Article I of the United States Constitution invests the legislative power of the American people into a Congress, to be made up of a Senate and a House of Representatives. This was to be kept separate, to the best of their abilities, from the executive branch of government that would enforce the law, and the judicial branch that would interpret the law, as the Founders largely subscribed to Montesquieu’s model of the separation of powers. However, Founders such as James Madison also found it prudent that such departments “be so far connected and blended as to give to each a constitutional control over the others” lest “the degree of separation which the maxim requires, as essential to a free government, can never in practice be duly maintained.” Federalist No. 48
The debate as to how “separate” the powers need to be continued when the Supreme Court was called upon to decide the constitutionality of executive agencies in the early 1900s. These agencies, the precursors to the modern administrative state, had been authorized by Congress to make rules that bound the public and carried civil and criminal sanctions if broken, prosecute the violations, and even had their own judges to interpret the relevant codes and regulations. The biggest problem was these agencies were housed under the President, who has the executive power to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” under Article II, but does not have explicit rulemaking authority.
The Court under Chief Justice (and former President) Taft ruled in the 1928 case of J.W. Hampton that Congress may authorize an agency to draw up the details of how a law will work if it gives “an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to [act] is directed to conform”, but that “it is a breach of the national fundamental law if Congress gives up its legislative power and transfers it to the President.” An example of such a breach was given in 1935 when the Court ruled the National Industrial Recovery Act’s command to establish codes of “fair competition” was impermissibly vague. The Court had implicitly invoked the “intelligible principle” test to strike back at FDR’s massive expansion of agencies housed under the New Deal, and it has now become the established method of analysis for a legal challenge based on impermissible delegation. But since then, the Court has not ruled any delegation unconstitutional, and the test can almost be thought to be ceremonial at this point, with broad directives from Congress of “feasibility” or “public health” able to meet it.
To be noted is the invisibility of this “legislative power” that is being discussed. It is an intangible idea, bordering on metaphysical, made real only by the threat of police and/or prosecution should one decide to break the rules made by a legislature or agency. And to be clear, in the case of America, it is a power that first resides in the people. Although perhaps not said word-for-word in Article I, John Locke called the legislative power “a delegated power from the people” in his Second Treatise of Civil Government. It is giving up at least some control over what rules one must follow in their lives, on the theory that it would be greater for the common good for all to follow the same basic rules, and for a select few to make them.
Can Guru Gobind Singh Ji’s investiture of Guruship in the Khalsa Panth be understood as a delegation of sorts? As in American law, the delegation is twofold. Whereas under the Constitution, the legislative power is first delegated from the people to Congress, and then from Congress to agencies, in Sikhi, perhaps one can imagine the relationship as first a delegation from Akal Purakh to the Gurus, and then from the Gurus to the Khalsa. (There may even be a tertiary level of delegation from the Khalsa to Takht Jathedars but never mind that now). Now of course, on a certain level, each of these three entities are one in the same. The writings of the Bhatts instruct us on the position of the Guru in relation to Akal, and Guru Gobind Singh Ji’s own writings on the position of the Khalsa. Within Khalsa Mehima it is written,
ਖ਼ਾਲਸਾ ਮੇਰੋ ਰੂਪ ਹੈ ਖ਼ਾਸ | ਖ਼ਾਲਸੇ ਮਹਿ ਹੌ ਕਰੌ ਨਿਵਾਸ
The Khalsa is my form in its most exalted glory, within the Khalsa I shall abide
However, to the extent that power has been delegated to the Khalsa, one may also find an “intelligible principle” within Khalsa Mehima, or at the very least, an instruction to ascertain an intelligible principle with which the Khalsa is to function,
ਜਬ ਲਗ ਖ਼ਾਲਸਾ ਰਹੇ ਨਿਆਰਾ | ਤਬ ਲਗ ਤੇਜ ਕੀਉ ਮੈਂ ਸਾਰਾ
ਜਬ ਇਹ ਗਹੈ ਬਿਪਰਨ ਕੀ ਰੀਤ | ਮੈਂ ਨ ਕਰੋਂ ਇਨ ਕੀ ਪਰਤੀਤ
So long as the Khalsa remains distinct, I shall lend all within my power
Should they fall into the ways of others/Brahmins, I will not hold confidence in them
The translation of “bipran” is oft-debated as to whether it means the ways of others or the ways of Brahmins, who can be referred to as “bipr”. For what its worth, it would seem to me more likely to be the latter, but I have included both possibilities for the reader. Nonetheless, the clear implication here is that should we understand the Khalsa to have an authority delegated by the Guru, it must operate within the parameters laid out by the Guru. So, what is necessary is to figure out what the “intelligible principles” the Khalsa is to follow actually are.
There are several possibilities for how this should be done. Perhaps, as the above quote indicates, part of the formulation should involve defining the Khalsa against what it is not- for example, the ways of Brahmins. Indeed, in many a rehitnama, one can find injunctions against following certain rites that can be categorized as either predominantly Hindu or Muslim, such as the practices of tonsure, idol worship, or prostrating at the graves of Muslim saints. However, defining the Khalsa by negating what it is not can only go so far. What must also be defined is what the Khalsa affirmatively is, what are the goals it strives for and thus what are the unique practices that it does and in fact must do to remain true to the creed of Guru Gobind Singh Ji.
But a preliminary query is whether or not one truly believes that the Khalsa actually has the authority of the Guru. It is interesting that, amongst all of the current polemics currently raging about what is contained in precolonial Sikh documents related to rehit and their superficial inconsistencies and variations, what is lost upon some is the unifying theme that the Khalsa has indeed been elevated to the status of the Guru, and thus their command is equal to the latter’s. It is unclear to me why some think this should be different in the modern era. If the collective body of the Khalsa has decided an issue, why should the decision not be seen as binding, even if it perhaps clashes with a peripheral historical practice? Unless it strays from the principles laid down by Guru Gobind Singh Ji, or is clearly contrary to basic prohibitions found in rehitname, it would appear there is little historical basis for simply casting such a ruling aside. The vast majority of history shows a respect for the collective decisions of the Khalsa.
A short example. Although some may point to the multiple faiths present in the Sikh Army of the Lahore government to claim its secularity, it is clear from texts such as Shah Mohammed’s Jungnama and Sohan Lal Suri’s Umdat that the army retained the name of the Khalsa that had comprised of the collective Misl forces prior to their consolidation under Ranjit Singh, and indeed did actually view itself as the continutation of such. During the First Anglo-Sikh War, Raja Gulab Singh of Jammu had not yet arrived to reinforce the troops that were preparing for the Battle of Sobraon (1846). An eyewitness claims to have seen the below happening,
“In the meantime some of the Panches of the brigades… brought a large paper headed with the sayings of the Sikh Gurus called Jap Ji… men from every brigade, representing the whole army and the officers of the brigade, as required by their men, signed and sealed the paper and sent it to the Raja. So Raja Gulab Singh was expected to come to Lahore and the Sikhs were pleased to think that he would join shortly.”
-Waqai-i-Jung-i-Sikhan (1850), translated by the esteemed Vidya Sagar Suri
Now, one may argue that this was simply a political exercise, and that of course Raja Gulab Singh would be expected to obey the commands of the army’s general body. However, one can instead look at this as an example of the Khalsa’s grant of power working within an actual political system- the Raja, a powerful general in his own right, is forced to capitulate to the command of the Khalsa, for carrying with it is the delegated authority of the Sikh Gurus- a suggestion made explicit by the decision to use a copy of the Japji Sahib to sign the command for Gulab Singh to take the field. Such a delegation will inherently lead to the assertion of its authority in the political realm in a Sikh-oriented state.
On this Vaisakhi, on the day that the Guru made clear the extent of the grant of authority to the Khalsa when he himself knelt and was initiated by the newl-minted Panj Piare,
ਵਹੀ ਵਰਤਾਰੋ ਭੁਜੰਗਨ ਵਰਤਾਯੋ |ਆਪਸ ਗੁਰ ਚੇਲਾ ਕਹਿਵਾਯੋ
ਯਹੀ ਆਦ ਹੁਤ ਆਯੋ ਵਰਤਾਰਾ | ਜਿਨ ਨਾਨਕ ਗੁਰ ਅੰਗਦ ਧਾਰਾ
What the Guru had administered (pahul), now the new Singhs did, and they deemed each other Gur-Chela, the Master-Disciple rolled into one
This tradition has come from the beginning, from when Guru Nanak took Guru Angad as his Guru
-Sri Guru Panth Parkash (Professor Kulwant Singh edition)
it is imperative that we examine first, whether one who calls themselves Sikh can do so without recognizing the grant of Guruship authority to the Khalsa, and second, should this grant be recognized, what are the principles that shape and guide it. Although it may be unclear what those are, it is clear where they must come from- the Guru’s teachings themselves.
ਸਲੋਕੁ ਮਃ ੧ ॥
A salok of Guru Nanak Dev Ji
ਬਲਿਹਾਰੀ ਗੁਰ ਆਪਣੇ ਦਿਉਹਾੜੀ ਸਦ ਵਾਰ ॥ ਜਿਨਿ ਮਾਣਸ ਤੇ ਦੇਵਤੇ ਕੀਏ ਕਰਤ ਨ ਲਾਗੀ ਵਾਰ ॥੧॥
I am a sacrifice to my Guru a hundred times a day, who created gods from men without delay
ਮਹਲਾ ੨ ॥
A salok of Guru Angad Dev Ji
ਜੇ ਸਉ ਚੰਦਾ ਉਗਵਹਿ ਸੂਰਜ ਚੜਹਿ ਹਜਾਰ ॥ ਏਤੇ ਚਾਨਣ ਹੋਦਿਆਂ ਗੁਰ ਬਿਨੁ ਘੋਰ ਅੰਧਾਰ ॥੨॥
If a hundred suns were to shine, a thousand moons to rise, even with all this light- without the Guru there is but deep darkness
Gurgadi to Khalsa at Tilak Asthan Sri Chamkaur Sahib - ਗੁਰਗੱਦੀ ਖਾਲਸੇ ਨੂੰ
Giani Gian Singh in Navin Panth Prakash [1880] writes of the plight Guru Gobind Singh and the Singhs faced at Chamkaur Sahib, when the Guru made the decision to gift the title of Guru to the Khalsa. Suraj Prakash [1843], by the Great Poet Santokh Singh, also states the Khalsa was given Guru status at Chamkaur. Following the passage below, the Guru gives Sant Singh his clothes, weapons and jewelry, along with 5 dollars and a coconut before bowing down to the Khalsa.
ਫਿਰ ਸਤਿਗੁਰੁ ਮਨਿ ਐਸ ਵਿਚਾਰਾ । ਹੈ ਸੰਤਤਿ ਜਗਿ ਜੁਗ ਪ੍ਰਕਾਰਾਂ।
ਇਕ ਬਿੰਦੀ ਇਕ ਨਾਦੀ ਕਹੀਏ। ਸੋ ਹਮਰੇ ਦੋਨੋ ਅਬਿ ਹਈਏ ॥੭੦॥
The True Guru then thought in his mind, "There are two types of offspring in the world. One is called genetic and the other disciples [Sikhs]*. At this moment I have both.
ਬਿੰਦੀ ਸੰਤਤਿ ਹਮਰੀ ਨਾਸੈ । ਨਾਦੀ ਦਿਨ ਦਿਨ ਬਹੁ ਪ੍ਰਕਾਸੈ ॥
ਤਾਂ ਤੈ ਨਾਦੀ ਮਮ ਸੰਤਾਨਾ। ਆਹਿ ਖਾਲਸਾ ਪੰਥ ਮਹਾਨਾ॥੭੧॥
[But] my genetic offspring are now being killed, and my Sikhs day by day are ever increasing. Thus my Sikhs are my children, the great Panth of the Khalsa.
ਪੁਨ ਯਹਿ ਪੰਥ ਰਹੈ ਗੋ ਤਬਿ ਲੌ। ਸੂਰ ਸਸੀ ਧਰ ਹੈ ਜਗਿ ਜਬਿ ਲੌਂ ।
ਯਹਿ ਗੁਰੁ ਘਰੁ ਕੀ ਵਸਤੁ ਗੁਰਯਾਈ । ਦੇਵਹੁਂ ਅਬੀ ਖਾਲਸੇ ਤਾਂਈਂ ॥੭੨॥
This Panth will remain in this world as long as the earth, moon, and sun exist. This gift of the status of Guru in the Guru's house I will give now to them, the Khalsa."
ਯੌ ਵਿਚਾਰ ਸਭਿ ਸਿੰਘ ਬੁਲਾਏ। ਤੂਰਨ ਗੁਰੁ ਪੂਰਨ ਢਿਗ ਆਏ।
ਕਰਿ ਬੰਦਨ ਬੈਠੇ ਗੁਰੁ ਪਾਸੂ। ਲਾਇ ਦਿਵਾਨ ਚੁਫੇਰੇ ਖਾਸੂ ॥੭੩॥
Thinking this the Guru called all the Singhs, they quickly came close, bowing down and then sitting beside the Guru. On all sides a special court session commenced.
ਤਬਿ ਸਤਿਗੁਰੁ ਸਭਿ ਤਰਫ ਨਿਹਾਰਾ । ਪਰਖਯੋ ਸਭਿ ਕੋ ਭਲ ਪ੍ਰਕਾਰਾ।
ਸਭਿ ਸਿੰਘਨ ਕੋ ਕਹਯੋ ਸੁਨਾਈ । ਦੈਹੂਂ ਪੰਥ ਕੋ ਮੈਂ ਗੁਰਯਾਈ ॥੭੪॥
The True Guru looking at their pains asked them all properly if they were well. The Guru said to all the Singhs, "I am now giving the Panth the title of Guru"
*the word used was Nādī, meaning through sound/speech/influence, so one could translate this as disciple/Sikh*
Navin Panth Prakash [1880], author: Giani Gian Singh
Purabaradh Bisram 64, verses 70-74
https://www.instagram.com/p/CmpDKtvvbKx/
https://www.manglacharan.com/post/guru-gobind-singh-on-the-khalsa-sarbloh-granth
ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕਾਖਾਲਸਾਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕੀਫਤਿਹ