Ishwinder Singh

Western writers have been writing on the Sikhs and their religion since the end of the eighteenth century. Ernest Trumpp’s Adi Granth (published in 1877) was the first work by a western writer that ‘mortally offended’ the Sikhs. In the recent past, the writings of Prof W.H.McLeod have probably generated the maximum amount of controversy and excitement. Ever since McLeod came out with his first book Guru Nanak and the Sikh Religion in 1968, his findings and interpretations have been the subject matter of heated debate.

McLeod has offered a new perspective/ interpretation on several fundamental issues in Sikh history, often diverging sharply from established tradition. Rebuttals to his formulations have been the subject matter of many books and seminars in the 1980s and 90s. McLeod has usually chosen not to reply to these rebuttals except for a few articles here and there.

Recently McLeod has come out with his autobiography Discovering the Sikhs: Autobiography of a Historian. The autobiography comprises of two parts. While Part 1 is autobiographical, Part 2 contains his answers to the specific charges made against him and his interpretations.

The purpose of this paper is to look into some of the controversial points made by McLeod in his books, the rebuttals by other scholars and his response to these rebuttals in his autobiography. An attempt is made to take a dispassionate look at the merits of the points made by both sides. Finally, an attempt is made to understand the reasons behind the whole controversy and whether the controversy could have been avoided?

Janamsakhis

In his first book Guru Nanak and the Sikh Religion, McLeod tries to reconstruct Guru Nanak’s life on the basis of the Janamsakhi accounts available about his life and also his bani in the AGGS. He asserts that Janamsakhi accounts (hitherto used frequently to reconstruct Guru Nanak’s life) are highly unsatisfactory sources for writing his biography.¹ In his book, McLeod critically examines the popular stories connected with Guru Nanak and rejects most of them as impossible and improbable.

In response to McLeod’s critical analysis of the Janamsakhis, articles have been written to prove the authenticity of some of these stories (e.g. Baghdad, Panja Sahib). Some other scholars have asserted that they do not consider Janamsakhi accounts to be authentic history and McLeod’s analysis of the Janamsakhis is a regrettable attempt to show that Sikhs are a gullible lot.

It is correct that many scholars do not take the Janamsakhis at face value, especially the ones dealing with miracles. However, even these scholars usually accept the locations of these Janamsakhis to be accurate. That Guru Nanak visited Baghdad, Ceylon, Assam, etc is a generally accepted truth amongst the Sikh scholars and this information comes only from the Janamsakhis. On the other hand, McLeod has tried to show that Janamsakhis accounts are later works and represent the myth surrounding the personality of Guru Nanak. Most of the information they contain is inaccurate in his opinion and should be rejected.

In his autobiography, McLeod stands by the conclusions in his book. He briefly mentions some of these articles while he ignores others. With regard to the Baghdad episode, where the competence and conclusions of his source have been challenged, he provides no fresh evidence in support of his theory except for mentioning a conversation with Dr Ganda Singh.

Nevertheless, the biographical part of Guru Nanak and the Sikh Religion has generally been ignored, and most publications from within the Panth continue to treat the Janamsakhis as acceptable sources for the life of Guru Nanak.

Guru Nanak’s teachings

Some scholars have criticized McLeod for stating that “Guru Nanak did not originate a school of thought, or a set of teachings, and he cannot be regarded as the founder of Sikhism.”² They feel that by connecting Guru Nanak to the Sant-tradition, McLeod fails to recognize the originality of Guru Nanak’s work and treats Sikhism as another Hindu sect.

However, the critics seem to have missed the point that the Sant-tradition, as presented by McLeod, is too broad and cannot be tied to any specific religious ideology. This tradition can easily incorporate any and all seekers of the Transcendent. As a bundle of theological generalities conceptualized metaphysical, the tradition can be linked to any important seeker of the medieval period.

In his autobiography, McLeod clarifies that he does regard Guru Nanak as the founder of the Sikh faith in the organizational sense because the original nucleus of the Sikh Panth gathered around him. He further adds that no religious teacher ever speaks without manifesting influences from the beliefs that surround him. This was abundantly true of Jesus and it was also true of Guru Nanak. According to McLeod, the important components of Guru Nanak’s teachings were present in the Sant Movement of Northern India, yet the system he propounded was unique both in its composition and its beauty.³

Essentially, McLeod does not insist upon anything more than the commonality of ideas in the system of Guru Nanak and the so-called Sant-tradition. But his earlier insistence that Guru Nanak can be squarely placed in the Sant-tradition confused the issue. It emphasized the importance of similarities in ideas at the cost of the differences and became a case of confusing the part with the whole.⁴

Sikh Institutions

McLeod has also been criticized for stating in his book The Evolution of the Sikh Community that “the ten Gurus never preached one set of religious doctrines or system and particularly the third Guru created new institutions (e.g. pilgrimage center, festival days, distinctive rituals, collection of sacred writings, etc) on the old Hindu lines, the very thing Guru Nanak had spurned.” ⁵

Dr J.S.Grewal is of the opinion that by assuming that Guru Nanak was opposed to institutionalization per se, McLeod misses the basic significance of what Guru Nanak did in his lifetime.⁶ We know that Guru Nanak assumed the formal position of a guide, started congregational worship with his own compositions, introduced the practice of langar and appointed one individual as his successor. In other words, he rejected contemporary institutions only in order to clear the ground for his own. Guru Angad carried forward this process of institutionalization by keeping up the congregational kirtan, enlarging the langar, composing his own bani and adopting the Gurmukhi script. Thus, Guru Amar Das was not the first Guru to create new institutions.

In his autobiography, McLeod states that the ten Gurus assuredly did preach one set of doctrines and this had been made perfectly clear in his book. He further clarifies that the institutions introduced by the third Guru were additions and not changes. He feels that his critics have objected to his statement about the introduction of customs taken from Hindu society because they want to get across the message that “Sikhs are not Hindus”. However, in his opinion there was nothing wrong in introducing these customs provided that Guru Nanak’s emphasis on naam was preserved.⁷

McLeod’s use of the term ‘Hindu’ is unjustified in connection with what Guru Amar Das did. To have pilgrimage centers was not a peculiarity of ‘Hindus’. Gurbani was already being used for congregational as well as individual worship- its compilation was only a logical step. The days of Baisakhi and Diwali were chosen for Sikh festivals not as a reversion to Hindu tradition but as alternatives to contemporary practice. One could participate in one or the other but not in both at the same time. The introduction of new rites was a corollary of the rejection of the traditional rites. The use of Gurbani in Sikh rites made them distinctly Sikh, imparting a new significance to them.

Jat influence

Like many historians, McLeod has not failed to notice the large proportion of Jats in the Sikh Panth. He attributes many developments in Sikh tradition to Jat influence.

In his book The Evolution of the Sikh Community, he suggests that the arming of the Panth was not the result of any decision by Guru Hargobind. In his opinion, the growth of militancy within the panth must be traced primarily to the impact of Jat cultural patterns and to economic problems that prompted a militant response.⁸

Many scholars have challenged the Jat theory put forward by McLeod. Prof Jagjit Singh has argued: if Jahangir felt concerned about Guru Arjan’s growing Jat following, then why does he say in his Memoirs that he ordered the Guru’s execution because he blessed the rebel Prince Khusrau? Also, why was no action taken against the Minas and Hindalis, whose following also included Jats? He also feels that there is no basis for the assumption that the Jats were armed and the Khatris were not.⁹ Moreover, despite the martial tradition attributed to the Jats as a class, there is no indication that the Jat zamindars of the Mughal province of Lahore were zor-talab, that is, they had to be compelled by force to submit the revenues they collected. There is no indication that the Jats of Punjab rose against the state except as members of the Sikh Panth.¹⁰

In his autobiography, McLeod states that Guru Hargobind’s policy of open warfare must be traced to the hostility that the Mughal authorities in Lahore showed at that time. The presence of a strong Jat constituency made his policy possible, but it certainly cannot be held to have caused it. He further adds that the effect of Jat cultural patterns within the Panth is a theory and not an established fact. However he is yet to be persuaded that there is a better theory.¹¹

McLeod’s rebuttal is based on the assumption that Jats were present in the Sikh Panth in considerable numbers during the time of Guru Arjan. However the proportion of Jats in the Sikh Panth in the late sixteenth or the early seventeenth century cannot be estimated from the evidence available at present. It is possible that Guru Hargobind’s military policy could have been the factor responsible for their increased number in the Panth.

In the same book, McLeod states with absolute certainty that the Five K’s reflect the complex of Jat cultural patterns and contemporary historical events. He maintains that keeping uncut hair and bearing arms were Jat customs that received ample encouragement from the events of the eighteenth century.¹² With these two symbols, he pairs the comb and the bangle respectively. He, however, has no explanation to offer for the Kachchera.

Probably no Sikh scholar has endorsed this rather mundane explanation for the institution of the Five K’s. Many have stated that no supporting evidence has been given which indicates that uncut hair was a Jat custom. In his autobiography, McLeod draws their attention to the footnote wherein he has given his sources. Dr J.S. Grewal feels that the evidence on Kesh, suggests that the Jats at one time used to keep their hair long. But the Jats attached no sanctity whatsoever to their hair. Long hair is not the same as uncut hair. For Guru Gobind Singh, the sanctity of the Kesh was all-important.¹³

Others who have studied the sources feel that they are not credible. They assert that the point is so crucial to McLeod’s hypothesis that it demands more reliable and acceptable evidence. Dr. Grewal states that the Kirpan does not appear to have been popular with the Jats and Guru Hargobind was the first Guru to make it important.¹⁴ He rejects McLeod’s explanation by saying that it is not even an ‘informed’ conjecture.¹⁵

Sikh scripture

McLeod has drawn lot of criticism from Sikh scholars for his suggestion that the Sikhs might have later on deleted a portion of the Ramakali hymn in the Kartarpur Manuscript of the Adi Granth, because it mentioned the hair-cutting ceremony of Guru Hargobind. In his opinion, this feature was in obvious contradiction to the later prohibition of hair cutting and hence the reference in the hymn would be intolerable.¹⁶

Responding to this criticism in his autobiography, McLeod states that the above quoted portion was his ‘earlier speculation’, which he had gone on to disown after a few lines.¹⁷

However, this is not the impression that the reader gets on reading the relevant pages. After the paragraph containing the above quote, one whole paragraph is devoted to Dr. Jodh Singh’s testimony about the authenticity of the Kartarpur Manuscript. In the paragraph that follows, McLeod states “that the issue should still be regarded as open” and goes on to renew his suspicions about the Ramakali hymn.

Even if one is to accept the argument that the ‘earlier speculation’ was disowned in the lines that followed, one question still remains unanswered: why was the earlier reasoning mentioned at all, especially since it made very serious accusations on the Sikhs?

McLeod is now of the opinion that research on the compilation of the Sikh scripture is a subject better left to Sikh scholars for detailed research.¹⁸ Probably this is the reason why two of his Sikh students undertook their research projects on the Sikh scripture. Interestingly, their hypothesis [which McLeod is believed to support] that the Goindval Pothis provided the source material used by Guru Arjan in compiling the Adi Granth has not received much support from other scholars. Scholars who were thought to be supporters of this hypothesis have unequivocally stated that sufficient internal evidence exists in these Pothis to disprove any borrowing by Guru Arjan.¹⁹

Guru Granth- Guru Panth

McLeod has also been criticized for making the suggestion that Guru Gobind Singh had not conferred personal authority on sacred scripture and the corporate panth at the time of his demise. It was subsequently adopted by the Sikhs to meet the needs of the panth for cohesion.²⁰ Many scholars have cited evidence from the Gur Sobha to disprove McLeod’s theory.

In his autobiography, McLeod states that he had put forward the above hypothesis as a possible theory and not as a definite conclusion. At that time, he was an adherent of the view that Gur Sobha had been composed in 1745. But others had subsequently convinced him that it had been composed in 1711. He is now of the opinion that near-contemporary evidence suggests that Guru Gobind Singh might have conferred personal authority on the sacred scripture and corporate panth at the time of his demise. Hence his theory might have been mistaken. However, he adds that no firm evidence exists for the belief that a pronouncement to the effect was made by Guru Gobind Singh.²¹

It is evident from the above statement that McLeod is convinced that his theory is probably wrong. But rather than completely retracting his statement, he keeps a window open by putting a rider. However, there appears to be little room for suspicion as the idea of Guru Granth- Guru Panth was in currency even during the times of the earlier Gurus.

The compositions by Guru Nanak, Guru Ram Das and Guru Arjan [AGGS pgs. 635, 943, 982, 1226] make it abundantly clear that the Word was equated with the Guru from the very beginning. From the literature of the early seventeenth century it is evident that the idea of sangat as the Guru, in the absence of the personal Guru, had emerged well before the death of Guru Gobind Singh. McLeod has explicitly referred to this fact in his book The Evolution of the Sikh Community.²² The injunction of Guru Gobind Singh can be seen as the culmination of the above two ideas, which were current during the times of the earlier Gurus.

Misinterpretation of Gurbani

In a recent article, Dr Baldev Singh has pointed out that McLeod has misinterpreted many verses from the AGGS to justify his assumption that Guru Nanak accepted the doctrine of Karma and transmigration.²³ While interpreting karmi aavai kapra nadir mokh duar (Japji 4, AGGS p. 2), McLeod translates karmi as actions or karma. Dr Baldev Singh quotes Prof Sahib Singh and Macauliffe to show that the adjective karmi merely refers to the Almighty as the Kind or Gracious One and has nothing to do with karma.

On his part, McLeod maintains that in his opinion Guru Nanak did indeed accept the reality of transmigration, but only for those who failed to follow the leading of the divine Name. He feels that Guru Nanak does not devote much time to transmigration. His principal emphasis instead goes on the power of the divine Name whereby transmigration is overcome.²⁴ Further, he prefers not to comment on the charge of misinterpreting Gurbani and feels that the readers should judge for themselves.²⁵

Intellectual Arrogance

Critics assert that McLeod often brushes aside any disagreement with his views as one of ‘belief vs. scholarship’. The implication is that believers do not use scholarly methodology and therefore their position is not supported by ‘neutral’ facts.²⁶ This approach can be observed even in his autobiography wherein he repeatedly refers to The Institute of Sikh Studies as ‘traditionalist’ and Dr Balwant Singh Dhillon’s Early Sikh Scriptural Tradition as a ‘conservative’ book.

Dr I.J.Singh feels that this is a bad distinction and not good science. Historians are also a product of their social milieu, limited in their vision of the truth by the fragmentary records available to them and by their own biases. Complete objectivity is an ideal that simply does not lie within any scientist’s or historian’s grasp.²⁷

McLeod’s former students have often suggested that the ‘historical’ approach is Western and thus more to be admired for its intellectual integrity and rigor. Dr I.J.Singh feels that this is intellectual arrogance. He says that he is unable to discern any loss of objectivity or honesty in the writings of Kapur Singh, Kahn Singh Nabha or Vir Singh just because they happen to be Sikhs or because they wrote in India.

Western Historical Methodology

McLeod has always maintained that being a Western historian he has been taught to doubt all historical evidence and to accept it as accurate only when it answers sceptical questions concerning the sources- tradition alone will never serve the purpose.

Dr I.J.Singh is of the opinion that this position is tantamount to claiming that everyone is assumed guilty unless proven innocent or that everyone’s fatherhood is in doubt unless direct proof accompanies the birth certificate.²⁸ He feels that a desirable starting point for a rigorous historian would be to assume that traditional lore is generally true unless proven otherwise by the overwhelming weight of unimpeachable evidence. Such an approach, in his opinion, is consistent with the modern scientific method.

In his autobiography, McLeod accepts that his research suffers from all the limitations of the Western historical method. He admits that there might be truth in the claim that he fails to fully appreciate the mythical nature of many of his sources because he is not trained in Eastern patterns of thought. He, however, believes that the Western concept is fully justifiable.²⁹

Critics have also alleged that McLeod has been selective while applying his ‘critical’ methodology. While Sikh sources and perspectives are presumed to have been tainted by their faith, outsider (Hindu and Muslim) sources and accounts are treated as neutral. Such an assumption is problematic because even outsiders have their own biases and preconceptions, which become apparent if one scrutinizes their accounts critically.³⁰ McLeod’s autobiography is strangely silent on the issue.

Sceptical Historian

McLeod has frequently referred to himself as a sceptical historian. In response to this, some have asked- is it not the place of a scholar or historian to be objective rather than sceptical? ³¹

In his autobiography, McLeod admits that he might have chosen wrongly to address himself as a sceptic. A ‘Sceptic’ is generally understood to be someone strongly biased towards doubt and disbelief; and this is the meaning that the critics have read into the word. This, however, is not the meaning that McLeod wanted to get across.³² But he is unable to choose an alternative. He examines two other words-‘critical’ and ‘objective’- but feels that they are also inappropriate.

Readership

In his autobiography, McLeod tells us that as far as the religion of the Sikhs is concerned, the object of his research is not to tell the Sikhs what they should believe but rather tell the inquisitive westerner what Sikhism apparently means in terms they can understand.³³

However, Prof Noel Q. King is of the opinion that McLeod’s intentions differ widely from the expectations of his readers. An educated person in the English-speaking world wanting to learn about Sikhism turns to the books of McLeod, which are published by Oxford University Press and command a world market and world publicity. To an uninitiated reader, however, his books seem to reiterate the notion that ‘a great amount of Sikh belief’ is based on ‘uncritical religiosity’. Furthermore, these books disappoint the reader by not tapping ‘the wellsprings’ of Sikhism, something that made Guru Nanak ‘tick’, ‘the heart of Sikhism’. Instead, what they find in his publications is ‘meticulously and exhaustively carried out drills in certain methods of western criticism’.³⁴ Therefore, he feels that McLeod’s books don’t satisfy the expectations of his targeted readers.

Controversy and Regret

In his autobiography, McLeod wonders why his recent work as also that of others, who have come to be linked with him, has not attracted much criticism. He feels that it might be because Sikhs are now concerned with more immediate issues like visible Sikh identity, Akal Takht, etc and their interest has largely shifted away from foreign academics.³⁵

A possible explanation that seems to have been overlooked by him could be that- due to past controversies these authors have been more careful in their later writings. Even in McLeod’s case, his later works have not raised any new controversial issue. His recent books only further elaborate some of the points that he has previously made in earlier publications.

McLeod further tells us that he is not surprised that his works generated controversy. Neither does he regret the controversy that has arisen over his writings, atleast not in the general sense.³⁶ He, however, deeply regrets the fact that the promising undergraduate course in Sikh Studies at the University of Toronto was discontinued because of the controversy surrounding him. He further regrets that many Sikhs conceal their relationship with him and their approval of his work because they do not want to get “tainted”. Even though he does not say so, it is evident that he regrets not receiving due recognition from the Sikh community, whom he spent his lifetime studying.

Conclusion

Even McLeod’s critics admit that “he is a great scholar and a great author. No one can dare to put a question mark on his scholarship [and his depth of knowledge]. He has done an excellent job in presenting the Sikh faith and the Sikh community to the world.” ³⁷

The question which then arises is- why have McLeod’s works generated so much controversy? Many explanations have been offered e.g. missionary zeal, Euro-centrism etc. McLeod on his part has always maintained that he has a concern for sympathetic understanding.

The question is not too hard to answer, if we recognize a basic human trait- the desire to be innovative. The desire to discover new lands had spurred many adventurers to undertake dangerous voyages without worrying for their safety. Historians are also humans and have the same psyche. The urge to say something new has caused many historians to rush to conclusions without putting their theories through the same rigorous analysis as they employ in the case of others. It would be quite clear from the above discussion that while McLeod has been overly critical in examining the traditional accounts; the same amount of criticality has not been extended to his own sources, theories and interpretations. As a result, many times half-baked and erroneous theories have been served after rejecting the traditional accounts.

He has also been guilty of sensationalizing issues to catch the attention of the readers e.g. referring to Guru Amar Das’s innovations as “reintroduction of traditional Hindu customs”. On some occasions, he has made serious accusations on the Sikhs but has not cared to quote any evidence to support his statements. His statement that “Jats commonly bewail the fact that there was never a single Jat Guru” ³⁸ is a very serious accusation but no study has been quoted to support it. All that he writes is that this is “uttered often enough in conversation” ³⁹. However, I have never ever heard such an ‘impertinent’ suggestion- what to say of hearing it often enough! Trying to attract the attention of the readers in this manner is the modus operandi of journalists, not of responsible scholars.

One wonders if the controversy could have been avoided?

Research and controversy go hand-in-hand. Controversy can be resolved amicably if the author responds quickly to the objections raised by the critics. McLeod could have avoided the controversy over his writings from flaring up, if he had immediately addressed the contentious issues through publications or by inviting his critics to a seminar/ meeting. Instead, at that time he kept on saying that he was a sceptical historian, who was here to ask questions and it was for Sikhs to answer the questions.

If the clarifications given in McLeod’s autobiography had been made ten years ago, in all probability ‘The McLeod controversy’ would have been a dead issue today!

Epilogue

The author sent a copy of this article to McLeod for his comments. McLeod’s reply is reproduced below for the benefit of the readers.

Dear Ishwinder Singh,

Sat Sri Akal!

Thank you for having sent me an advance copy of your forthcoming article ‘The McLeod Controversy’. It is very well written and I extend to you my sincere congratulations. The article as a whole puts your point of view very clearly and will, I am sure, be met with approval by many of your readers.

I don’t think there is any point in my raising the issues with which I disagree. From past experience I have learnt that this is the way to generate hostile argument. Better to do it later through books and articles. I would certainly have been prepared to join in seminar discussion had I ever had the opportunity to do so. That at least would have been the case until I had the stroke in 1987. Getting people to come all the way to New Zealand was clearly impracticable, and whenever I paid one of my frequent visits to the Punjab no one invited me. So it is books and articles which have to serve the purpose. Through these I endeavour to make it clear when I am treating factual material (the janam-sakhis provide an example), theories or possibilities (as in the so-called Jat thesis), and views which I have explicitly renounced (the Ramakali hymn). I hope that I am not guilty of sensationalizing trivial issues nor of promulgating half-baked theories. This though is a matter for your readers to decide

Very best wishes.

Hew McLeod.⁴⁰

⁴⁰ Email message W.H.McLeod to Ishwinder Singh. Dec 2, 2003


Copyright©2003 Ishwinder Singh. About the author