The problem of evil and suffering — Sikhism

What the specification asks for

Paper 1, Section 1, 1.7 (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

When a catastrophe happens somewhere in the world, Sikh volunteers characteristically turn up with a kitchen. Not with an explanation of why it happened. That difference is the whole of this unit: the tradition was formed under persecution, and what it produced was less a theory about suffering than a way of responding to it.

What it means

Sikhism holds one God who is all-powerful and without hatred, so the problem arrives in full force rather than being sidestepped. Its answer has several parts. Suffering happens within God's order like everything else. A great deal of it is caused by human wrongdoing, particularly by the ego working through people who hold power. Suffering can turn a person towards God, and Sikh teaching regards comfort as more spiritually dangerous than difficulty.

The posture asked of a Sikh has two names. Bhana is willing acceptance of what comes, including what is painful — willing rather than merely endured. Chardi kala means rising spirits: the maintenance of hope and high morale in adversity, and it is prescribed as a discipline rather than described as a feeling somebody either has or lacks.

Holding acceptance together with resistance is the job of the saint-soldier ideal, and it is the key to the whole unit. A Sikh accepts what happens as God's order and fights the injustice that people cause, and those are not in tension because they are about different things. Sikh history supplies the examples: several Gurus were executed rather than submit, and martyrdom is remembered rather than explained away.

The tradition also concedes something. God's purposes are not fully knowable, and Sikh teaching does not pretend to have completed the account. That admission is honest rather than evasive, and it is worth stating in an answer because it shows the difference between offering a response and claiming to have solved the problem.

Why believers hold it

The reasoning is historical as much as theological. A religion that arose under persecution, and several of whose Gurus were executed, could not credibly offer a comfortable account in which suffering turns out to be fine. What it offered instead was a way of standing: accept what comes, refuse despair, and resist the injustice human beings cause.

That division does real work. God's order covers what happens to a person; injustice is what other people do. Accepting the first and fighting the second is therefore consistent rather than contradictory, and it is why the saint-soldier is one figure rather than two impulses in conflict. It also explains why Sikh responses to catastrophe are characteristically practical.

The strongest objection is the standard problem of evil, and it applies to Sikh monotheism in full: a good and all-powerful God should prevent suffering on this scale. The Sikh answer does not defeat it. Locating much suffering in human wrongdoing is accurate as far as it goes, but disease and natural disaster are a large share of suffering and are not caused by anybody's ego.

A second objection deserves care. Telling somebody in grief to maintain high spirits can land as pressure rather than as comfort. The reply worth making is that this is a communal posture more than an individual demand — it is expressed through the community turning up rather than through instructing the bereaved to feel better.

Where it comes from

• Sikh teaching — Hukam, karma and mukti; taught throughout the Guru Granth Sahib (translated)

  Hukam — God's will and order; mukti — liberation through God's grace.

  Everything happens within God's hukam; actions have consequences (karma) and rebirth continues until liberation, which comes by grace and by remembering God.

  What it is doing here: Supplies the frame in which suffering sits, since accepting what happens as within God's order is only intelligible if that order covers everything rather than the pleasant parts.

• 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: Turns the posture into work, because sharing with others is what the response to suffering actually consists of rather than a supplement to it.

• 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: Explains why Sikh relief work makes no distinction of faith, since the community's daily prayer asks good for everyone without qualification.

Where it bites

It shows in Sikh disaster relief operating in war zones and refugee camps worldwide, which is the practical form of resisting suffering rather than explaining it; in the free kitchen served during crises to whoever arrives; in the remembrance of the martyred Gurus, which keeps the history in front of the community; and in the phrase for rising spirits used at funerals as well as at celebrations. One named example of this kind is what a developed answer needs.

It also gives Sikhism an unusual profile in this argument. The tradition can be assessed on what it does, which is a harder test than assessing a theory, and the practical record is the strongest evidence available on this specification that a religious response to suffering can be measured rather than only debated.

What people get wrong

People think: Rising spirits means Sikhs are supposed to pretend suffering is not happening.

Actually: It is a refusal of despair alongside full acknowledgement of what has happened, and it is prescribed as a discipline rather than expected as a mood. Presenting it as denial makes the tradition look glib and misses that the phrase is used at funerals as readily as at celebrations.

People think: Natural evil means things like murder and theft.

Actually: Murder and theft are chosen by human beings, which makes them moral evil. Natural evil is suffering caused by the world itself with no human decision behind it, and mixing the two is a distinction the examiners record because it wrecks the structure of any answer about suffering.

People think: Accepting suffering as God's will means Sikhs do not resist it.

Actually: The saint-soldier ideal combines acceptance with active resistance to injustice, and Sikh history is full of it. What is accepted is what happens; what is resisted is what people do, and treating those as the same thing produces a passive religion that Sikh practice plainly contradicts.

What the examiner expects you to understand

• Give both halves of the saint-soldier ideal, because acceptance alone describes a religion Sikhs do not practise.
• Keep natural and moral evil separate; the examiners record the confusion by name.
• Name a concrete practical response rather than describing the attitude in the abstract.
• Concede that the intellectual problem is left standing, since the tradition itself concedes it.
• Never present rising spirits as denial of suffering; it is a refusal of despair alongside acknowledgement.

2 · Grade 9 Notes

Core belief / issue

Sikhism holds one God who is all-powerful and without hatred, so the problem of evil arises in full force. Its answer combines several elements: suffering happens within hukam, it can be a means of turning the mind towards God, human wrongdoing causes much of it, and the honest position is that God's purposes are not fully knowable. Sikh history has given the community a great deal of practice at this question.

Key terminology

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

Hukam (also hukum)

God's order; the framework within which suffering, like everything else, occurs.

Bhana (also bhaana)

Willing acceptance of God's will, including what is painful.

Chardi kala (also charhdi kala)

Rising spirits; relentless optimism in the face of adversity, a distinctive Sikh ideal.

Sant-sipahi (also sant sipahi)

The saint-soldier; the ideal of spiritual devotion combined with willingness to resist injustice.

Shaheed (also shahid)

A martyr; Sikh history includes several Gurus and many others who died rather than submit to injustice.

What Sikhism teaches

• shared — Everything including suffering happens within hukam, and a Sikh aims to accept it as God's will rather than resent it.
• shared — Much suffering is caused by human wrongdoing, particularly by haumai and the five thieves working through people who hold power.
• shared — Suffering can turn a person towards God, and Sikh teaching treats comfort as more spiritually dangerous than difficulty.
• shared — Chardi kala — maintaining high spirits and hope in adversity — is the expected Sikh posture, and it is combined with active resistance to injustice.

Why it teaches this

The reasoning is that a religion which arose under persecution, several of whose Gurus were executed, could not offer a comfortable theodicy. Sikhism's answer is therefore less an explanation than a posture: accept what comes as hukam, keep chardi kala, and resist the injustice that human beings cause. The sant-sipahi ideal is exactly that combination, and it is why Sikh responses to suffering are characteristically active.

Sources of authority

• Sikh teaching — Hukam, karma and mukti; taught throughout the Guru Granth Sahib (translated)

  Hukam — God's will and order; mukti — liberation through God's grace.

  Everything happens within God's hukam; actions have consequences (karma) and rebirth continues until liberation, which comes by grace and by remembering God.

  How to use it: Holding hukam and human responsibility together is the Sikh answer to determinism, and it is different from both the Christian and the Hindu answer.

  What it does not settle: Mukti is not identical to moksha or nibbana, and treating the three as interchangeable is exactly the kind of confusion the reports penalise.

• 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 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.

• Sikh practice — Langar and sewa; instituted by Guru Nanak and developed by Guru Amar Das (translated)

  Langar — the free kitchen where all sit together and eat the same food.

  The free communal meal served in every gurdwara, open to anyone, with everyone seated on the same level.

  How to use it: The equality is enacted rather than stated: sitting on the floor at the same level with a shared meal is an argument against caste made physically.

  What it does not settle: It shows equality practised in the gurdwara; it does not prove Sikh society is free of inequality.

Different interpretations

• Suffering read as a test and read as simply part of hukam without a further purpose; both are found, and the second is more common in Sikh writing than a test theodicy.
• Bhana read as passive resignation and read as willing acceptance combined with action; the sant-sipahi ideal settles it as the second.
• Chardi kala read as optimism and read as a spiritual discipline of refusing despair; the second is what the tradition means, and it is prescribed rather than felt.

Differences within Sikhism

Hukam, bhana, chardi kala and the sant-sipahi ideal are held across the Sikh community. Sikh responses to suffering are strikingly consistent, and the history is a large part of why.

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

Application to the issue

It shows in Sikh disaster relief — Khalsa Aid operating in war zones and refugee camps worldwide — which is the practical form of resisting suffering rather than explaining it; in langar served during crises; in the remembrance of the martyred Gurus; and in the phrase chardi kala used at funerals as well as at celebrations.

Arguments supporting

• A posture is more useful than a theodicy. — Chardi kala and sewa give a person something to do; an explanation does not. (sikhism)
  Answered by: It leaves the intellectual problem entirely unanswered, which matters to someone for whom the problem is intellectual.
• Locating much suffering in human wrongdoing is accurate. — Persecution, war and poverty are caused by people acting from haumai. (shared)
  Answered by: Disease and natural disaster are not, and they are a large share of suffering the account does not reach.

Arguments challenging

• A good and all-powerful God should prevent suffering on this scale. — The standard problem of evil applies in full to Sikh monotheism. (non-religious)
  Answered by: Sikh teaching accepts that God's purposes are not fully knowable, which is honest and does not resolve the problem.
• Telling the suffering to maintain chardi kala can be another burden. — A person in grief may experience the expectation of high spirits as pressure. (non-religious)
  Answered by: Chardi kala is a communal posture more than an individual demand, and it is expressed through the community showing up rather than through instructing the bereaved.

Secular / non-religious perspective

Non-religious people hold that suffering needs no explanation beyond causes and that the problem of evil is decisive against a good omnipotent God. Many admire the practical Sikh response — Khalsa Aid's work is widely respected — while regarding it as evidence that what helps is action rather than theology.

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

Evaluation

The hinge: Whether a religion owes an explanation of suffering or a response to it. Sikhism offers a response and admits the explanation is incomplete, which is unusually candid.

Defensible conclusions

• Sikhism's answer is a posture rather than a theodicy, and the sant-sipahi ideal is what makes acceptance and resistance compatible rather than contradictory.
• It leaves the intellectual problem standing, and the tradition's admission that God's purposes are not fully knowable is honest rather than evasive.
• The practical record — Khalsa Aid and langar in crises — is the strongest evidence available on this specification that a religious response to suffering can be measured by what it does.

Not defensible

• Confusing natural and moral evil, which the examiners record.
• Presenting chardi kala as denial of suffering; it is a refusal of despair alongside acknowledgement.

Exam use

• Identify · 3 marks — Three Sikh beliefs about suffering. Short phrases only.
• Outline · 4 marks — Two developed. 'Sikhs accept suffering as within hukam (1) — God's order, accepted willingly as bhana while still resisting the injustice people cause (1).'
• Explain · 6 marks — Explain Sikh responses to suffering: hukam and bhana, human wrongdoing, chardi kala, and the sant-sipahi's resistance to injustice.
• Evaluate · 12 marks — 'Suffering is part of the test of life.' Sikhism's answer is a posture rather than a test, which is a genuinely different structure.

Common mistakes

• Confusing natural and moral evil.
• Presenting chardi kala as denial of suffering.
• Omitting the sant-sipahi ideal, which is what makes the Sikh response active.

“Natural evil means things like murder and theft.” — Murder and theft are chosen by human beings, which makes them moral evil. Natural evil is suffering caused by the world itself, with no human decision behind it.

Write instead: Moral evil is suffering caused by human choices — murder, theft, war, cruelty. Natural evil is suffering that no one chose — earthquakes, disease, famine, flood. The line blurs in real cases: a famine may be natural in origin and moral in its distribution, and that observation is a top-band point rather than a muddle. (Named in the 2023 examiner report for Paper 1.)

“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

Sikhism's answer to suffering is sant-sipahi — saint and soldier — which holds acceptance and resistance together in one figure. A Level 4 answer sees why that is not a contradiction: hukam covers what happens to a person, and injustice is what people do, so accepting the first and fighting the second are consistent. It is why Sikh responses to catastrophe characteristically take the form of a kitchen in a disaster zone rather than an explanation, and it is a genuinely distinct position among the six.

Carry on through Sikhism

• Previous unit: 1.6 · Belief, uncertainty and unbelief
• Next unit: 2.1 · Death and life after death
• The problem of evil and suffering in the other religions: Buddhism · Christianity · Hinduism · Islam · Judaism
• All of Sikhism · Incandio Religious Studies · The 4RS1 specification