|
|
|
|
|
||
Un-academic, Unethical and Unsolicited Advice
- Baldev Singh
If
I can remember correctly from the days when I was a graduate student at a
university in the United States (1960s), academic freedom meant total freedom
of thought – freedom to express, freedom to write, freedom to read and freedom
to pursue any research interest. Censorship of literature in any form or manner
was an anathema to academicians. Further, I remember very vividly the
widespread vigorous protests in the West over the banning of Salman Rushdie’s
book Satanic Verses in Muslim countries. Given that background I
couldn’t believe my eyes when I saw the advice by Prof. Cole and Prof. Barrier
to the Internet “Sikh Diaspora Discussion Group” -- editorialized in Understanding
Sikhism Research Journal.1,2
To understand the nature of this un-academic, unethical and
unsolicited advice, let me take you to a discussion on McLeod’s Sikhs of
Khalsa on an Internet discussion e-Group called Sikh Diaspora Discussion
Group. When someone quoted the works
of Trilochan Singh and Gurdev Singh, Professor Cole remarked on June 9, 2003, “I wouldn’t
recommend the books by Trilochan Singh or Gurdev Singh. They are vitriolic
rather than academic. But the main point I wish to make is read McLeod
yourself. Don’t accept the judgment of others - such is the proper approach.”
Earlier, on June 8, Professor Barrier had cautioned the members of that forum to wait until the
release of McLeod’s autobiography. According to Barrier:
Hew McLeod deals very specifically
with these and other allegations in his forthcoming intellectual autobiography, Discovering
the Sikhs. South Asia Books will have
the non-India distribution to the book, an orderly review of facts,
misinformation, and the specific networks of Sikhs, who published conference
proceedings and individual papers, primarily in the 1980s and early 1990s. I
will circulate information on the volume when it appears in September. Those
who want to follow the charges, and more than adequate rebuttals by McLeod,
probably should wait until a definitive and systematic work is out and then
compare with the various items referred on the Sikh Diaspora Forum that
allegedly undermine his research and question his motives.1, 2
I
wholeheartedly agree with Cole that there is no place for harsh and
unprofessional language or personal attacks in discussions or debates over any
subject including controversial research works. I have not read Trilochan Singh
or Gurdev Singh, so I am not in a position to comment on their works. However,
I wish that Cole had published or presented a critique of Trilochan Singh’s and
Gurdev Singh’s works to the Sikh Diaspora Discussion Group. Whereas Trilochan
Singh and Gudev Singh have put forth their views about McLeod in writing for
every one to read, Cole has denigrated Trilochan Singh and Gurdev Singh’s works
in few sentences without pointing out what is wrong with it. Furthermore,
Cole’s remarks raise an important question: If Cole, who is actively involved
in Sikh studies, cannot understand what is wrong with McLeod’s works then why
should he negate those Sikhs who try to evaluate McLeod’s works?
Barrier
expects Sikhs to hold back their judgment on McLeod’s works until his
intellectual autobiography -- Discovering the Sikhs was published. Does
he not know that Sikhs have waited long enough for McLeod to answer the
controversies his writings have raised? His book Guru Nanak and the Sikh
Religion was published in 1968 (Oxford: Clarendon Press) and soon became a
hot topic of discussion among Sikhs. Sikh scholars challenged McLeod’s
unsupported assumptions, interpretations, conjectures, inferences and
conclusions. Instead of answering his critics, McLeod kept on producing more
controversial works. When asked for clarifications McLeod insisted, “I am a
skeptic historian and my job is to ask questions and create doubts. It is for
the Sikhs to answer my questions and remove doubts.”
However,
when his work was subjected to detailed scrutiny by Sikh scholars, McLeod took
it as a personal attack on him. Instead of responding to the criticism of his
work in a professional manner, through publications or at conferences and
seminars, he started attacking his critics through decoys -- his students and
supporters. While McLeod remained silent, his supporters have been plying their
trade as scholars propagating McLeod’s baseless assumptions3, 4 and
theories5 about Sikhism.
Research
often generates controversies, more so in humanities than in hard sciences.
However, the controversies are generally resolved in a professional and timely
manner. When someone’s work is challenged, one either provides more evidence
and solid reasoning in defense of their work or agree with the critics. At
times the issue remains unresolved, as both sides are unable to convince each
other. Sometimes, during the course of research, one discovers the errors in
one’s earlier published work and retracts it. This does not cast any aspersion
on one’s scholarship, rather it enhances their credibility and integrity as a
scholar. So why didn’t McLeod respond to his critics for more than three decades?
One possible explanation is that his work is indefensible, that is he has no
evidence or explanation to support his views.
Although
McLeod, his students, and his supporters never miss the opportunity to dismiss
Sikh traditions, they don’t have any qualms in accepting and vigorously
supporting even the most absurd and ridiculous fables when it suits their
purpose. For instance, the “Borrowing Theory” -- Guru Arjan Dev’s alleged
borrowing of Goindwal Pothis from Baba Mohan for the compilation
of Adi Granth. Recently, Professor Pritam Singh6 admitted in the Abstracts
Of Sikh Studies that his earlier research on Ahiyapur Pothi
(manuscript) also known as Goindwal Wali Pothi or Goindwal
Pothi was in error.
The pick of Western scholars, interested in Sikh
Studies, including, I am told my old friend, the venerable Dr. W. H. McLeod,
has rallied round Dr. Gurinder Singh Mann, the author of The Goindwal
Pothis: The Earliest Extant Source of The Sikh Canaon (1996).
“As I
look back, it becomes clear that Professor Sahib Singh had already thrown a
spanner into the prevalent theory by persistently claiming that Guru Arjan Dev
had compiled the Adi Granth on the basis of an inherited corpus containing the
works of his predecessors and others. … The Professor also dismissed, as pure
concoction, the whole story in which Guru Arjan Dev was shown as composing and
singing a eulogy in honor of Baba Mohan and receiving, as reward, the Goindwal
MSs, on loan. The “Mohan hymn” according to the Professor’s interpretation is a
paean adoring the great Lord Himself.
I may say, in all humility, that my study of the
contents of the Ahiyapur Pothi confirms, though indirectly, Professor
Sahib Singh’s thesis and negates some of the major, if not all the conclusions,
of Dr. Mann and Giani Gurdit Singh.
In a nutshell, my finding is that the Adi
Granth and the Ahiyapur Pothi are two parallel recensions of Gurbani
and Bhagat-Bani with the Adi Granth serving as the scripture of
the Sikh mainstream and the Ahiyapur Pothi intended to be the official
sacred book of the faction set up by Mohan and his son.”6
Moreover,
M.S. Ahluwalia and B.S. Dhillon7 have also reported their findings
on Guru Har Sahai Pothi, Goindwal Pothis and MS # 1245 in the same issue
of Abstracts of Sikh Studies:
A close look at the contents of Guru Har
Sahai Pothi reveals that at least seven extra canonical compositions
attributed to Kabir (3), Namdev (2), Ravidas (1) and Madan Mohan Surdas (1)
were present in it. A sizeable number of non-canonical compositions – Guru
Nanak (2), Guru Ram Das (1), Gulam Sada Sewak (14), Sharaf (1), Kabir (9),
Namdev (6), Trilochan (2) and Beni (1), form parts of the two extant Goindwal
Pothis. Similarly, MS # 1245 is a rich repository of extra-canonical
writings (total 48) that have been attributed to the Sikh Gurus. On examining
the Mina commentaries on the works of Guru Nanak, we observe that their texts
are full of extra-canonical verses and stanzas. … Either the scholars are not
aware of all these writings of extra-canonical nature, or they shun the
discussion over them.7
If
Prof. Pritam Singh has no hesitation in admitting his earlier erroneous
conclusions about Goindwal Pothis then why don’t McLeod and Pashaura
Singh follow his example. Alternatively, why don't they challenge Pritam Singh
to maintain the integrity of their work?
Pashaura
Singh maintains that MS # 1245 is an earlier draft of Adi Granth.8
Neither Pashaura Singh nor McLeod nor Gurinder Singh Mann have responded, as
yet, to the above-mentioned two articles or Dhillon’s Early Sikh Scriptural
Tradition: Myth and Reality. In his criticism of the works of Piar Singh,
Pashaura Singh, and Gurinder Singh Mann on MS # 1245, Dhillon says, “Similarly,
after going through the studies of the above scholars on the Adi Granth, I also
feel that they have not told the whole story, honestly and truly. Much has
been concealed than revealed regarding the so-called earlier sources of Sikh
canon.”9 Perhaps
that is why Pashaura Singh did not want the Sikhs to read his thesis and
McLeod defends his actions without any deference to academic ethics or
integrity.
Though
McLeod’s writings and Pashaura Singh’s thesis have received more than enough
attention and scrutiny, McLeod’s academic ethics and what he did to Pashaura
Singh have gone unnoticed. I think Pashaura Singh has been exploited and
victimized by McLeod. Generally, a research supervisor/advisor is not only
concerned with the success of the research projects undertaken by his or her
students but also about their future as scholars. Research advisors instills in
their students proper ethics, which are most essential for the integrity and
credibility of a scholar. Good advisors fight their battles without involving
their students. However, McLeod did the opposite. Instead of responding to his critics
in an academic manner, he criticized them through Pashaura Singh.
Since then much of the energy of Sikh scholars
has been devoted to proving the authenticity of the Karatrpuri birr [sic] or
recension. A great deal of this energy is directed these days at the writings
of W. H. McLeod, who has been raising questions about Adi Granth and making a
plea for sustained campaign of textual analysis to establish a sure and certain
text. Although McLeod combines sensitivity with meticulous care in his analysis
of Sikh documents, his arguments on Sikh scriptures have been received with
caution within the Sikh community. It is a conspicuous feature of the modern
Panth to perceive critical scholarship as an attack on the Sikh faith. That is
perhaps why the organized response offered by a group of Sikh scholars (of whom
the most notable include retired civil servants of the Government of India and
doctors of medicine, as well as academics) appear to be so defensive that one
can easily sense a feeling of insecurity in their approach. It appears to be a
new phenomenon linked with the post-1984 events.10
First, contrary to Pashaura Singh’s assertion “McLeod combines
sensitivity with meticulous care in his analysis of Sikh documents,” McLeod
questioned the authenticity of Kartarpuri Bir (Adi Granth, 1604 CE)
and asserted that it is a copy of Banno Bir
(1642 CE) without even looking at Kartarpuri Bir or Bano Bir, and without studying the related
literature on the subject.11
Second, the defense of
McLeod’s scholarship by Pashaura Singh in his thesis puts a question mark on
his objectivity and academic integrity. Perhaps, it was this paragraph more
than the contents of the thesis, which drew the attention of so many critics (Planned
Attack On Aad Sri Guru Grant Sahib: Academics or Blasphemy, a compendium of
35 essays)! There is no need to comment further on the thesis as enough has
been written about its false contents. However, it needs to be pointed out here
that neither McLeod nor Pashaura Singh has responded as yet to this book.
Perhaps,
it was Pashaura Singh’s idea to add the paragraph in defense of McLeod, as
sometime students do unusual things to please their supervisors, which they
regret later on. But still it was McLeod’s responsibility as his mentor to
advise Pashaura Singh not to put this paragraph in his thesis and, to warn him
against his involvement in the controversy between him (McLeod) and his
critics. Besides, instead of defending his thesis in an academic manner --
through publications or presentations at conferences and seminars by inviting
his critics, Pashaura Singh chose the easy way out. He manipulated the Sikh
clergy at Amritsar to rehabilitate his reputation. It is inconceivable that he
didn’t consult McLeod before he decided to prostrate before the clergy as a
facade -- public display of his devoutness. His academic credibility/integrity
was further damaged, as the clergy at Amritsar is not competent or qualified to
pass judgment on academic research. By his own actions he besmirched his
research and his academic integrity/credibility, but he blames people who
challenge his work.
Further
it is astonishing that he has not stopped talking about his ill treatment by
Sikh scholars and the clergy, and probably, he has not realized as yet what
McLeod did to him, as he still defends McLeod. Here are some statements from
his article published in Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses,
1998.
My
unpublished thesis, filed at the University of Toronto library, was copied
without my knowledge or authorization and circulated throughout the world. This
led to a series of denunciations in letters and reviews in Sikh community
newspapers, which accused me of committing blasphemy.
In the
recent past Sikh Scholars have been summoned to the Akal Takhat in Amritsar –-
the seat of religious and temporal authority among the Sikhs –- to defend,
explain and amend their interpretation of the text. This has created a climate
of anxiety for scholars of Sikh tradition as their work is being reviewed by
the highest religious authority for the Sikhs in a politically charged
atmosphere. There have been charges of blasphemy in public gatherings against
some scholars, notably Piar Singh, Amarjit Singh Grewal and Pashaura Singh. In
fact, these scholars have been compelled to endure a determined and venomous
campaign. It has been argued by a group of traditional Sikh scholars that they
have challenged the revealed character of the Sikh scripture and threatened its
canonical status. How can we understand this phenomenon of charged religious
reaction to academic scholarship? What is the future of Sikh Studies in view of
the current situation?
W. H.
McLeod, the leading Western scholar of Sikhism explains this development as a
reassertion of tradition over critical understanding of Sikh history. In this
context, W. H. McLeod aptly notes: It is not the sacred scripture as a Book
which served to differentiate ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ Sikhs, but rather
the meaning of the scripture.
The
question of what is the “correct meaning” of the scripture and who is entitled
to know it raises the further problem of religious authority among Sikhs. There
are indeed certain members of the Panth who subscribe to ardent beliefs with
regard to scriptures and the Sikh tradition in a literalist way. … They try to
manipulate the institution of the Akal Takhat and Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak
Committee (the supreme power within the Panth), and they have been able to
exercise considerable control over the Sikh press. The majority of other Sikh
scholars who understand the aims of academic scholarship have retreated into
the closet. Their silence has indeed contributed to the present climate of
intolerance and suppression of inquiry that has made honest scholarly judgments
dangerous.
Here, it
is instructive to note that several of the more vocal critics lead (or at least led) lives which do not exactly
correspond with criticism which they are making of academic scholars working in
the area of Sikh studies. Commenting on the life styles of three prominent critics,
for instance, W. H. McLeod argues that “one critic had grown his beard only
after the [anti-academic] campaign was initiated and then reverted to shaving;
another allowed his children to cut hair; and a third had previously held views
which made it very difficult to term him a fundamentalist. He further argues
that religious fundamentalism is not a “deeply-held belief” among these
critics, although this label has been used frequently as a convenient tool to
understand the recent scholarly controversy.
The Acting-Jathedar, Manjit Singh, agreed to
certain points of my explanation at the time of my first appearance before the
“Cherished Five” (panj singh sahiban) alone in a special room. In our
closed-door meeting, for instance, he remarked “It is not a matter of words or
letters, rather the bani is divinely inspired” (akhran di gal nahin,
bani tan dhur ki hai). He accepted that the change in language did not
create any problem with respect to the status of the revealed nature of the bani.
It is, however, an entirely different matter that he totally changed his stance
later on and aligned himself with the Chandigarh-group of scholars (who had
raised the storm over my doctoral thesis) in the so-called “open debate” at the
Akal Takhat Office.
However, I would not like to appear too
self-referential in this article. The detailed account of my story will appear
in another work in which I will provide a lengthy treatment of the complex
situation that led me to be called to the Akal Takhat.13
Pashaura Singh’s complaint, “My unpublished thesis, filed at the University of Toronto library, was copied without my knowledge or authorization and circulated throughout the world” is absurd. This is a false and misleading statement. Did not he get his PhD by submitting this thesis to the University of Toronto? Did not the university accept the thesis as a requirement for the award of a PhD degree? So how could the thesis be characterized as unpublished when the university had accepted it? Once the university accepted the thesis, it was in the public domain. Moreover, did not the Sikh community pay for his research and the salary of his supervisor, Reverend McLeod? What crime did the Sikhs commit in reading this thesis? Besides, if Pashaura Singh thinks that Sikhs should not have read his thesis then for whom did he do the textual analysis of Adi Granth?
Further,
when did it become academic requirement to attack the personal behavior of
critics and their family members? Did Daljeet Singh, whom McLeod and Piar Singh
have painted as a villain, attack their personal behavior or that of their
children?
I
urge the sponsors of the “Chair of Sikh and Punjab Studies” at the University
of Michigan, Ann Arbor, to take a look at the return on their investment,
manifested by the writings of Pashaura Singh. I would also urge scholars of
Sikh Studies to evaluate the scholarly worth of this article.
After
studying several of McLeod’s works carefully I get the impression that McLeod
came to or was brought to Batala (Punjab) with a preconceived agenda. He came
to tell the Sikhs “forget what your scriptures say, forget what your traditions
say, forget what historians and theologians say and forget what others like
Macaullife and Cunningham say -- I will tell you what does Sikhism and Sikh mean.”
For instance, commenting on the language of AGGS he says, “Macauliffe must bear
most of the responsibility for the misleading impression that the language of
the Adi Granth is unusually difficult.13
Firstly,
McLeod has used the incorrect name for the current Sikh scripture throughout
his major work: Guru Nanak and the Sikh Religion for which he was
declared "as being among the foremost scholars of Sikh studies in the
world". He calls it Adi Granth, which is the name of the first Sikh
scripture compiled by Guru Arjan in 1604 C.E. The scripture in the final form
as we have it today is referred to as Adi Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji
commonly called Guru Granth Sahib or Aad Guru Granth Sahib, or even simply Guru
Granth.14
Second,
people who have studied AGGS seriously would agree with Macauliffe not with
McLeod, about the complexity of the language of AGGS. In McLeod’s works there
are few references to the hymns of Aad Guru Granth Sahib (AGGS) except Guru
Nanak and the Sikh Religion wherein he has misinterpreted many verses in
order to distort Guru Nanak’s teachings.15 For
instance he has interpreted “karmi aavai kapra nadri mokh duar" as
“Karma determines the nature of our birth (lit. cloth), but it is
through grace that the door of salvation is found.”16
He
has made three mistakes in the interpretation of this verse. First, he has
taken a single verse from a stanza of seven verses, which are interconnected.
Second, karmi is not derived from karam (Punjabi) or karma
(Sanskrit) meaning action; it is derived from karam (Persian) meaning
kindness/benevolence. Third, though kapra has been used as a metaphor
for human body in AGGS, in this verse it means cloth or clothing, a metaphor
for “God’s love.” Moreover, there are numerous verses in AGGS as in the
stanza under discussion in the form of questions and answers. Lack of attention
and understanding could result in misinterpretation of such verses.
The
examination of the stanza reveals that the first two verses describe the
greatness of God. God’s bounty is unlimited and whatever we possess is God’s
gift. The third and fourth verses are questions: then what should we do or
offer to God to win God’s love? The fifth and sixth verses are answers to the
third and fourth verses: if we meditate on God constantly then God will love us
resulting in our union with God. The fifth verse is about the actions of the
devotee to win God’s love and word karmi is not in it, instead, it is in
the sixth verse wherein it means kindness/benevolence. In the entire stanza
there is no mention of past or future life. Guru Nanak rejected all the
essentials of Hinduism including karma, reincarnation and the Hindu
concept of salvation (moksha), and the moral authorities of Hindu
scripture.3, 4, 17, 18, 19
It
is remarkable that contrary to McLeod, almost a century ago, when Aad Guru
Granth Sahib was interpreted most commonly through Brahmanical lens of Vedanta,
Macauliffe interpreted this verse quite accurately.20
True is the Lord, true is His name; it is uttered with endless love.
People pray and beg, ‘Give us, give us’; the Giver giveth His gifts;
Then what can we offer Him whereby His court may be seen?
What words shall we utter with our lips, on hearing which He may love us?
At the ambrosial hour of morning meditate on true Name and God’s greatness.
The Kind One will give us a robe of honour, and by His favour we shall reach the gate of salvation.
Nanak, we shall thus know that God is altogether true.
AGGS, Jap 4, P. 2.
Professor Sahib Singh has also interpreted this verse the same way as Macauliffe:
"(This way), by the kindness of God a scarf
of “God’s praise” is obtained, liberation from the (wall of falsehood) is
received by God’s kindness, and the door to realization of God is opened."21
Both, Macauliffe and Sahib Singh have
interpreted kapra as cloth. However, due to cultural differences one
calls it a robe of honor and the other calls it a scarf of love. Both robe and
scarf are metaphor for God’s love.
Further,
Pashaura Singh has cited the interpretation of this verse by Giani Badan Singh as follows:
“Through the Lord’s gracious glance one achieves
the robe of honor in the form of loving devotion (bhakti), by means of
which one reaches the door to liberation in the form of knowledge.”22
Commenting
on McLeod’s interpretation of this verse, Pashaura Singh points out: “Here
there is no mention of the role of the past actions (karmi) in the
interpretation of this line from Japji. Rather, the emphasis is placed
on the dual function of divine grace which paves the way for the loving
devotion in the first place and then for the knowledge of the door to
liberation.”
However,
Prof. Cole has interpreted this verse the same way as McLeod:
Good actions may result in a human form, but
liberation comes only from God’s grace. 23
But
in the same article Cole agrees with Maculiffe’s interpretation of kapra
when he interprets kapra in the fourth verse of the following
stanza correctly as robe:
“I was an out of work minstrel, God gave me employment.
God gave me the order, ‘Sing my praise day and night’.
God summoned the minstrel to His court,
And bestowed on me the robe of honoring Him and singing His praises.”
AGGS, M 1, p. 150.
In
several other places in the AGGS, kapr
has been used for clothes. Thus using the correct meaning of karmi and kapra , I interpret the verse “karmi
aavai kpra nadri mokh duar" as:
The
devotee is honored with a robe of “singing God’s true praise” resulting in
union with God (Truth). In other words the devotee is transformed into a moral
person – practitioner of “Truth”.
Thus
the above discussed interpretation of the verse clearly supports Macauliffe’s
views regarding the complexity of the language of AGGS.
It
should be noted here that McLeod’s “Sikhs and Sikhism” is
dedicated to Jerry Barrier: teacher, scholar, bookseller and friend. In
a reciprocal gesture, Barrier who wrote the foreword to
Discovering the Sikhs: Autobiography of a
Historian writes:
“The themes that were to
appear again and again in Sikh reviews of Hew’s work—missionary bias, cultural
insensitivity, political motives, and the like—became commonplace as academics
and politicians characterized his research as a threat to the community and
Sikh understanding of tradition and practice.”24
To impress this point further to
the readers Barrier goes on to say:
Sikh scholars themselves
experienced even more serious attacks that threatened their teaching positions
and sometimes lives—good men and good scholars such as Fauja Singh and J.S.
Grewal, among others, and in a later generation Piar Singh and those associated
with Hew, such as Harjot Oberoi and Pashaura Singh. But Hew remained the
designated lightning rod for attack.25
Prof. Barrier seems to leave the
impression that Sikhs treated Fauja
Singh, Grewal, and Piar Singh the way Christian Church treated Bruno and
Galileo, the famous astronomers. To set the record straight, let me say that
Fauja Singh retired as Head of the history department from Punjabi University
Patiala; Grewal retired as Vice-Chancellor of Guru Nanak Dev University; and
Piar Singh retired as Head of Sikh studies at Guru Nanak Dev University.
Moreover, it appears that Barrier does not understand the very nature of
scholarship which demands that a critical appraisal of someone’s research work should
by no means be equated with personal attacks or persecution or life threats.
Research work often generates controversies. Scholars
generally do not regard criticism of their work as personal attack or
persecution; rather, they regard it as an honor when someone pays attention to
their work! It was the fraudulent research of Harjot Oberoi and Pashaura Singh
on Sikhism that was criticized, not their personal character. Moreover, Barrier is “fully aware” of the fact
that both of them started their academic career as holders of “Sikh chair”
established in North America by Sikhs at the University of British Columbia and
the University of Michigan, respectively. Could Prof. Barrier throw light on
the process of how Oberoi and Pashaura Singh got selected for these jobs?
Continuing with his
campaign of misinformation against the Sikhs, Barrier says:
Just as American
politics, metaphor, and public discourse were altered by attacks on September
11, 2001, so the growing militancy and turmoil
that culminated in the attack on Golden Temple and the Delhi riots in 1984
reshaped the relationship between religion and politics among Sikhs. Academic
research and authors quickly became enmeshed in the ensuing debate over
controversial elements in Sikh public life. No individual, Sikh or Westerner has
been more pivotal in the resulting wars over
scholarship and Sikhism than Professor W.H. (‘Hew’) McLeod. 26
I find it very difficult to understand why Barrier,
who is actively involved in Sikh studies, characterizes the murder of thousands
of innocent Sikhs by the Indian army attack on Darbar Sahib (Golden Temple) and
government-sponsored murder of thousands of innocent Sikhs all over India after
the assassination of Indira Gandhi, as “riots.”27 Perhaps, Politics of Genocide28 and Reduced to Ashes: The
Insurgency and Human Rights in Punjab29 and various reports by
Amnesty International, Asia Watch and Indian human rights organizations escaped
his notice!
Prof.
Cole and Prof. Barrier’s advice is unprofessional and misdirected. Had Reverend
McLeod dealt with the controversies raised by his writings in a professional
and timely manner, through publications or conference presentations, there
might not have been any controversy today and he would have earned the respect
reserved for a scholar. Instead, he chose to attack his critics through
surrogates (his students and friends). Both Prof. Cole and Prof. Barrier have
ignored this very point, which is the root cause of the McLeodian controversy.
References
1.
D. S. Chahal. “Integrated And Comprehensive Philosophy Of Sikhism.” Understnding
Sikhism Res. J. 2003, 5 (2), pp. 3-6.
2.
D. S. Chahal. “Integrated And Comprehensive Philosophy OfSikhism.” Sikh Virsa,
2003, 8, pp. 56-58.
3.
Baldev Singh. “Misinterpretation of Gurbani by W. H. McLeod, Part I.” Abstracts
Of Sikh Studies, 2003, 5 (2), pp. 72-80.
4.
Baldev Singh. “Misinterpretation of Gurbani by W. H. McLeod, Part II.” Abstracts
Of Sikh Studies, 2003, 5 (3), pp. 66-78
5.
Jagjit Singh. Misinterpretations: Jats and Sikh Militarization in The
Sikh Revolution: A Perspective View. New Delhi: Bahri Publications, 4th
reprint, 1998, pp. 260-281.
6.Pritam
Singh. “The Ahiyapur Pothi.” Abstracts Of Sikh Studies, 2003, V (4), pp.
14-21.
7.
M. S Ahluwalia, B. S Dhillon. “Textual studies Of The AdiGranth: Current
Issues.” Abstracts Of Sikh Studies, 2003, V (4), pp. 56-63.
8.
Pashaura Singh. The Text And Meaning Of The Adi Granth (PhDThesis.
Toronto: University of Toronto, 1991, p. 64.
9.
B. S. Dhillon. Early Sikh Scriptural Tradition: Myth and Reality.
Amritsar: Singh Brothers, 1999, p. 34.
10. Pashaura Singh. The Text And
Meaning Of The Adi Granth (PhD Thesis). Tronto: University of Toronto,
1991, pp. 20-21.
11.
Daljeet Singh. Essays on The Authenticity of Kartarpuri Bir And The
Integrated Logic And Unity of Sikhism. Patiala: Punjabi University, 2nd
edition, 1995, pp. 37, 47.
12. Pashaura Singh. “Recent trends and prospects
in Sikh studies.” Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses, 1998, 27
(4), pp. 407-425.
13.
W. H. McLeod. The Sikh Scriptures in Sikhs and Sikhism. New
Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1999, P. 69.
14.
Guru Arjan Dev prepared the first Sikh Scripture (1604 CE) by incorporating the
compositions of his predecessors, his own and that of Bhagats and Sufis.
This codex is called Adi Granth. It is also known as Pothi (sacred text)
and Kartarpuri Bir (sacred text of Kartarpur) as it in the possession of
a Sodhi family of Kartarpur. Since the Adi Granth was a bound manuscript, it
acquired the name Adi Bir because Jilad (binding of a book) means
Bir. Later on Guru Tegh Bahadur, the ninth Guru added his composition to a
copy of Adi Granth and the resulting sacred text was (is) called Damdami Bir
according to Sikh tradition. The current Sikh Scripture is a copy of Dadami
Bir. The Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC), which manages the
historical Gurdwaras in Punjab, Haryana and Himacchal Pardesh and
Sikh-religious affaires, is also responsible for the printing and distribution
of the current Sikh Scripture. SGPC has named it “Adi Sri Guru Granth Sahib
Ji. In literature it is referred as Guru Granth Sahib or Sri Guru Granth
Sahib or Guru Granth or Adi Granth or AaD Guru Granth Sahib, Granth or Sikh
Scripture or even Sikh Bible. However,
quite often people not only call it Adi Granth but also pronounce it as Adee
Granth, erroneously. From the time of Gurus, the Punjabi language has undergone
evolutionary change in pronunciation. For example the vowel, sihari (i)
of Adi in modern pronunciation is de-emphasized and Adi is pronounced as Aad.
In my writings I use the name, Aad Guru Granth Sahib, as Aad which means
eternal or first in preference is very important to distinguish it from other
Granths or Guru Granths. Recently, some malicious people have started calling
Dasam Granth as Guru Granth. I have dropped Sri (Mr.) and Ji (yes, Sir) as the
use of Sri before Guru and Ji after Sahib is redundant.
15.
W. H. McLeod. Guru Nanak and the Sikh Religion. New Delhi: Oxford
University Press, 1968.
16.
Ibid., p. 205.
17.
J. S. Grewal. The Sikhs Of The Punjab. New Delhi: Cambridge University
Press, 1994 p. 31.
18.
Jagjit Singh. The Sikh Revolution: A Perspective View. New Delhi: Bahri
Publications, 4th reprint, 1998, p. 105.
19.
Sangat Singh. The Sikhs In History. New Delhi: Uncommon
Books
4th ed., 2001, pp. 21-22.
20.
M. A. Macauliffe. The Sikh Religion Vols. I & II. New Dehli: Low
Price Publications, reprint, 1993, Vol. I, p. 197.
21.
Sahib Singh. Sri Guru Granth Sahib Darpan (Punjabi), Vol. I. Jalandhar:
Raj Publishers 1972, p. 59.
22.
Pashaura Singh. The Text And meaning Of The Adi Granth (Ph.D. Thesis).
Toronto: University of Toronto, 1991, pp. 225-226.
23.
W. O. Cole. “The Sikh Concept Of Guru.” Understanding Sikhism Res. J. 2000,
2 (1), pp. 20-23, 39-40.
24. W. H. McLeod. Discovering the Sikhs:
Autobiography of Historian. Delhi: Permanent Black, 2004, pp. ix-x.
25. Ibid., p. x.
26. Ibid., p. ix.
27. Sangat Singh. The Sikhs In History. New
Delhi: Uncommon Books, 4th edition, 2001, pp. 361-526.
28. Inderjit Singh Jaijee. Politics of Genocide.
Delhi: Ajanta Publications, 1999, pp. 102-04.
29. R.N. Kumar, A. Singh, A. Agarwal and J. Kaur. Reduced
to Ashes: The Insurgency and Human Rights in Punjab. Lalitpur, Nepal: South
Asia Forum for Human Rights, 2003.
Copyright© Baldev Singh. About the author
Print this Article
Email this Article
Comment on this Article