The objections with the Sojhi Khalsa-school curriculum are not just that its authors have made changes in the Ardas and Dohra, but that they have unnecessarily distorted the concept of the joined Guru – Guru Granth and Guru Panth - throughout the curriculum to push practices that diverge from mainstream Sikhi, critics said.

Developed by the Texas-based Sikh Research Institute, Sojhi began in 2005 as an effort to standardize Khalsa-school curriculums, initially implementing it at some of the larger gurdwaras across the United States. The elementary and middle school syllabuses were released as draft versions in June 2006 and June 2008, respectively. When objections to the curriculum arose publically in February, more people began speaking out on the controversies.

The institute did not respond to our several emailed and phoned requests for detailed clarification of these controversies. But it is forming a review committee to independently look into the issues, according to its news release.

Guru Panth and the Dohra

Sikhs widely accept that in 1708 Guru Gobind Singh gave the Gurugadhi to Guru Granth Sahib and temporal authority to the Panth, which could take action in the spirit of Guru Granth, the eternal Guru.

Parts of the curriculum, made available through news releases, and interviews with those familiar with the curriculum show Sojhi teaches that the Gurugadhi is shared by the Guru Granth and the Guru Panth, and is referred to as “the holistic Guru.”

The authors further reinforce the concept with an quote attributed to Guru Gobind Singh, without source: “Aathmaa granth vich, shareer panth vich,” which means, “The soul resides in the Granth, the body is that of the Panth.”

In the seventh-grade syllabus, the holistic Guru concept is used to justify changing the middle couplet in Dohra.

The prevalent version, by Giani Gian Singh in the1880s, describes the Guru Granth as the manifestation of the spiritual authority of the Gurus. But according to Sojhi, this could also “…be interpreted to mean that the Guru Granth Sahib is to be considered the body of the Gurus and, thus, should be treated as a body. It dangerously brings us closer to becoming idol worshipers…”

Sojhi recommends using a couplet by Bhai Prahilad Singh, a contemporary of Guru Gobind Singh, which describes the Guru Khalsa Panth as the embodiment of the Gurus with implied spiritual authority.

The suggested Dohra is a fundamental departure from the one recited daily at gurdwaras around the world. It has infuriated many Sikhs.

“How could they pick up one Dohra (from) several hundred years ago and ignore what the entire Sikh Panth established as a standard?” said Gurtej Singh Cheema, who runs a monthly camp in Sacramento, Calif. “Sikhs adopted Giani Gian Singh’s Dohra, (Sojhi) rightly explains why.”

At the time, many individuals were claiming themselves to be gurus of the Sikhs, so it became necessary to affirm that the Guru is Guru Granth Sahib, he said.

Gurtej Singh said he read the curriculum when he was considering it for the camps, but found that it caused too much confusion among kids. Sojhi was purchased by the gurdwara in Sacramento, but fell out of favor, he said. And he knows some parents in Stockton, Calif., who have also refused to use it.

Many other teachers have also said that issues like this unnecessarily create dubidha, or doubt, in kids’ minds.

Sukhwinder Kaur, a teacher at the Gurdwara Sahib El Sobrante, Calif., said she had seen emails from parents saying that if they teach this, they would pull their kids out of the school.

“In their (kids’) minds it creates doubt, and it would only grow,” she said. “Why create controversy?”

The El Sobrante Khalsa-school teachers did not adopt Sojhi when institute representatives proposed it two years ago. They kept with its own curriculum that is a modified version of the programs at the Fremont and San Jose, Calif., gurdwaras.

The Dohra controversy has raised so much concern among parents at the Gurdwara Sahib Fremont, Calif., some of its Khalsa-school teachers issued a news release on March 28 explaining in a 7-page attachment why they also had objections.

Last year when they raised the same objections, no one listened, two of them said. Eighteen teachers and college students, mostly from Northern California and Florida, signed on to the news release.

“Kids (maybe) convinced by reasoning that the Panth has a right to change anything,” said Ravinder Singh, a Fremont teacher. “Open the curriculum and you will see that they are bringing controversial issues.”

Lakhvir Singh, another Fremont teacher, later said by phone that because of these controversies, Sojhi is not fully implemented at their school.

“We take the topic (from Sojhi) and use our own materials,” he said. Other teachers are not using it either.

Another major objection to Sojhi is the use of “Vahguru” throughout the curriculum instead of the traditional Waheguru. Changing Waheguru has resulted in changing the Ardas, in which Waheguru appears many times. The authors also removed the reference to Nankana Sahib, which it deemed unnecessary.

“The main issue is not these specific changes in Ardas, the Dohra, the spelling of Vahguru, but the specific framework, which is locating Sikhi on a liberal-progressive ground, functional in the entire mode of presentation… through the entire text,” said Prabhsharandeep Singh, author of several articles on Sikhi, who has read the curriculum. “The authority of the Guru Granth Sahib as Guru is under direct attack and is being replaced with the concept of Guru Panth."

In the second-grade syllabus, a poem called “Guru Granth Sahib” strips the Guru of all physical importance and insists that students only think of the Guru as a spiritual entity. The purpose may have been to teach about the dangers of ritualism, but it has crossed the fine line between idol worship and disrespect, critics said.

“If they take Sri Guru Granth Sahib out of the limelight, (anyone can) misguide us,” Gurtej Singh added. “The one thing that unites us is the Guru Granth. But the way they are doing this, it is a chain of events that will continue to separate the Sikhs from the Guru Granth. This syllabus is part of this chain of events, knowingly or unknowingly.”

Controversy Rises Online

A flurry of press releases, emails and postings on online-discussion groups during the last few weeks are evidence of the increasing concerns over Sojhi.

The controversy first became public on Feb. 21 when a group of Sikh students and adults disrupted one of the institute’s workshops at the University of California at Berkeley. It ended when the university’s Sikh Student Association, which organized the event, called campus police to break up the disruption.

Two days later, Harinder Singh, the institute’s director, met with Prabhsharandeep Singh and other critics to discuss their complaints. Both sides agreed that the critics would send a list of written complaints to the institute, which it would then formally consider and make a decision.

But before the list was mailed, a scathing news release on March 5 charged the institute with blasphemy. It’s alleged author, Randeep Singh Hothi, who was also involved in the Berkeley incident, denied that he sent the email. He never created a Yahoo email account, he later said. And he does not know who did it.

As the email circulated on the Internet, and the controversy grew, the institute followed with its own news release on March 13. It quoted several people supporting the curriculum, and included a 16-page attachment explaining its views on Dohra and a 7-page attachment explaining its views on other objections.

Several requests made to the institute to contact the persons quoted in its news release went unanswered.

Harjot Singh Khalsa, president of the Fremont gurdwara, was reached by phone, but said he had no comment. He was quoted as saying, “…the teachers have no issues with the curriculum.”

But Ram Singh, president of the Supreme Council, the governing body at the Fremont gurdwara, said he intends to find out how the curriculum was approved without the consent of the teachers.

“This is so unfortunate because already we have so many issues in the community,” he said. “I consider this very serious, like indoctrination of children.”

Harpreet Kaur, a teacher from the Khalsa school at the Guru Nanak Foundation in Silver Spring, Md., who was quoted in the news release as saying that the curriculum was a “treasure,” could not be reached. But another teacher, Sarbhpreet Singh, said that he has not heard of any complaints about Sojhi. Notably, the school has only implemented the elementary-school syllabus, not the middle-school syllabus with its heated Dohra controversy.

Similarly, the management at Guru Singh Sabha in Glen Rock, N.J., has not had any complaints about Sojhi, said Yadwinder Singh, president of the board and president of the American Gurdwara Parbandakh Committee, a national governing body with 50 member gurdwaras. But, again, it has only implemented the elementary-school curriculum.

“I helped to get some gurdwaras to (financially) support this project,” Yadwinder Singh said. “We needed everyone to follow a set curriculum.”

The institute has done a good job, he said. It has made mistakes. But it is ready to make changes.
“No one organization has the right to change anything without the consent of the Panth.”

Fixing Sojhi

Inder J. Singh, author of many books on Sikhi and a member of the institute’s advisory board, said the curriculum is a “fantastic effort.” But Sojhi, with its 450 lessons plans and 3,000 typed pages is bound to have problems.

Like many other Sojhi supporters, he was so impressed with the professional and systematic effort of developing a uniform curriculum that he said he never really looked deep into the product.

Now that hundreds of people may have used it, these issues are beginning to surface, he said. It is a work in progress and should be independently, periodically and thoroughly reviewed.

That Sojhi presented another version of Dohra was “not appropriate,” he said. “It needs to be looked at quickly, seriously and they need to do something.”

The institute responded to the teachers’ news release with its own news release on March 30. It again said that the institute is creating a review committee to evaluate the draft curriculum and to consider concerns that have been raised about Sojhi.

“The seriousness of the issue dictates that a response must be made after careful and through review, which will require some time,” it says.

“Guru Nanak reminds us: Everyone makes mistakes; only the Guru and the Creator are flawless.”



Note: Clarification, May 4, 2009: The word 'emphasized' was changed to 'distorted' for correctness.
Sojhi is a licensed curriculum, which costs between $5,000 to $6,000, sources said.
Top photo courtesy Sikh Research Institute.

By Anju Kaur
Sikh News Network staff journalist
anjukaur@sikhnn.com