. INTRODUCTION . CHAPTER 1 . CHAPTER 2 . CHAPTER 3 . CHAPTER 4 . CHAPTER 5 . CHAPTER 6 . CHAPTER 7 . CONCLUSION . REFERENCES CHAPTER 1 Discrediting the Evidence that Guru Nanak Visited Baghdad Two older janam-sakhis and Bhai Gurdas mention Guru Nanak’s visit to Baghdad. It is said that two inscriptions were found recording a visit of Guru Nanak to Baghdad.54 In 1919 Swami Anad Acharya published a book of English poems entitled Snow Birds, and one of the poems is about Guru Nanak’s visit to Baghdad based on one of the inscriptions. This poem is the only information about this inscription.55 In 1916 some Sikh soldiers, who were deployed in Iraq during the First World War, discovered the second inscription in a tomb, which it is claimed, makes explicit mention of Guru Nanak’s visit.56 The language of the inscription is Ottoman Turkish and efforts to translate have produced several different versions, but all of them have the words “Baba Nanak.”57 So to satisfy his “skeptic historian” curiosity, McLeod consulted Dr. V.L. Menage, Reader in Turkish at the School of Oriental and African Studies, London, who provided him the following information.58 The part of line 2 which I cannot understand is the passage where earlier translators have read Baba Nanak fakir or, more grammatically, Baba Nanak-i fakir (either six or seven syllables); and in the photograph the first letter certainly appears to be babananak and the next word, though not clear, might indeed be fakir. But the metre indicates clearly that this section contains only five syllables and that they scan - È È - -. The word baba being Turkish, both its vowels are by nature short, but since it is legitimate in poetry to lengthen a short vowel if necessary, the word could be scanned baba. It would however, be a grave fault of prosody to shorten the long vowel of Nanak in order to satisfy the demands of metre. Hence Baba Nanak fakir does not fit the metre¾and even if the reading is accepted the complete line does not make sense. I regret that I am unable to suggest the correct meaning, but Baba Nanak seems to be excluded.”59 With this information in hand McLeod concludes: “The janam-sakhi traditions offer insufficient evidence and the support hitherto claimed on the basis of the inscription must be withdrawn. Although, there remains a possibility that Guru Nanak visited Baghdad, we are now compelled to regard it as an unsubstantiated possibility.”60 This conclusion about Guru Nanak’s visit to Baghdad drew the following response from Sangat Singh: Dr. V.L. Menage, Reader in Turkish at [the] School of Oriental and African Studies, London, who was commissioned by McLeod, admits his lack of knowledge of the Turkman language used in the inscription. Nonetheless he proceeds to translate the same. He concedes that [the] first six or seven syllables in the second line read Baba Nanak Fakir or Baba Nanak-i-Fakir but says that this does not fit into the meter and should be ignored. That suited very well McLeod’s thesis that Guru Nanak did not travel outside his surroundings. To ignore the inscription because it does not fit into one’s contrived thesis, amounts to intellectual dishonesty.61 Stung by Sangat Singh’s valid criticism, McLeod defends himself by claiming that Ganda Singh who died many years ago, informed him in a private conversation that Sikh soldiers who discovered the inscription doctored it in order to make it clear that it referred to Baba Nanak.62 First of all, Ganda Singh makes no mention of this information in the editorial cited (read the above reference) by McLeod, but McLeod has no compunction in making Ganda Singh a partner in his fraudulent enterprise? Since Ganda Singh didn’t mention to anybody else of what McLeod attributes to him, I believe McLeod concocted an alibi. Second, could any reasonable person believe that semiliterate Sikh soldiers with no knowledge of Arabic or Turkish doctored an inscription in Ottoman Turkish, which Dr. Menage, an expert in the Turkish language, could not decipher? Third, during Guru Nanak’s time Ottoman Turkish was the official language of Baghdad, but not the language of the populace, as Persian was the official language in the Punjab but not the language of the populace. Fourth, Guru Nanak’s travels to Baghdad were not an official visit. He traveled to the Arabian Peninsula to visit Muslim religious centers and to meet religious leaders and common people. So the inscription in his memory must be in Arabic spoken by the people at that time. The Sikh soldiers who were in Baghdad (1916-1918) must have learned from local people about the inscription describing Guru Nanak’s visit, otherwise how could the soldiers find the inscription on their own? If Prof. Barrier has his way, we are told “Hew is very direct in terms of his presentation of fact, quick to give others the benefit of doubt, and careful in reaching broad conclusions.”44 The evidence suggests Barrier’s depiction of McLeod is different from the real McLeod. When McLeod runs out of absurd ideas and lame arguments to defend himself, he uses his favorite trick: “So and so told me in a private conversation.” He has no consideration for the reputation of others. In pursuit of his own agenda, he used his own student, Pashaura Singh, a brilliant but naïve and overly ambitious young man, as a sacrificial lamb. He did grave harm to his academic credibility.21