In California, the Times reports that the School Board unanimously voted last week to alter a seventh grade textbook image relating to Guru Nanak, the founder of the Sikh religion (or panth), after protests from the Sikh community (thanks, Chick Pea). 
The controversial image isn’t the big one pictured, but the small one (I’ve added a circle to make it clearer). The image is a 19th century painting of Guru Nanak wearing a crown and what looks like a somewhat cropped beard. Both the crown and the beard shape are troubling to Sikhs, who are accustomed to seeing images of Guru Nanak more along the lines of the bigger image to the right — flowing white beard, and humble attire.
Though the New York Times has helpful interviews with community members on this, the Contra Costa Times actually spells out the issue more clearly:
The image is taken from a 19th-century painting made after Muslims ruled India. The publisher used it because it complies with the company’s policy of using only historical images in historical texts, said Tom Adams, director of curriculum for the Department of Education.
After Sikhs complained that the picture more closely reflected a Muslim man than a Sikh, Oxford offered to substitute it with an 18th-century portrait showing Guru Nanak with a red hat and trimmed beard. But Sikhs said that picture made their founder look like a Hindu.
The publisher now wants to scrap the picture entirely from the textbook, which was approved for use in California classrooms in 2005. There are about 250,000 Sikhs in California.
Sikh leaders say they want a new, more representative image of Guru Nanak, similar to the ones they place in Sikh temples and in their homes. The publisher has rejected those images as historically inaccurate. No images exist from the founder’s lifetime, 1469 to 1538. (link)
All of this raises the question — what, in fact, did Guru Nanak look like? We don’t have any images from his lifetime, and the later ones are clearly products of the values of their eras. What, historically, do we actually know? I went to Navtej Sarna’s recent book, The Book of Nanak, to see what I could find out.First off, I would recommend Navtej Sarna’s book — it’s part of a series Penguin is doing, that also includes The Book of Mohammed. It’s short, but it’s well-written and accessible.
Secondly, Sarna states the obvious problem with any historical account of Guru Nanak: we don’t have official (as in modernized, chronological) histories to work with, but rather a series of Janamsakhis, some of which were written down shortly after Guru Nanak’s lifetime by personal associates, while others were written down a bit later — at two or three degrees of separation. Some of the relevant manuscripts are mentioned, sketchily, at the Wikipedia site for Janamsakhis. (This Wikipedia entry could be improved!)
Some professional historians simply opt out of saying anything concrete about Guru Nanak’s life. J.S. Grewal, for instance, in The Sikhs of the Punjab, goes right into textual analysis of passages from the Adi Granth, and doesn’t mention any Janamsakhis. Sarna, for his part, acknowledges that his own work is based on the Janamsakhi materials, and proceeds on the basis that some of what is described is factual, while some must be under the category of folklore, and educated guesses have to be made. Along those lines, he comes up with a surprising description of Guru Nanak’s attire:
Nanak was accompanied by Mardana on his travels, who carried his rabab. He dressed in strange clothes that could not be identified with any sect and symbolized the universality of his mesage. He wore the long, loose shirt of a Muslim dervish but in the brownish red colour of the Hindu sanyasi. Around his waist he wore a white kafni or cloth belt like a faqir. A flat, short truban partly covered a Qalandar’s cap on his head in the manner of Sufi wanderers. On his feet, he wore wooden sandals, each of a different design and colour. Sometimes, it is said, he wore a necklace of bones around his neck. (53-54)
Unfortunately, Sarna does not tell us which Janamsakhi this derives from — and I’m sure people would be interested to know, since this is a bit different from the common image of Guru Nanak. Sarna does later mention that at the end of his travels, Guru Nanak gave up these “travel clothes” and adopted the ordinary dress of a “householder.”
At every point, however, what’s emphasized is the strength of Guru Nanak’s personal humility and his rejection of personal wealth or political power (which is not the same as a rejection of the material world). So the crown that’s pictured in the first version of the California textbook is certainly incorrect. The rest, however, is probably open to conjecture and argument.
One other thought: this controversy is obviously part of a new pattern of textbook contestation in California. An earlier chapter occurred last year, when the Hindu Education Foundation and the Vedic Foundation wrote long reports offering their criticisms and suggestions of the representation of Hinduism in California school textbooks. In a post on the subject, I reviewed the details of those reports, and came to feel that some were good suggestions, while others seemed to be cases of whitewashing history. Though some of the dynamics are similar, this is a very different (and indeed, much simpler) case.
ok, ok, Moornam, I will guess. It has to be, Islam and Catholicism. right?
I’m putting my money on Scientology and Latvian Orthodox.
When do we find out the right answers? What’s the prize?
In the writings of Guru Gobind Singh, the words “Khalsa Mero Roop Hai Khaas” resonate with all Sikhs. This line means “The Khalsa is my Finest Image.” Guru Gobind Singh revealed the Khalsa to the world in line with his image. In the writings of Bhai Nand Lal, it says that Guru Gobind Singh is the 10th embodiment of Guru Nanak. In fact, all of the writings of Guru Gobind Singh are prefaced with “Patshahi 10” which means “The 10th Eternal Master.”
Guru Gobind Singh was the son of Guru Tegh Bahadur, the grand-uncle of Guru HarKrishan, the son of Guru Har Rai, the grandson of Guru Arjan, the son of Guru Ram Das, the son-in-law of Guru Amar Das, the uncle of the husband of the daughter of Guru Angad, who was known as “Ang” because he was a “part” of the Guru.
All of the Gurus were called “Mahala” or mansion 1-10, reflecting the legacy or light was being passed forward. The Gurus that wrote in Guru Granth Sahib used “Nanak” as their pen-name, signifying their divine light was the same as Guru Nanak.
So, in light of this, it would be historically accurate to say that all of the Gurus from Guru Nanak to Guru Gobind Singh, although having a different physical stature (height, weight, facial shape) must have kept a similar lifestyle and followed similar rules of conduct.
In India there are countless historical artifacts belonging to the Gurus. The white hair of Guru Amar Das Ji, the kanga of Guru Gobind Singh ji, the chola of Guru Hargobind Ji, the sandles of Guru Nanak Dev ji. All of these are available, among other artifacts.
From these we can form an image, which is historically accurate, of the Gurus. None of them could have been fat. Guru Nanak had to travel on foot from India to countries as far as Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkey, Tibet, etc. Guru Amar Das did seva day and night. Guru Hargobind Sahib was a warrior, as was Guru Tegh Bahadur Sahib and Guru Gobind Singh ji. Guru Har Krishan Sahib ji went on tours to Delhi to heal people, Guru Angad Dev Ji promoted wrestling and exercise, Guru Ram Das Ji managed construction of the Harimandir Sahib which Guru Arjan Dev Ji completed. Guru Har Rai Ji managed a pharmacy and kept an army, and all of the Sikhs had to be physically fit.
From the artifacts available, you can also find Guru ji’s weapons, kirpans, sheilds, etc. as well as turbans. But you will never find a hat, topi, cap, etc.
It would be historically inaccurate to assume that Guru Nanak Dev Ji wore a cap or any type of hat. It would be consistent with all of the other Gurus, the artifacts available of theirs, and the traditions set forth by Guru Gobind Singh Ji for the Khalsa, that the Gurus never wore hats or caps, but turbans. Turbans are the emblem of royalty, and the Sikhs are an autonomous, self-determined, self-governing sovereign nation. Singh means lion, who is the King of the jungle. Kaur means prince, who is the son of the King. Guru Gobind Singh was called “Sache Patshah” which means the true eternal master (not temporary like the Moghuls, or the British monarchy).
Just because an illustration is OLD, does not mean it is historically accurate. This is especially the case when the persons drawing the illustration are commissioned by antagonists to the Sikhs. What type of account of the Sikhs could the Moghuls or Brahmins present? Obviously one that is skewed in favour of their own traditions. This is precisely why Guru Har Rai’s son Ram Rai was disowned – he tried to please the Moghuls by changing Gurbani. In the same way, it is in fact historically accurate that many aspects of Sikh history have been changed in order to please the Moghuls, Brahmins, British Imperialists, or Singh Sabha leaders. People, out of fear of oppression, have time and time again altered their own history in order to maintain the status quo. Just because this is old news, does not mean it the truth.
I can’t disagree more with many of your comments. Your comments remind me of some of Pakistan’s rulers, who changed their history books to ‘Islamize’ the whole history of Pakistan. You seem to be doing the same thing with a difference that you want to see everything from some other perspective.
First of all – you have inverted the whole history. Argument that, Gobind Singh’s comments on “khalsa roop’ can be applied to Nanak Dev, doesn’t really stand any water. How could Gobind’s thoughts influence Nanak? Who came first; Nanak or Gobind? Also, they both were extremely different personalities (Nanak being a great philosopher and Gobind more of a fighter), lived more than 100 years apart from each other, faced completely different social realities (Gobind fighting the mugols and Nanak travelling across the world). The point I am trying to make is that its not logical to make the assertion that Gobind’s life style, appearance etc would be the same as all his predecessors, going back to Naanak.
Secondly – Its highly likely that Nanak wore a topi, which was very common in his times. Remember his parents’ names – Mehta Kalyan Das Bedi and Tripta Devi. No Kaurs or Singhs in those names.
Thirdly – A lot of stuff related to Nanak Dev’s life is based on unrecorded facts. But one thing that we know for fact is that the commonly known image of Nanak is an imagination of a painter named Sobha Singh.
Furthermore – Some people may like it or not, but his appearance was different from Sobha Singh’s paintings. In all probability he looked more like a Muslim or Hindu then a turbaned fellow.
Finally – Does it really matter if he wore a turban or a topi? In my opinion – not at all. What matters is that he was an excellent philosopher and a great social reformer.
There are historically accurate accounts documenting the instructions of Guru Nanak to Bhai Mardana. One of those primary instructions was for him to keep his kes (hair on his head). Guru Amar Das’s white kes (hair on his head) is a historical artifact on display in a museum in India.
Yes, some new standards were set by Guru Gobind Singh Ji on Vaisakhi of 1699, but kes was not one of them, nor was the turban. The turban and kes were encouraged and commonplace among Sikhs since the first parchar missions of Guru Nanak.
I want to clarify about my sentence map above where I say Guru Gobind Singh was the son of Guru Tegh Bahadur, etc.
The next relationship is relevant to the previous person. It is not to say that Guru Gobind Singh had that relation with all the Gurus as their time-span was 230 years and 6 or 7 generations.
Banned for trollery in the form of posting under four handles in the same thread: Anuj / Carva / Ramu / Guru Gandu Singh.
Shallow Thinker- somebody probably addressed your earlier comment, but as I kind of skimmed over to the end, I feel that your statement that ‘that’s what most Sikhs do anyway’ is a bit unwarranted. Putting up a picture of Guru Nanak Ji or Guru Gobind Singh Ji etc as a means to represent one’s faith in their home, to serve as a symbol of their faith, is not the same thing as ‘worshiping’ it. I cannot speak for all Sikhs, for perhaps some do bow down to said images, but I know that out here in Toronto (or even amongst my extended family and friends all over the world), that is definitely not the practice! Sikhism reiterates throughout its principles and philosophies that idol worship is not a tenant of the religion, but that we must instead worship the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji, as that is the last and final Guru. Those images then are merely symbolic-‘shout-outs’ in a sense- to one’s religion.
On another note, would worshiping the SGGS ji not also count as idol worship under the definitions of the previous Gurus? If God is the ultimate authority out there… we are supposed to follow it, but then aren’t all of the practices allocated to the respect of the SGGS ji fall under worshiping it?
Rather, don’t they fall under*?
Great blog by the way!
There’s a difference between respecting/venerating something and actually worshipping it. If one actually prays to the SGGS ji then one is crossing the line into non-canonical practices. Treating its contents as sacred and the teachings as the successor to Guru Gobind Singh, however, is a different matter.
If they’re taken to extremes — which, personally, I sometimes think is indeed the case — then yes, you veer dangerously close to that point.
And with regards to the original question:
The simple answer is: “It doesn’t matter”.
The most important thing is his teachings and the example of his actions, not his appearance.
However, if one is looking for guidance regarding what an “ideal Sikh” is supposed to look like, or some point of focal reference point for the physical appearance of a Sikh Guru, then of course you have Guru Gobind Singh for that. And — tying this into the controversy about the “crown” in Guru Nanak’s picture — the tenth Guru did indeed deliberately wear a “kalgi” (a deliberate royal symbol) in his turban.
Historical evidence is very important. If historical evidence is manipulated or changed it does not reflect the thought, view or teaching at that particular time. Most often historical evidence is changed to the modern times and original is lost. This often leads to the fact that these altered modern views then tend to lead to them being accurate and correct. Then this leads to these modern views to be correct and anything else as offensive even though they might be correct. This happens to the current generation of the time who are bought up with the modern traditional views.
NOW.. Sri Guru Nanak is one of the greatest spiritual teachers of the world religions.
But what did he look like ? Did he have his hair cut with a turban on top ? since there is no proof that Guru Nanak kept long uncut hair, this should not be offensive to suggest. If this if found to be offensive then it often offends those cannot accept change or all their life hard to accept different. Remember there was no sikhism at Guru Nanak’s time, He was not a sikh, he did not declare to be a Sikh, this was formed afterwards. Now this raises the question if he did have cut hair which is more likely at the time, does this current change Sikhism ?
These are question and answers that need to realised with a very neutral mind with prejudice. Without this it cannot be done. Similar to those finding recently of Jesus tomb in the middele east at http://www.jesusfamilytomb.com Is this is fact and true, no strict Christian will still accept this view even if DNA proof had been show. This is the human mind and way, it’s hard for some to accept change or go against spiritual things afraid of being punished for thinking otherwise. This is exactly what Guru Nanak was against, he taught us not not wrap us around useless rituals, fastings, ceremonies, appearances, sects, idols, pilgrimages but live an honest truthfull life with questions. Without questions humans cannot progress.
Question again, What did Guru Nanak look like ? It’s better to read his teachings and learn from them. Don’t accept anything outside the teachings as facts, societies and religions have changed with times. Sometimes aways for the original path, sometimes towards a narrower path, most often not on the same original objective path. The question with previous above comments, did Guru Nanak have uncut hair ? Answer, who really knows, but interesting question.
I have come across some website mentioning this verse to prove that uncut hair was taught by Guru Nanak.
“Let living in God’s presence, With mind rid of impurities, Be your discipline. Keep the God-given form intact, With a turban donned on your head.” GGS Page 1084, Line 12
HOWEVER The Guru Granth Sahib translation authorised by Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee by S.Manmohan Singh Vol6 Page 3568 It says:
“Make pure that is impure. Deem thou the Lord’s presence thy counsel. Let the complete body be the turban on thy head. A Muslim is he whi is kind-hearted. He ought to cleanse his inner pollution from his mind. He should not draw near the worldly pleasures and ought to be poure like the flower, silk, clarified butter and deer-skin.” GGS Page 1084, Line 12 to Line 15 (Complete Full Translated Version)
Compare the two translations, this is scary. See the word ‘hair’ is forced in the translation. This is how teachings become corrupt. These people know that the general public will not know these sentences and decieve to impose strict tradition views/rules on them.
The whole verse is about when Guru Nanak travelled to Mecca. It mentions turban because the turban was seen as a pure thing. In the verse explaining that let the Muslim’s complete body should be (pure) ie the whole body should be regarded as the turban on thy head. Its does say or mean don’t cut your hair or that you must wear a turban. This is a sentence explaining the muslims whole body should be kept pure away from eg, unearned food, evil five desires, etc. You have to read the paage before and after the sentence. Some take out one sentense to justify or impose their own false views.
This has lead away from the true path or down the very narrow path, away from the original objective path.
Wah Guru, Satnam !! (Truth will always win)
DUDES, THESE GUYS NEVER EXISTED AT ALL. GET THE BOOK “DIVINE INITIATION” BY BHAGWAN SHRI SHANMUKHA ANANTHA NATHA FROM AMAZON.COM NOW. IT EXPLAINS EVERYTHING IN DETAILED.
1 · John said
As for as I know, I have read very old Janamsakhis. They all reperesent Guru with the New York times picture of Guru–Cut beard and with a cap on His head. Bottomline, let them have any picutre they want to have. Simply we (Sikhs) do not believe in pictures of Gurus. Let them show Gurus as clean-shaven, we wont mind. Accept gladly.
Ref: 26 Sonia Kaur. ” Is it O.K. to worship idols. It is not O.K. to worship idols because Sikhism and Hinduism do not teach idol-worship. In fact no religion does teach to worship idols. All religions came into this world to teach to give up idol-worship and to worship one limitless and abstract First Cause i.e. God, Whom we can not see to make his idol (because He is not made up of matter). (You can only see matter to make up an idol of.)God is limitless i.e. infinte and unseeable. Therefore, you can not make an infinite idol of an unseeable God. Therefore idol worship is against intellect. If You study Granth Saheb and Vedas, you will find that the Idol worship is not O.K. (Idol is a lump of dead matter.It canot do any creation. God is ever living and eternal Who have created all the universes and their contents. Therefore, it is a wise thing to worship Him than worshiping a lump of dead matter which is His creation and can help you at all.)
LOL–please back off of commenting on my relationship with my Ganesha statue. I’m pretty confident that my family (and me!) are plenty intellectual, thank you very much.
66 · rob said
“I am pretty confident that my family (and I!) are pretty intellectual, thank you very much.”
OK, sorry for the error in grammar (if indeed it is one, though I’ll take your word for it)–it’s, for me, at the edge of, “who cares”. Seems far from, for example, the annoying conflation of its and it’s, but–whatever.
Ref: 27 · Al_Mujahid_for_debauchery.”Can religions contradict each other and be right at the same time?” (1) If two religions contradict each other, one of them can be wrong or both of them can wrong. (2) If more than two religions contradict each other, then only one of them can be a right/true religion or all of them can be wrong/false religions. (3) To find out if a religion is a true religion, you should try to find out universal truths in that religion. For example, it should discourage idol-worship, it should encourage its followers to love fellow human being irrespective of his/her cast, creed, colour and nationality etc. It should also encourage its followers to love only One abstract God. Because the purpose of our life is to find God through His love. (Because He is like our father, mothers, friend, beloved, creator, owner, creator,and owner of all universes and their contents etc.) The more universal truths a religion contains, the more true a religion is. Because universal truths enables us to get nearness and love of God. In fact, a true religion must also teach its followers to live every moment of their life by good thoughts, good words, and good deeds. If this religion contradicts any other religion or religions, then this religion will be the right/true religion.
Fatima.
I heard that way back when Guru Nanak requested every Hindu family to donate one son to him so he could make them warriors to protect the non-muslims in India from the muslims and from there, sikhi, or the Sikh way of life was created. So maybe that has to do with the tradition of some Hindu families in the west of India raising one son a Sikh even now.
69 · Fatima Hussain said
fatima, it is entirely unclear that any truth ‘leads’ to god. i’m not even sure what you mean by that sentence. as far as i know no set of physical facts (‘truths’) alone has led to the conclusion that god exists. you can have ‘faith’ that god exists, but that is all that can be said.
it seems like you also share my admiration of the hippies. they were the pioneers of equal opportunity loving.
That is a pack of revisionist lies.
well – the basic Idea of Guru Nanak was to bring out the difference of caste – colour – creed – religion – wealth etc and we have started debating on his type colour form looks ……… for him the most important were our virtues, our deeds, our actions, our commitments, our sacrifices – our humbleness – our charity – our respect to all ———- damn with worshipping – He was just a Guru – we call him as a teacher not a God or Almighty – he can show us the way but cant do miracles for us ………… just like our teachers in school and colleges – they teach us subjects and make us work hard but we do our own hard working get guidance and lessons but after completion of studies in that institute we dont keep sitting next to them – worshipping them – we go out in the world to create – and discover – and invent and help mankind – they too are our gurus from schools and colleges – similarily we take lessaons from Nanak , Ram, Jesus, Mohammed , Budha – but dont need to worship them – as these gurus and teachers have instructed and told us to worship only the Almighty – which these Gurus and religous leaders are not …………….. These gurus formed another subject in our lives a subject on humanity and how to live – we have gurus in each decade – who have helped mankind to grow – develop – florish – like Einstein – disoverers of medicine – electricity – latest science etc …………… we dont need to worship any or we worship all these too …………… we should worship Mother Teresa too ………….. or we must bear to worship Only the almighty – creator and destroyer – inventor – of space and universes – the one whom we can never know or understand as what ever we do he creates every sinle second more complex – things to which we can never get to ………… never ………..
Have any of you done any research into the israelites traveling from egypt to china they were hebrews or hybrids of dark and light skins and different color eyes and red brown blond and black hair in the bible it mentions jesus as ruddy or red in appearance and thers lots of curly red heads like lambs wool or does it mean white like lambs wool from his age, look at the takla makan mummies red heads 3800 years ago in china india . I find too many people are focused on the looks of spiritual leaders than the messages they bring or teach, and if we start to work together as earthings instead of different races then we can accomplish anything if we focus on protection the water and increasing the size of the farms for food and shelter everyone then where is the problem greed and egos who has the most land and water to fuck up and leave a shitload of garbage everywhere,Focus on the message of all gurus and spirtual leaders oneness,feeding and sheltering all earthlings and goodwill to men and women and empower ourselfs to be all we can be with what we have to work with and maintain your strengths and support yours and others weakness until they gain strentgh peace be within us peace be all around us be strong enough to want it.
Idol or image worship is strictly forbidden in Sikh religion as it was prevalent in Hinduism.In Sikhism how any guru looked like do not hold any relevance.Sacred book(GURU GRANTH SAHIB) is our guru.photos currently available are the imagination of different painters or artists so authenticity of these images can not be ascertained and need not to be discussed in length ……..
the story is very interesting and entertaining
if he/she see Gurunanak’s face,He/she thinks that Gurunanak is very intelligent
Amardeep u r a spaz
Dear Fatima Every religion including Islam worship idols, so to assume that idol worship is degenerating to ones belief in the Almighty is wrong. Idols are used as focal point to ones meditation for some people who need an object to focus on as the Muslims do five times a day towards Mecca which is not only idol worship but is also ritualistic which are practices of organised religion. Examples of religions that are introspective self realisation and service to humanity are Buddhism and Sikhism of which both are not tolerated by organised religions with a strict ritualistic and duality principles of Islam and Hinduism. Read the history of India and Sikhism along with experiences of the 10 gurus have had with both muslims and hindus. God Bless ( waheguru,ram,allah) Hanu
why are we fighting for guruji photo. stop this. dont forget guruji said ‘there is no hindu,no muslim’. please remember guruji was close to god,he was the chosen one to spread the message of truth. the truth is god is formless,shapeless. what are we doing by making photos of guruji. guru ke bando concentrate on guru granth sahib. that is how we will be able to see guruji image in our heart. paintings drawn from era’s are just an imaginary thought. follow the truth,and the waheguru will be there with you always. open your eyes heart and let your inner guru come outside. please. ”WAHEGURUJI KA KHALSA,WAHEGURUJI KI FATEH”.