1. The Three Anchors: A Capstone Lens
- The Three Anchors: A Capstone Lens
- Capitalism and Markets Through Gurmat Eyes
- Socialism, Welfare, and the Logic of Seva
- Ethical Business, Debt, and Interest
- Work in an Automated, AI Economy
- Toward a Sikh Third Way
Why a Capstone
You have already met the Sikh economic ideals one at a time. This capstone does something different: it puts them to work against the large systems people actually live under, such as market capitalism and the welfare state. The aim is not to crown one system as "the Sikh system." Gurmat is a way of living, not an economic blueprint. The aim is to give you a steady lens so you can look at any system honestly and ask better questions (Singh and Fenech 2014).
The Three Anchors
Three practices form the lens. The first is ਕਿਰਤ ਕਰਨੀ (kirat karni), earning through honest work. The second is ਵੰਡ ਛਕਣਾ (vand chhakna), sharing before consuming. The third is ਸੰਤੋਖ (santokh), contentment that limits greed. Cole and Sambhi note that these are taught not as separate rules but as one connected way of life (Cole and Sambhi 1978).
How the Lens Works
When we study a system, we will not ask "is this capitalist or socialist?" We will ask three plainer questions, one per anchor. Does it let people earn honestly and with dignity? Does it make sharing easy or hard? Does it feed greed or support contentment? A system can score well on one anchor and poorly on another, and that is exactly what makes the analysis interesting.
| Anchor | Plain meaning | Question it asks of any system |
|---|---|---|
| Honest work | Earn your living without cheating or exploiting | Does this system reward honest effort or trickery? |
| Sharing | Give to community and the needy before piling up | Does this system make sharing normal or rare? |
| Contentment | Take what you truly need; resist endless wanting | Does this system calm greed or stoke it? |
A Fair Posture
Throughout the course we treat economic systems as objects of analysis, not as enemies or idols. Reasonable Sikhs disagree about policy. What we share is the lens, not the verdict (Singh and Fenech 2014).