The Sikhs and the Independence Movement
Notes and References
 Anil Seal, The Emergence of Indian Nationalism: Competition and Collaboration in the Later Nineteenth Century, Cambridge, 1968, p. 349.
 For an incisive survey of constitutional advance and British policy in this period, see R. J. Moore, The Crisis of Indian Unity 1917-1940, Oxford, 1974, and his “The Problem of Freedom with Unity: London’s India Policy, 1917-47,” in D. A. Low, ed., Congress and the Raj: Facets of the Indian Struggle 1917-47, New Delhi, 1977, pp. 375-403. In the extensive official reports of the Round Table conferences, of special relevance to Sikh interests are “The Communal Problem in the Punjab,” by Sir Geoffrey Corbett, and “A Scheme of Redistribution of the Punjab,” by Sardar Ujjal Singh, Indian Round Table Conference (Second Session) Proceedings, Cmd. 3997 (1931-32), Appendix 16 & 17.
 India Office Library and Records (=IOLR), L/PO/48, Note by the Secretary of State for India, “Communal Problem: Question of a Decision by the Government,” discusses negotiations and plans for the Award. See also Helen M. Nugent, “The Communal Award: The Process of Decision-Making,” South Asia, N.S., 2, 1-2 (1979), pp. 112-129.
 See IOLR, L/PO/49, for communal analysis and projections of allocations of legislative seats. An enclosed letter of 21 July 1932 from the Prime Minister, Ramsay MacDonald, to the Secretary of State for India, Sir Samuel Hoare, admits that “The Sikhs cannot be satisfied and the Punjab difficulty will have to be faced.”
 For a summary of the Sikh response, see K. L. Tuteja, Sikh Politics [1920-40], Kurukshetra, 1984, pp. 156-162. For details, see The Tribune (Lahore), numbers during 1932.
 Nehru Memorial Museum and Library (=NMML), Sardar Sunder Singh Majithia Papers, 31, No. 5075 of 26 December 1916.
 NMML, Majithia Papers, 22. The complete vow, as reported in The Tribune, 27 July 1932: “I [name] in the presence of Guru Granth Sahib pledge that I shall not tolerate any communal majority granted in any way to any particular community and take a vow that I shall try to fight against this by making every possible sacrifice. I pray may He give me power to fulfill my pledge.” For background on the League, see Sukhmani Bal, “Politics of the Central Sikh League (1919-1929): A Critical Review,” Journal of Sikh Studies, 10, 2 (1983), pp. 131-139.
 IOLR, Parliamentary and Other Papers, Folio 1019, records the text of the “pact” and of the official response.
 IOLR, L/P&J/9/82, records the proposed agreement and the resolutions of the Muslim conference of 20th November, sent by the All India Muslim League to the Secretary of State for India, which concludes “that the Allahabad ‘solution’ of the communal problem is, so far as the Muslims are concerned, manifestly unfair and unacceptable.”
 Sikh Rahit Maryada , in W. H. McLeod, tr. & ed., Textual Sources for the Study of Sikhism, Manchester, 1984, p. 79. Swaran Singh Sanehi, “Rahitnamas of the Sikhs,” Journal of Sikh Studies, 11, 1 (1984), pp. 66-85, surveys the genre from a standpoint typical of the Singh Sabha or neo-Sikh tradition of study.
 W. H. McLeod, “On the word panth: a problem of terminology and definition,” Contributions to Indian Sociology, N.S., 12, 2 (1978), pp. 287-295.
 Niharranjan Ray, The Sikh Gurus and the Sikh Society: A Study in Social Analysis, Patiala, 1970, pp. 176ff., discusses the distinction between descriptive and normative approaches to Sikhism and Sikh society, and calls for study of existing “sects” and “sub-sects” among Sikhs. His terminology tends to be resisted by neo-Sikh writers; see, e.g., Teja Singh, “Are There Sects In Sikhism?” The Panjab Past and Present, 12, 1 (1978), pp. 130-141, to which the proposed answer is “No.” Paul Brass, Language, Religion and Politics in North India, New York, 1974, p. 285, observes that “the creation of a cohesive community includes a process of symbol and myth selection which includes some groups, excludes others, and treats still others as marginal. In this process among the Sikhs, the sahajdari Sikhs, while not formally excluded, are considered less ‘genuine’.” Although the focal issue involves orthodoxy, orthopraxy, and religious dissent; it has important consequences for scholarship and in politics. See Baldev Raj Nayar, “Sikh Separatism in the Punjab,” in Donald Eugene Smith, ed., South Asian Politics and Religion, Princeton, 1966, pp. 150 175.
 N. Gerald Barrier, “The Sikh Resurgence: The Period and its Literature,” pp. xvii-xlv, in his The Sikhs and Their Literature: A Guide to Tracts, Books and Periodicals, 1849-1919, Delhi, 1970, remains the best brief survey. See also Harjot Singh Oberoi, “A Historiographical and Bibliographical Reconstruction of the Singh Sabha in the Nineteenth Century Panjab,” Journal of Sikh Studies, 10, 2 (1983), pp. 108-130.
 Gurdarshan Singh, “Origin and Development of Singh Sabha Movement: Constitutional Aspects,” The Panjab Past and Present, 7, 1 (1973), pp. 45-58.
 Kenneth W. Jones, “Ham Hindu Nahin: Arya-Sikh Relations, 1877 1905,” Journal of Asian Studies, 32, 3 (1973), pp. 457-475. For background on shuddhi as a context for Arya-Sikh relations, see also Kenneth W. Jones, “Communalism in the Punjab: The Arya Samaj Contribution,” Journal of Asian Studies, 28, 1 (1968), pp. 39-54; and G. R. Thursby, Hindu-Muslim Relations in British India, Leiden, 1975, pp. 136-158.
 In his The Heritage of the Sikhs, rev. edn., New Delhi and Columbia, Mo., 1983, pp. 225-259, Professor Harbans Singh of Patiala, esteemed editor of the forthcoming Encyclopedia of Sikhism, makes an eloquent appeal for appreciation of the work of Ditt Singh, Teja Singh, and the Singh Sabhas toward the “search for Sikh identity and self-assertion.” Work in progress by younger scholars, such as Harjot Singh Oberoi of the University of British Columbia, as well as a forthcoming book by N. G. Barrier on the emergence of modern Sikhism, will make possible a deeper understanding of the politics and the social and cultural significance of the period.
 Professor Teja Singh, “The Singh Sabha Movement,” in his Essays in Sikhism, Lahore, 1944, pp. 129-147; Barrier, “The Sikh Resurgence,” passim. See also the editorial “Chief Khalsa Diwan-Fifty Years of Service (1902-1951),” The Panjab Past and Present, 7, 1 (1973), pp. 59-67.
 K. S. Talwar, “The Anand Marriage Act,” The Panjab Past and Present, 2, 2 (1968), pp. 400-410; Barrier, “The Sikh Resurgence,” p. xliii.
 Rajiv A. Kapur, Sikh Separatism: The Politics of Faith, London, 1986, pp. 43-44.
 Surjit Singh Narang, “Chief Khalsa Diwan–A Study of Its Ideology, Leadership and Strategy,” Journal of Sikh Studies, 12, 1 (1985), pp. 97-108. Cf. his “Chief Khalsa Diwan–An Analytical Study of Its Perceptions,” in Paul Wallace and Surendra Chopra, eds., Political Dynamics of Punjab, Amritsar, 1981, pp. 67-81; and “Chief Khalsa Diwan–A Study of a Socio-Religious Organisation,” Journal of Sikh Studies, 8, 1-2 (1981), pp. 102-117.
 Sangat Singh, Freedom Movement in Delhi (1858-1919), New Delhi, 1972, pp. 198-220; Harjot Singh [Oberoi], “From Gurdwara Rikabganj to the Viceregal Palace: A Study of Religious Protest,” The Panjab Past and Present, 14, 1 (1980), pp. 182-198; NMML, Caveeshar Papers. In May 1920 the name of the Khalsa Akhbar was changed to the Akali. On the role of the princes, including Nabha, in Sikh society and politics, see Barbara N. Ramusack, “Punjab States: Maharajas and Gurdwaras: Patiala and the Sikh Community,” in Robin Jeffrey, ed., People, Princes and Paramount Power: Society and Politics in the Indian Princely States, Delhi, 1978, pp. 170-204.
 N. G. Barrier, “In Search of Identity: Scholarship and Authority among Sikhs in Nineteenth Century Punjab,” in Robert I. Crane and Bradford Spangenberg, eds., Language and Society in India: Essays in honor of Professor Robert O. Swan, Columbia, Mo., 1981, p. 23.
 W. H. McLeod, “Cohesive Ideals and Institutions in the History of the Sikh Panth,” in his The Evolution of the Sikh Community: Five Essays, Oxford, 1976, p. 58.
 Report on the Administration of the Punjab and its Dependencies for 1920-21, Lahore, 1922, v. 1, pp. 350-351; National Archives of India, Home Political 459/II/1922; IOLR, L/P&J/6/1734; R. Kapur, Sikh Separatism, pp. 91-100; Mohinder Singh, The Akali Movement, Delhi, 1978, pp. 15-23.
 IOLR, Reading Collection, MSS Eur E 238/84, “Confidential Report on the Reading Administration,” p. 243; R. Kapur, Sikh Separatism, pp. 105-115; Mohinder Singh, “The Congress and Nationalist Sikh Politics (1920-1937),” in B. N. Pande, genl. ed., A Centenary History of the Indian National Congress (1885-1985) (Volume Two: 1919-1935, R. Kumar,ed.), New Delhi, 1985, pp. 367 370.
 R. Kapur, Sikh Separatism, pp. 124-129, 143-156, 173-180; IOLR, L/P&J/6/1734.
 IOLR, Hailey Collection, MSS Eur E 220/7A, Correspondence from Hailey to Governor-General Reading, 22 January 1925; R. Kapur, Sikh Separatism, pp. 181-196.
 IOLR, MSS Eur E 220/6C, Hailey to Lahore Commissioner A. Langley, 25 November 1924.
 Government of the Punjab, Legislative Department, The Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925, (Punjab Act, No. VIII of 1925, with the Rules Thereunder [As modified by the Government of India (Adaptation of Indian Laws) Order 1937 and Punjab Act, No. VII of 1938], Lahore, 1939, 205pp.
 IOLR, MSS Eur E 220/7B, Confidential Minute of 6 May 1925.
 IOLR, MSS Eur E 220/7B, Hailey to L. Rushbrook-Williams, 23 June 1925.
 IOLR, MSS Eur E 220/8B, Hailey to W. M. Vincent, 31 December 1925.
 R. Kapur, Sikh Separatism, p.200; Sardul Singh Caveeshar, “The Akali Movement,” The Sikh Studies, Lahore, 1937, repr. in The Panjab Past and Present, 7, 1 (1973), p. 123. Sardul Singh’s terminology recently has been adopted by Richard G. Fox in his Lions of the Punjab: Culture in the Making, Berkeley, 1985. Fox’s interpretive framework, like that of the Cambridge school, places emphasis on instrumental or rational utility in the service of material interests, and views Singh identity largely as a “subsidized” product of British imperial interests, particularly the need for “martial races” in military service. Cf. his “Urban Class and Communal Consciousness in Colonial Punjab: The Genesis of India’s Intermediate Regime,” Modern Asian Studies, 18, 3 (1984), pp. 459-489. Toward an alternative interpretation, note the following: R. Kapur, Sikh Separatism, p. 113; Gail Minault, The Khilafat Movement: Religious Symbolism and Political Mobilization in India, New York, 1982, pp. 13-14 & n.1.
 C. Shackle, “The Sikhs Before and After Indian Independence,” Asian Affairs, 16, 2 (1985), p. 187. For support of this analysis, and some corroboration of Fox’s interpretation, see K. L. Tuteja, Sikh Politics, pp. 173-216; R. Kapur, Sikh Separatism, pp. 194 250; Stephen Oren, “The Sikhs, Congress, and the Unionists in British Punjab, 1937-1945,” Modern Asian Studies, 8, 3 (1974), pp. 397-418; Ayesha Jalal and Anil Seal, “Alternative to Partition: Muslim Politics Between the Wars,” Modern Asian Studies, 15, (1981), pp. 415-454; and Joyce J. M. Pettigrew, “The Growth of Sikh Community Consciousness 1947-1966,” South Asia, N.S., 3, 2 (1980), pp. 43-62.