(Which took place in Sri Nagar in September, 1944).
Akali ji arrived to meet me at the house of Sir Diaal Singh, where a few other Sikh friends were also gathered. He reached out with his arms, to give a welcoming hug, as he approached me. At which point I boldly stated –
Daas–
I will never hug you; a greeting from afar is fine.
Akali Koar Singh – (with a cunning smile) Why,
what have I done?
Daas– You have committed two murders. I don’t
hug murderers.
Akali Koar Singh – (a little angered) Which
murders have I committed? Please enlighten me and
tell me to what you are referring?
Daas– Here is a letter from Narinder Singh,
from Mahindipur, the one who you served the chicken
to having killed it with your own hands. He has passed
away. For eight or nine years he was ill from tuberculosis,
but he was such a believer in his faith that he refused
to eat meat and eggs, though many doctors had advised
it strongly. Even many of his close friends attempted
to convince him, but he remained true to his faith.
Due to his faith, his condition began to get better
and better, he even put on eighteen pounds in weight.
All the doctors were amazed. Everyone admitted that
it was his faith which brought on this improvement.
From the day that you fed him that chicken, his health
has deteriorated. After a few days, the eating of
the meat had taken his life. Firstly you are responsible
for ‘murdering’ his faith, secondly you
murdered him and thirdly you murdered the chicken.
All this rests upon your head. I don’t know
how many other sins you have committed, in addition
to these three, and to hug you would be like ‘murdering’
the true spirit of act act of hugging someone. Poor
soul. Dear Narinder Singh became a victim of your
crooked thinking.
Akali Koar Singh – I never killed a chicken,
never fed it to him and never even said a word which
convinced him to eat meat.
Daas– The only thing that proves is that you
do not have ethics enough to confess to what you have
done. Present today are some people from Mahindipur
who have heard exactly the same thing, as I have stated.
All the people who were gathered there supported what
I had stated and said to Akali Koar Singh, you say
that you did not advise him at all. But, I know for
a fact that that you scolded many Sikhs during heated
discussions in Bijey Nagar, and stated that a any
Sikh who does not eat meat, has fallen from the ideals
of Sikhism.
Upon hearing this the Akali hung his head and in a
low, weak voice denied ever saying such things. Perhaps
to liven up the discussion, I may have said one or
two things.
Daas– To completely insult the whole of wondrous
teaching of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib is not an act
to liven up the discussion. What was the point of
bringing up the topic of meat? If one act of a person
is worthless, does that mean every other act is worthless
too? Is there no good at all! The way that I answer
meat-eaters who want to discuss the matter is by referring
to the truths which are found in the Guru Granth Sahib.
For you to state that if a person does not eat meat
then he is not a Sikh, is biased and bigoted. In making
such a declaration, you have made every none meat-eating
Sikh, out to be unworthy of Sikhism, and have caused
pain to the hearts of those proud Sikhs who followed
the true path of religion. The very text (Guru Granth
Sahib) that you criticism so strongly, does not even
contain a trace of support for eating meat. You said
what you did in order to cause pain to those Sikhs
who do not eat meat.
Those people who were listening to what you said were
like saints. I have heard they did not display their
disgust, and kept it raging inside them. The stage
director tried on many occasions to prevent you from
going too far, but you did not stop. Truthfully, if
I had been there I would never have let you speak
and would have argued against you and the lies you
were telling. What right did you have to say anything
at all. By not admitting to your saying such things,
you show that you do not even have a grain of morality
in you. Please tell me now, using which verse from
the Gurbani did you kill that chicken? When it is
clear in the Guru Granth Sahib that Gurbani page 225
end of first para.
How would you commentate on such a verse? How can
you kill and eat a chicken, when it is clearly forbidden
in this verse?
Akali Koar Singh – Sire, this verse has been
written for customs of Muslims, not of Sikhs.
Daas –
prQwie
swKI mhw purK boldy swJI sgl jhwnY ]
Great men speak the teachings by relating them to
individual situations, but the whole world shares
in them.
states that God can comment on every custom, and this
comment applies to all. The sacred ‘Bani has
not only been written for Sikhs.
Akali Koar Singh – (becoming a little worried)
This verse is solely for Muslims.
jau
sB mih eyku Kudwie khq hau qau ikau murgI mwrY ]1]
You say that the One Lord is in all, so why do you
kill chickens? ||1||
This proves what I say.
Daas – How! Are us Sikhs not believers of the
‘sB mih eyku Kudwie khq ha’ verse? Even
Hindus believe it, as do the Christians. It is a principle
of religion that we all belong to one God. Do you
disagree with this?
Akali Koar Singh – I cannot disagree with it,
but this verse has been specifically addressed to
Muslims.
Daas – This is your lack of faith and is also
your stubbornness. What you want to establish is that
it is forbidden for Muslims to kill chickens, but
not for Sikhs.
Akali Koar Singh – You can understand it which
ever way you like but, this verse is addressed solely
to Muslims.
Daas – First of all then, I will dispel this
myth of yours and then I will show you that this verse
is not dedicated solely to Muslims. Read the first
extract –
byd
kqyb khhu mq JUTy JUTw jo n ibcwrY ]
Do not say that the Vedas, the Bible and the Koran
are false. Those who do not contemplate them are false.
jau
sB mih eyku Kudwie khq hau qau ikau murgI mwrY ]1]
You say that the One Lord is in all, so why do you
kill chickens? ||1||
The first part of this two-line extract clearly states
that is is addressed to Hindus and Muslims, and not
only Muslims. ‘You say that the One Lord is
in all’. Those who believe this will feel the
impact of the verse. Those people who have been addressed
in this verse, are bound by the same rules towards
killing poultry. Hindus do not feel the impact any
lesser than Sikhs, and Muslims do not feel the impact
any more. In the same way, you cannot escape from
the impact of this verse.
Akali Koar Singh – That means no one can escape
from the verse’s impact.
Daas – At least you admit that the killing of
poultry is wrong in principle. You should know that
no one can get away with committing a crime. If there
are others committing a crime, does that make your
committing the crime, a lesser criminal act? First
you would claim that Muslims were the criminal and,
because you were a Sikh, you were not guilty of the
same crime. But know that it has become apparent that
everyone is effected by the impact of the verse, you
have changed your stance, and now believe that no
one can live a crime-free life.
The crime that is done by all, is that crime acceptable?
But how can you state that everyone commits crimes?
The crime that are mentioned here, only relate to
those who kill poultry.
Everyone who kills poultry is a criminal, whether
it be a Hindu, Muslim or Sikh.
Akali Koar Singh – What I mean to say is, in
breathing, drinking and walking on the earth we kill
animals. Can you say that this is not the killing
of animals?
Daas – Is it true we do that? Do we kill animals
for food and do we forcefully slaughter them? The
killing of animals for our own taste is a crime, though
if a act does not take us away from our natural diet,
then we cannot be guilty of any crime. Breathing is
merely an act of survival, not an act of consuming
little animals. In the same way, our walking on the
earth is not a deliberate act to kill small insects.
By walking around, breathing, eating and drink, if
we consume minute creatures, we will not be found
guilty of a crime.
Akali Koar Singh – All of us cannot escape the
evil from slaughtering animals if in everyday life
we continue to kill them. So, by killing a chicken,
it isn’t if I gained a great deal more guilt.
In breathing we cannot escape killing animals.
Daas – (biting the inside of his cheek) Amazing!
What a great point of view you have taken!
Using paan and tobacco, smoking the pipe and smoking
cigarettes are all forbidden to Sikhs. But you tell
me, having travelled throughout India, you must have
boarded many trains and buses on your travels. If
you board a train which is full of smokers who are
filling the air with cigarette smoke. Should you,
during your time on that train, inhale some of that
smoke during the natural act of breathing, would that
make you a sinner? The fact is that you cannot avoid
inhaling the smoke of the cigarettes. If the smoke
is wafting into your face, clothes and hair, it means
that you cannot avoid being effected by it. What a
weak argument you put forward.
At this point the Akali became very agitated, and
was incapable of an answer. He hung his head and a
silence followed. Then a short while later, the Akali
responded:
Akali Koar Singh – Brother, I came here to ask
you if you would come and meet with the rest of my
group who will become baptised Sikhs (amrit shakna)
, but you set the conversation in a completely different
direction. I will ask you to accompany me. I came
to ask you this in Narangwal also.
Daas – You can keep you invitation to yourself.
It is possible to see Sikhs being baptised on many
other occasions, and as I said to you in Narangwal,
the state of being a baptised Sikh forbids one to
eat meat. Those people who do not eat meat should
be the ones who present themselves for baptism.
Akali Koar Singh – At least come along. Ask
them to refrain from eating meat, and they will.
Daas – Akali ji, please talk sense; do not stray.
You have vast experience in religious circles but
you still hold the view that it is a Sikh’s
religious right to consume meat. It is a shame that
you haven’t been able to positively influence
your followers in any way. If you did not lecture
on eating meat, they would eat meat by following your
actions. Actions speak louder than words.
Three hours of debate followed, during which the Akali
was put-down from every angle. Even with these put-downs,
he would not give up his stubbornness. He didn’t
leave his stubbornness, but he did leave us.
All the objectives of this discussion have been met.
Therefore, there is no need for extra narrative or
dialogue. I will leave you with one final outcome.
Having heard first-hand that Akali Koar Singh had
taken the first steps to changing his thinking about
meat, made me happy. He began to lecture on the true
religious stance concerning meat and didn’t
touch it again from that day on.
I had hoped that this manuscript would be completed
while Akali Koar Singh was still alive, but that wasn’t
to be the case.