How to Politicize a People: A Case Study of the Sikh Community

By Satnam Singh, author of The Road to Empire: The Political Education of Khalsa Sikhs in the Late 1600s

The rise of the Sikh community from relative obscurity to political imperial prominence is a fascinating yet often overlooked story in the West. For students of political science, the Sikh experience offers valuable insights into the gradual politicization of a people, driven by intellectual leadership. This leadership inspired the wider community of traders and agriculturalists to pursue larger visions of scholarship, conquest, and political sovereignty which ultimately led to a string of rebellions against the governing authorities and the formation of a Sikh Empire in the late 1700s. At the height of their power, Sikh kings and emperors ruled over millions of people in some of South Asia’s richest provinces.

Dynamics of political transformation

In The Road to Empire, I explore a pivotal moment in South Asian history when the Khalsa Sikhs, under the leadership of Guru Gobind Singh (1661-1708), began to lay the philosophical and political foundations for what would become the Sikh Empire. My book offers a fresh perspective on the Sikh kingdoms, tracing their origins through a rich intellectual and cultural history centered around the vibrant court of Anandpur. 

In my study, Guru Gobind Singh, the Tenth Guru of the Sikh tradition, emerges not only as a spiritual leader but also as a visionary intellectual, a patron of the arts, and a key architect of Sikh political thought. Through a focused examination of his role in commissioning, studying, authoring, and translating works on statesmanship, sovereignty, and governance, I explore the profound impact of his leadership on both the Sikh community and the broader political landscape of the time.

The book also highlights Anandpur itself, a cultural and intellectual hub where over a hundred Sanskrit- and Persian-literate scholars worked alongside the Guru, immersing the Sikhs in classical political traditions from India, Persia, and beyond. These scholars contributed to a tapestry of ideas that would shape the Khalsa's ambitions for political autonomy and sovereignty.

Sikh Sovereignty and Present-Day Global Affairs

In recent years, the question of Sikh sovereignty has resurfaced as a significant topic of discussion in both academic circles and global media. This renewed interest underscores the enduring relevance of Sikh history and its implications for contemporary geopolitical debates. Scholars are increasingly examining Sikh imperial history and legacy, focusing on its philosophical foundations, military strategies, and lasting impact on the region’s political landscape. Notably, the Wallace Collection in London recently hosted an exhibition that highlighted rare artifacts that detailed the rise and glory of the Sikh Empire, offering a fascinating glimpse into this pivotal chapter of history.

At the same time, the topic of Sikh sovereignty continues to influence international diplomacy. Current tensions between India, the USA, Australia, and Canada, for example, have escalated over Sikh nationalism, with accusations that Western nations are providing sanctuary to individuals advocating for an independent Sikh state in South Asia. This ongoing debate serves as a reminder of the continued relevance of Sikh political aspirations, both historically and in the context of present-day global affairs.

Sikh Elite Culture and Political Identity
While Sikhs in the West are often acknowledged for their martial history, particularly their service in the British Army during the World Wars, and for their humanitarian efforts in disaster zones, this book focuses on a different facet of Sikh history: Sikh elite culture.

A key moment in this history occurred under Guru Gobind Singh’s leadership, when he surrounded himself with intellectual and cultural elites, and thereby familiarized his own followers with such elitist cultures. The Guru established an impressive grand library that housed volumes in Sanskrit, Persian, Punjabi, and Braj, and patronized scholars from diverse religious backgrounds, including former Mughal and Rajasthani intellectuals. These scholars, working within the royal court at Anandpur, engaged in the study and debate of ancient Persianate and Sanskrit political thought. Their discussions explored how to adapt these classical teachings to the emerging Sikh context, particularly in relation to governance and sovereignty. How could Sikhs use existing knowledge to benefit themselves in the future? 

One notable area of debate I examine was the degree to which the Sikh ruling elite should adopt Persianate culture, especially regarding the use of the Persian script, which was the standard for governance across much of the Indo-Persian world at the time. While opinions may have varied, the authors of the Anandpuri Prem Sumarag (The Great Path of Love) took a clear position: all official documents, including secret state papers and financial records, should be written in Gurmukhi, the script of the Sikh tradition. The text declares:

ਬਿਦਿਆ ਕਾ ਪਰਗਾਸ ਗੁਰਮੁਖੀ ਕਾ ਅਰੁ ਅੰਕਪਲੀ ਗੁਰਮੁਖੀ ਕਾ ਕਰੈ। ਰੋਜ਼ਨਾਮਾ ਖਾਤਾ ਸਭ ਕਾਗਜ਼ ਕਿਆ ਪਰਗਨਿਆਂ 
ਕੇ ਕਿਆ ਹਜ਼ੂਰ ਕਾ ਸਭ ਗੁਰਮੁਖੀ ਬਿਦਿਆ ਕਾ ਕਰੇ।
All government documents and sciences should be written in the Gurmukhi script, including those documents that are coded and to be kept secret. Financial documents, running accounts, and all other types of documents in the provinces and at the central royal court must be written in Gurmukhi.

This decision marked a clear departure from the broader use of Persian in governance, signaling the growing autonomy of the Sikh community and its desire to cultivate a distinct political identity in the Indo-Islamic world.

However, by the eighteenth century, the Khalsa forces that established their own Sikh states adopted a different approach, exemplifying the internal debates within the community. In an effort to align their kingdoms with the broader Persianate world of the Mughal Empire, they continued to use Persian for official purposes. This decision helped the Sikh states integrate into the larger political and cultural fabric of the time, embedding the Sikh community within the broader global history of statecraft.

A Complex Journey to Sovereignty

Through this lens, we can see how Sikh rulers and intellectuals navigated complex cultural and political currents, gradually shaping the trajectory of Sikh sovereignty in unique and adaptive ways. The Road to Empire offers unique insights into the politicization of a previously marginalized people, who eventually rose to imperial power in the Indo-Islamic world. 

In exploring the story of Sikh political education and elite culture, this book uncovers a critical chapter in the history of South Asian political thought, one that challenges conventional narratives and provides a deeper understanding of the Sikh community’s quest for self-determination.

About the Author

Satnam Singh 

is a senior consultant to Danish authorities and has worked professionally for more than a decade to prevent political extremism and honor-related violence against women. Learn more at www.satnam-singh.com.

Tate Artist Excluded from Tate for Turner Prize Leaflet

Charles Thomson

December 11, 2024

Facebook

TwitterRedditEmail

The Tate Modern has barred artist, Edgeworth Johnstone from entering the gallery because of leaflets about the Tate Turner Prize in his bag.

Visitors beware: this leaflet is not allowed in Tate Modern.

Johnstone, a member of the Stuckists art movement, said “I had protest leaflets titled “The Stomach Turner Prize”. I made it clear that I had no intention of distributing them inside the gallery and offered to deposit them with security, if they were worried, but they refused. They said: ‘We can’t have these in the building.’ I was absolutely astonished at their attitude.”

Their attitude is even more astonishing as the Tate gallery archive includes earlier Stuckist leaflets criticising the Turner Prize, and Sir Nicholas Serota (Tate Director 1988-2017) once wrote to me: “we should ensure that the Tate Archive, as the national record of art in Britain, properly represents the contribution of the Stuckist movement to debates about contemporary art in recent years … recording your various events and demonstrations, particularly relating to Tate and the Turner Prize.”

Johnstone exhibited his work at Tate Modern in the No Soul For Sale exhibition in 2010 after submissions selected by a jury including noted art critic Louisa Buck.

He has now written to the Tate asking: “Is it Tate’s policy to bar admission, if a visitor is in possession of material criticising the Turner Prize or Tate, or other material, which is perfectly legal, but which the Tate deems unacceptable? If so, why is this not made clear in the visitor information and displayed on notices outside the entrance to avoid embarrassing situations?” He asked for “a formal apology” and requested “suitable compensation”, suggesting “free membership for myself and a guest as a Tate member for the next 12 months.”

Le Bas (left) and Johnstone (right): spot the difference competition.

But Johnstone has an even bigger grudge against the Turner Prize this year, alleging that part of Incipit Vita Nova (Thus Begins a New Life), one of the exhibits by Delaine Le Bas, bears a striking resemblance to part of one of his artworks shown on YouTube for the last four years.

Johnstone’s video shows a chequer pattern and, a few seconds later, a figure with loose, draped clothing and a clown-type head, next to a vertical column of simple hand-written sums, beginning “1 x 2 = 2”.

Le Bas’s installation has a figure with loose, draped clothing and an animal-type head with random chequer pattern elements superimposed over part of it, next to a vertical column of sums, hand-written in a style identical to Johnstone’s and beginning “1 + 1 = 2”.

You be the judge. But before you do so, please bear in mind that to be au courant in the artworld you must realise that “plagiarism” is now outmoded terminology, to be replaced by “recontextualisation” or some such. “Appropriation” will do, as long as it’s not “cultural”. Damien Hirst was rather more brazen, blazing the trail in 2006 and declaring he “didn’t have any shame about stealing other people’s ideas. You call it a tribute”. It gives another – and undoubtedly unintended, but delightfully Freudian – meaning to the large red banner hanging on the frontage of the gallery with white lettering “Free for all”.

The rest of the world hasn’t quite cottoned on and the Turner Prize has come under fire previously for plagiarism, when Glenn Brown’s sci-fi paintings in 2000 were close replicas of existing sci-fi illustrations of a flying saucer. Johnstone certainly hasn’t caught up and said “There seems to be a tradition of plagiarism in people favoured by the Turner Prize, notably Damien Hirst, the winner in 1995. One of the artists who suffered at his hands was Lori Precious, an American who visited me a few years ago and whose kaleidoscopic butterfly designs were exhibited before Hirst did his versions. People now seem to think that she has copied him.”

Tracey Emin, a nominee for the prize in 1999, has been accused by her ex-boyfriend Billy Childish of using some of his work in hers. Stuckist artist Abby Jackson had a painting copied by Mark Wallinger (albeit with her permission) as part of his winning 2007 Turner Prize exhibition.

Turner Prize demo 2024 by Edgeworth Johnstone, Miss Libby Palmer and Emma Pugmire.

IJohnstone proceeded to demonstrate outside Tate Britain all of Turner Prize day last Tuesday with a placard against “The Stomach Turner Prize”, as well as a placard protesting “plagiarism” (see above). He was accompanied by colleagues, Emma Pugmire and Miss Libby Palmer. At one point he was approached by a woman with a red Tate lanyard, who pointed to his placard and said mysteriously and somewhat ominously: “The big institutions won’t like this,” though not explaining why, nor which big institutions she had in mind. I feel fairly confident the big institutions won’t give a monkey’s about it.

He was somewhat upstaged in the evening by rather more plentiful and vociferous demonstrators for other causes: “Libby had long gone home by the time the pro-Palestine and pro-Israel counter demos arrived, at around six o’clock, and Emma had chosen that moment to wander off somewhere, leaving me on my own, swamped in pro-Palestinians chanting ‘From the River to the Sea’, waving huge Palestinian flags with music blaring from a nearby PA system.

It was getting increasingly rowdy, and I felt – and must have looked – ridiculous, holding up ‘The Stomach Turner Prize’ placard and standing behind a shopping trolley propping up one about ‘Plagiarism’, so I shuffled through the crowd, carrying the demo stuff through the pro-Israel demonstrators. I could see the Turner Prize guests being escorted through the throng into the building. Police were everywhere. No one was interested in my demo. I couldn’t find Emma, so went home. Thankfully, I wasn’t wearing my pig mask by then.”

Meanwhile Jasleen Kaur was awarded the Turner Prize for supporting the Palestinian cause, as she made plain during her acceptance speech. Sorry, what? My bad. She was actually awarded it for covering a car with a doily, an over-size one of the type my mother used cover the coffee table with.

Edgeworth Johnstone (with mask) in “anti Turner Prize” demo 2020.

Edgeworth Johnstone is, along with Ron Throop in Oswego NY and Donald Takeshita-Guy (recently moved to exile in Lincoln, somewhere in the North of England), one of the most active Stuckist artists. He is prolific, innovative, original and more than a little perverse, staging in 2020 another demo against the Turner Prize, initially deliberately held at the wrong venue (the National Gallery) on the wrong day with a wrong placard, announcing “Stuckism is wrong”.

He  regularly collaborates with Billy Childish (Tracey Emin’s ex-partner) on paintings with the duo name Heckel’s Horse. They have exhibited their work at Pushkin House. His great-uncle won the Victoria Cross in the Boer War and his great-grandfather was boxing champion Edgeworth Johnstone, after whom he is named (but don’t hold these two predecessors against him).

I have now, by Googling, discovered a page headed “Tate Gallery Rules”, which is in the URL under the “visit” section, although the “visit” page has no apparent link to it. One of the rules is; “We reserve the right not to allow any bag, parcel, or other item to be brought into the Gallery.” This is somewhat alarming. What criteria are applied to determine exclusion? The wrong fashion brand? A bag with an unacceptable logo? One that says FCUK or even FUCK? And what “other items” are banned? A bugle? A packet of condoms? We need to know.

Another rule is “Campaign materials are not permitted into the building.” What are “campaign materials”? A soldier bringing an army map? Maybe not that kind of campaign. Ah, someone with a leaflet promoting the Labour or Conservative party on their person? Obviously someone with a leaflet satirising the Turner Prize.

Under the heading “Behaviour”, there is the staunch proclamation: “We are committed to ensuring that Tate galleries are safe, inclusive and respectful places. We will take immediate action when this is not supported by those visiting our sites.” The Tate Press office informed me: “campaign/protest material isn’t always identifiable but when it is we do ask people not to bring it in and it’s returned when they leave the buildings. It does apply to banners and leaflets etc.”

The implication of that statement is that such material is required to be left with Tate officials, but why should perfectly legal personal property of members of the public be subjected to this kind of interference by a publicly-funded institution? It presumes the visitor is intending to distribute such material inside the gallery, in which case surely there should be the reasonable rule stating that this is not permitted, rather than presuming guilty intent, and also for any such rules to be clearly visible prior to entry.

It demonstrates the confusion and arbitrariness of the protocol that Johnstone had previously been permitted without any qualms by security to take the same leaflets into Tate Britain, while the Turner Prize exhibition was in progress  there  – and he didn’t hand them out inside the gallery. He was actually distributing them to local shops.

These are not “campaign materials”. A megaphone is “respectful” in the gallery.

Last November, I was in Tate Modern while a pro-Palestine demonstration was taking place. Banners were draped over the balcony and a Palestinian flag displayed with the slogan “Boycott Israel”. Leaflets were handed out. Slogans were shouted through a megaphone. There was no attempt by the watching security staff to “take immediate action” or any other form of action for that matter. The Tate’s definition of “campaign materials” is as perplexing as its definition of art. That’s Postmodernism for you.

NOTES

Photos: Edgeworth Johnstone. Palestine demo photos: Charles Thomson

The Yamamoto Keiko Rochaix gallery representing Delaine Le Bas has been contacted for comment.

The Tate Head of Visitor Communications has replied to Johnstone that his complaint has been “passed to our Head of Visitor Experience and Senior Security Manager to investigate.”

Charles Thomson is co-founder of The Stuckists.