thakur Singh, Asa Di Var Viakhya Part 25)

I am just stating what it states on the site.

There are a few aspects to this "ritual" that need to be addressed:

1. what is is for i.e what are they sacrificing to? To the sword, they that is the Shastar Tilak or Shastar Punja aspect. Make it clear?
2. They are "liberating" the goat. What is the purpose of this, so make it clear.

As the article reads at the moment, its a bit of a meandering mess.

Thanks--Sikh-History 20:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Lets agree to disagree on this. The source quoted by you clearly says , ‘Those who sing this divine ballad will be liberated from the realm of life and death’. It only means the soul of sacrificers of animal also benefits from the sacrifice, and the killing is sanctified and expiated for through recitation of scripture. Further all other cited sources clearly use the word "Sacrifice" unambiguously. The sword in that ritual is merely a symbol for Sri Bhagauti Ji (skt. Bhagwati), the presiding deity of the ritual and part of Sikh theology. Somebody has convinced you that Sikhs need to be ashamed of it, so it seems you are trying to explain away. It is a religious ritual in any way you look at it. To me, both as a wikipedia editor and an insider of Sikh tradtion, there is nothing in this ritual that reduces the esteem of Sikhism or its historical sources. Thanks.--History Sleuth (talk) 20:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)