Pearson Edexcel International GCSE in Religious Studies · 4RS1 · Free · no account needed

Conflict and war — Sikhism

In one sentence. Sikhism permits force only when every other means has failed, only in defence of the oppressed and never to spread the faith, and the person who fights is supposed to be the person who prays.

Paper 1, Section 3 (Peace and conflict), point 3.1 · Sikhism — one of 35 units on this route.

This unit ends with Carl von Clausewitz. Learn Conflict and war in Sikhism, teach it, then defend it against Carl von Clausewitz.

What the specification asks for

Paper 1, Section 3, 3.1 (Sikhism). Assessed on AO1 (knowledge and understanding) and AO2 (analysis and evaluation), weighted equally. Incandio is aligned to this specification. It is not published by, endorsed by or affiliated with Pearson, and it reproduces none of Pearson's indicative content — the point numbers are given so you can check every unit against your own copy.

1 · Understand it

The ninth Guru was executed for defending the religious freedom of Hindus — people of another faith, whose beliefs he did not share and had no wish to adopt. Hold that fact steady, because it is the key to the whole unit and it rules out the easiest thing to say about religious permission to fight.

What it means

The specification names dharam yudh, the war in defence of righteousness, and the Zafarnamah — Guru Gobind Singh's letter to the emperor Aurangzeb, which states that when all other means have failed it is lawful to draw the sword. Read that sentence carefully: the condition and the permission arrive together, so the restriction is not a qualification added afterwards.

The duty is to defend the oppressed rather than to advance Sikhism. There is no forced conversion in Sikh teaching, so a dharam yudh cannot be fought to spread the faith — the exclusion is built into what the concept is for rather than being a scruple that might be set aside.

The sant-sipahi, the saint-soldier, holds devotion and readiness to defend together. The kirpan worn by initiated Sikhs is its visible sign, and it is a symbol of a duty rather than a weapon carried for self-defence; it may not be drawn in anger. Miri-piri names the doctrine that Sikhs hold temporal and spiritual responsibility together rather than dividing them.

Two descriptions are both wrong and both common. Sikhism is not pacifist: the kirpan and the sant-sipahi ideal rule that out. And it is not militaristic: fighting for gain or to spread the faith is excluded explicitly. An answer that reaches for either label has stopped before the interesting part.

Why believers hold it

The reasoning is a two-sided problem stated plainly. A religion that refuses to fight leaves the oppressed undefended; a religion that fights freely becomes the oppressor. The Sikh answer is to insist that the person who fights must be the person who prays, and that the sword may only be drawn for somebody else.

That is why the conditions attach to the permission rather than following it, and why the ninth Guru's death is the load-bearing example. He died for people whose religion was not his, which demonstrates the duty running to the oppressed rather than to the community — a rarer formulation than it sounds, and the thing that distinguishes this position from every other permission to fight on the specification.

The strongest objection is not that the conditions are weak but that they are unenforceable. Whether all other means have failed is always a judgement made by the person who wants to fight, and whether the fighter is genuinely devout cannot be checked from outside. That objection is real, and the honest reply is that it applies to every just-war framework equally rather than to this one especially.

On weapons of mass destruction the argument is short. They cannot discriminate, and the tradition forbids harming non-combatants, so they cannot satisfy dharam yudh. That is an application of the teaching rather than an objection to it, and most Sikh commentators reach exactly that conclusion.

Where it comes from

  • Sikh teaching — Nam Japna, Kirat Karni, Vand Chhakna — taught by Guru Nanak (translated)

    Remember God, work honestly, share with others.

    The three duties of a Sikh, held together: devotion, honest labour and sharing. Sikhism rejects withdrawal from the world.

    What it is doing here: Establishes that the fighter is also the person who remembers God and works honestly, which is what the saint-soldier ideal is made of and what stops the permission detaching from the discipline.

  • Sikh liturgy — The closing words of the Ardas, the Sikh congregational prayer (translated)

    Sarbat da bhala — may all people prosper.

    The Ardas ends by asking good not for Sikhs but for everyone. Universal concern is built into the daily prayer.

    What it is doing here: Sets the scope of concern past the community, which is why the duty is to defend the oppressed rather than to defend Sikhs.

  • The Guru Granth Sahib — The Mul Mantar, opening of the Guru Granth Sahib (Japji Sahib) (translated)

    Ik Onkar — There is one God, the eternal truth, the creator, without fear, without hatred.

    The opening statement of Sikh belief: one God, eternal, creator, beyond fear and enmity, self-existent, known by grace.

    What it is doing here: Names a God without enemies, which forecloses reading a dharam yudh as a fight on God's behalf against God's rivals.

Where it bites

It shows in the kirpan worn by initiated Sikhs as a standing sign of a duty to defend; in the very high Sikh representation in the Indian and British armed forces; in the ninth Guru's execution for defending the religious freedom of Hindus; in Sikh relief organisations working inside war zones; and in Sikh objections to weapons that cannot discriminate between combatants and anybody else. Naming one of these turns a claim about doctrine into a developed point, which is what the six-mark grid rewards.

It also changes what a Sikh argument about a particular war sounds like. The first question is not whether the cause is good but whether everything else has been tried, which is a harder test to pass and a more specific one to argue about.

What people get wrong

People think: Sikhism is a pacifist religion.

Actually: The kirpan and the saint-soldier ideal contradict it directly. Sikh teaching permits force in defence of the oppressed when every other means has failed, which is a position with conditions rather than a refusal — and presenting it as pacifism makes the tradition's actual argument disappear.

People think: Sikhism is a militaristic religion.

Actually: Fighting for gain or to spread the faith is excluded explicitly, and there is no forced conversion in Sikh teaching. The permission exists to defend other people, and the standard example is a Guru who died for the religious freedom of a community that was not his own.

People think: The kirpan is a weapon carried for self-defence.

Actually: It is a symbol of a duty to defend the defenceless, and it may not be drawn in anger or in one's own cause. Describing it as personal protection inverts what it means, and it is the detail examiners most often see stated wrongly.

What the examiner expects you to understand

  • Give the condition and the permission together; the Zafarnamah states them in one sentence.
  • Say that the duty is to defend the oppressed rather than to defend Sikhs, and give the example.
  • Never call Sikhism pacifist or militaristic; both labels are recorded errors.
  • Describe the kirpan as a symbol of a duty rather than as personal protection.
  • On weapons of mass destruction, apply the teaching rather than asserting a Sikh position.

2 · Grade 9 Notes

Core belief / issue

Sikhism has the most explicit religious permission to fight on this specification, and the strictest conditions attached to it. The specification names dharam yudh — the war in defence of righteousness — and Zafarnamah 22, Guru Gobind Singh's letter to the emperor Aurangzeb, which states that when all other means have failed it is lawful to draw the sword. The condition and the permission arrive in the same sentence.

Key terminology

Incandio's mark schemes credit the religion's own vocabulary; spelling variants are accepted, a vague paraphrase is not.

Dharam yudh (also dharam yudh, dharamyudh)
War in defence of righteousness; the Sikh concept nearest to just war, with strict conditions.
Zafarnamah (also Zafarnama)
Guru Gobind Singh's letter to Aurangzeb, which states the conditions under which the sword may be drawn.
Sant-sipahi (also sant sipahi)
The saint-soldier; the Sikh ideal of devotion combined with willingness to defend the oppressed.
Kirpan (also kirpaan)
The sword worn by initiated Sikhs; a symbol of the duty to defend the defenceless.
Miri-piri (also miri piri)
Temporal and spiritual authority held together; the doctrine that Sikhs are responsible in both.

What Sikhism teaches

  • shared — Force may be used only when every other means has failed; the Zafarnamah states this as the condition, not as an afterthought.
  • shared — The duty is to defend the oppressed rather than to advance Sikhism; Sikh tradition records the Gurus defending people of other faiths.
  • shared — The sant-sipahi ideal holds devotion and the readiness to defend together, and the kirpan is its visible sign.
  • shared — There is no forced conversion in Sikhism, so a dharam yudh cannot be fought to spread the faith.

Why it teaches this

The reasoning is that a religion which refuses to fight leaves the oppressed undefended, and a religion which fights freely becomes the oppressor. Sikhism's answer is the sant-sipahi: the person who fights must be the person who prays, and the sword may only be drawn for someone else. That is why the conditions attach to the permission rather than qualifying it later, and why Guru Tegh Bahadur died defending Hindus rather than Sikhs.

Sources of authority

  • Sikh practice — The Khalsa and the Five Ks; instituted by Guru Gobind Singh at Baisakhi, 1699

    Kesh, kangha, kara, kachhera, kirpan.

    The five articles worn by initiated Sikhs, given when the Khalsa was founded and the panj pyare came forward.

    How to use it: Each K carries a meaning that is a commitment rather than a decoration — the kara as a reminder of unity with God and of restraint in action.

    What it does not settle: Worn by AMRITDHARI Sikhs. Sahajdhari Sikhs are Sikhs and do not wear them, which is exactly why the 'essential step' question is a real question.

  • Sikh liturgy — The closing words of the Ardas, the Sikh congregational prayer (translated)

    Sarbat da bhala — may all people prosper.

    The Ardas ends by asking good not for Sikhs but for everyone. Universal concern is built into the daily prayer.

    How to use it: A prayer that asks for the welfare of all makes universal concern a habit of worship rather than a policy — which is a strong development on interfaith and human rights.

    What it does not settle: It expresses an attitude rather than settling any particular question.

  • Sikh tradition — Attributed to Guru Nanak by tradition (the janamsakhi accounts); NOT located in the Guru Granth Sahib (translated)

    There is no Hindu, there is no Musalman.

    The words traditionally said to have been spoken by Guru Nanak after his experience at the river, understood as declaring that religious labels do not determine standing before God.

    How to use it: Its force is about the origin of Sikhism as something new rather than a blend, which is what Paper 2 at 1.1 asks about.

    What it does not settle: Traditional attribution. It is also frequently misread as saying all religions are the same, which Sikh teaching does not hold.

  • Sikh teaching — Nam Japna, Kirat Karni, Vand Chhakna — taught by Guru Nanak (translated)

    Remember God, work honestly, share with others.

    The three duties of a Sikh, held together: devotion, honest labour and sharing. Sikhism rejects withdrawal from the world.

    How to use it: Because honest work and sharing are religious duties rather than by-products of faith, Sikh answers on wealth, poverty and family are not about charity but about obligation.

    What it does not settle: It states the duties, not how much or to whom.

Different interpretations

  • Dharam yudh read as a Sikh just-war doctrine and read as narrower, since it requires that all other means have failed and forbids fighting for gain; the second is better supported.
  • The kirpan read as a weapon and read as a symbol of a duty; Sikh teaching holds the second and it is why it may not be drawn in anger.
  • Miri-piri read as authorising political engagement and read as requiring it; Sikh history has taken both, and the difference matters for how Sikhs read modern conflicts.

Differences within Sikhism

Dharam yudh, the sant-sipahi ideal and the conditions on force are held across the Sikh community. Sikhs differ on the application to particular modern conflicts, which is political rather than doctrinal.

The traditions broadly agree here. Saying so is a stronger answer than inventing a division.

Application to the issue

It shows in the kirpan worn by initiated Sikhs; in the very high Sikh representation in the Indian and British armed forces; in Guru Tegh Bahadur's execution for defending the religious freedom of Hindus; in Khalsa Aid working in war zones; and in Sikh objections to weapons that cannot discriminate.

Arguments supporting

  • Requiring that all other means have failed is a stricter condition than most just-war frameworks impose. — The Zafarnamah makes it the condition of lawfulness rather than one criterion among several. (sikhism)
    Answered by: Whether all other means have failed is always a judgement made by the person who wants to fight.
  • Requiring that the fighter be a saint as well as a soldier is a real constraint. — The sant-sipahi cannot be a mercenary or a partisan, since the devotion is not optional. (shared)
    Answered by: The devotion is unverifiable from outside, so the constraint cannot be enforced by anyone but the person themselves.

Arguments challenging

  • Any religious sanction for war is dangerous. — A cause believed to be righteous does not negotiate. (non-religious)
    Answered by: Sikh teaching forbids fighting to spread the faith and requires that all other means have failed, which are precisely the constraints this danger calls for.
  • Weapons of mass destruction cannot satisfy dharam yudh. — They cannot discriminate, and the tradition forbids harming non-combatants. (shared)
    Answered by: This is not really an objection to Sikh teaching but a straightforward application of it, and most Sikh commentators reach exactly that conclusion.

Secular / non-religious perspective

Atheist and Humanist attitudes assess war consequentially and reject weapons of mass destruction because their effects cannot be confined. Many would find the Sikh conditions unusually strict and would still object that a religiously sanctioned war removes the ordinary reluctance to kill.

Examinable throughout Paper 1. Nothing here earns a mark on Paper 2.

Evaluation

The hinge: Whether religious permission to fight is safer with strict conditions or absent altogether. Sikhism is the strongest test case for the first, because its conditions are unusually specific.

Defensible conclusions

  • Sikh teaching on war is more restrictive than it appears, because the permission and the condition are stated together and the fight may only be for someone else.
  • Guru Tegh Bahadur dying for the religious freedom of Hindus is the strongest single piece of evidence that dharam yudh is not about advancing Sikhism.
  • The conditions are unenforceable from outside, which is the strongest objection and applies to every just-war framework equally.

Not defensible

  • Describing Sikhism as pacifist; the kirpan and the sant-sipahi ideal contradict it.
  • Describing Sikhism as militaristic; fighting to spread the faith is explicitly excluded.

Exam use

  • Identify · 3 marks — Three causes of conflict, or three Sikh beliefs about war. Short phrases only.
  • Outline · 4 marks — Two beliefs developed. 'Sikhs may fight a dharam yudh (1) — but only when every other means has failed, and never to spread the faith (1).'
  • Explain · 6 marks — Explain Sikh attitudes to war: dharam yudh and its conditions, the sant-sipahi, the kirpan, and the duty to defend the oppressed.
  • Evaluate · 12 marks — 'Religion causes war.' Sikhism gives a religious permission with the strictest conditions on this specification, which complicates the statement usefully.

Common mistakes

  • Presenting Sikhism as pacifist or as militaristic; it is neither.
  • Describing the kirpan as a weapon carried for self-defence.
  • Omitting the condition that all other means must have failed.

“Sikhism is a mixture of Hinduism and Islam.” — Sikhs hold that the faith is a distinct revelation given to Guru Nanak, not a synthesis. Describing it as a blend denies the tradition its own account of its origin.

Write instead: Sikhism began with Guru Nanak's revelation. It shares vocabulary with the traditions around it — karma, samsara, mukti — while teaching its own doctrine of one God, the ten Gurus and the Guru Granth Sahib. The traditional saying 'there is no Hindu, there is no Musalman' is often misread as endorsing a blend; it is better read as declaring that the labels do not decide standing before God.

Grade 9 insight

Guru Tegh Bahadur was executed for defending the religious freedom of Hindus — people of another faith, whose beliefs he did not share. A Level 4 answer uses that as the key to dharam yudh: the Sikh duty is to defend the oppressed rather than to defend Sikhs, which is why fighting to spread the faith is excluded by definition. It is a rarer formulation than it sounds, and it is what distinguishes the Sikh position from every other permission to fight on this specification.

Think you understand it?

Reading is the start. On Incandio a topic counts as mastered only once you have taught it and defended it — the two things a revision guide cannot ask of you.

Incandio this topic → Prove it. Teach it. Defend it. What does “Incandio it” mean?

  1. Prove it — five questions on Conflict and war in Sikhism, marked on the spot, that tell you what was missing rather than just what was wrong.
  2. Teach it — Explain what Sikhism teaches about Conflict and war — and why believers hold it — to Ember, an AI pupil who asks the awkward question. Reasoning is credited; the vocabulary comes second.
  3. Defend it — Argue Conflict and war in Sikhism against Carl von Clausewitz — three rounds, marked against descriptors you can read before you begin.
  4. Then the exam — 8 authored exam-style questions on this unit, marked on Incandio with the mistake you actually made named.

Completely free. No subscriptions, no paywalls, no account needed to start.

The debate is against Carl von Clausewitz — a real historical thinker with a genuine position on this question, portrayed from the record.

Carry on through Sikhism