. INTRODUCTION . CHAPTER 1 . CHAPTER 2 . CHAPTER 3 . CHAPTER 4 . CHAPTER 5 . CHAPTER 6 . CHAPTER 7 . CONCLUSION . REFERENCES CHAPTER 4 Attempts to Malign the Institute of Sikh Studies McLeod blames the Institute of Sikh Studies, Chandigarh for launching a vigorous campaign against his writings and made Daljit Singh the main target of his attack.94 He singles out Daljit Singh because his Essays on the Authenticity of Kartarpuri Bir pulled off the mask of “Western methodology of historical research” from McLeod’s face. He admits that Daljit Singh was an honest man95 and a prolific writer96 who was the major contributor to books and seminars that criticized McLeod’s works. Without pointing out specific charges, he blames Daljit Singh for carrying out a vendetta against him: “Daljit Singh was the person most active in all the campaigns against me and Pashaura Singh and much more will be heard of him before this account is completed.”97 He uses the testimony of a discredited scholar, Prof. Piar Singh to denigrate Daljit Singh. The reason for the dispute (between Piar Singh and Daljit Singh) was, as Piar Singh maintains the fact that he had disagreed with Daljit Singh concerning the Kartarpur Granth, the manuscript regarded as the one which has been recorded by Bhai Gurdas at Guru Arjan’s dictation. Piar Singh had spent many years working on the manuscript and had come to the conclusion that it is not the original one. This of course, was not what Daljeet Singh had said in his “Essays on the Authenticity of Karatrpuri Bir” and would be held by him to be rank blasphemy.98 However, in essays on the Authenticity of Kartarpuri Bir, Daljit Singh makes no mention of Piar Singh. On one hand, McLeod says that he has explicitly renounced his earlier views about the authenticity of Kartarpuri Bir, but on the other hand, he has no qualms about supporting Piar Singh’s assertion that it is not the original one. “In 1968 I had come upon Jodh Singh’s Sri Kartarpuri Bir De Darshan and this had led me to halt my earlier speculation. I concluded that the issue is still open, and later I was persuaded by my student that my original theory was wrong.”70      In October 1992 a group that included Daljit Singh had visited the library of Guru Nanak Dev University, their purpose being to inspect manuscript 1245 which Pashaura Singh had used extensively while writing his PhD thesis. Their intention was not just to inspect it, but to have it declared it fake. Piar Singh was asked to assist the team and soon discovered that he was not speaking to experts. “Notwithstanding loud pretensions to a knowledge of manuscriptology made by Daljit Singh in his work Authenticity of the Kartarpuri Bir [sic], he could not, by himself, make out any thing of MS 1245 shown to him, I therefore, had to explain to the visitors its peculiar features.”99 From the above, McLeod concludes that an embarrassment of this kind is likely to have been at least a contributory reason for turning Daljit Singh against Piar Singh.100 Daljit Singh as pointed out by McLeod himself was a well-known and prolific author on Sikhism. His Sikhism: A Comparative Study of its Theology and Mysticism is the only work on the systematic analysis of Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat) vis-à-vis other religious systems. In my opinion, this work is a “must read” for the proper understanding of Nanakian philosophy. On the other hand, Piar Singh’s only claim to fame as a Sikh scholar is the same as that of McLeod’s famous student, Pashaura Singh. Both of them opted to prostrate before the ignorant clergyman to restore their honor¾thus making a mockery of academic research. Since 2000, I have studied almost all of McLeod’s writings starting with Guru Nanak and the Sikh religion, in which he has indulged in gross distortion of Guru Nanak’s teachings. He has created a lot of confusion in the minds of readers by distorting Guru Nanak’s teachings, as well as Sikh history and traditions. He has drawn his conclusions and formulated his opinions and theories on various facets of Sikhism without proper investigation of Aad Guru Granth Sahib (AGGS), or Sikh history and traditions. He does not rely on AGGS, which is the only authentic source of Sikh teachings. He does not point out the weakness or flaws in Sikh traditions and historical accounts or provide relevant evidence in support of his views, thus giving the impression to his readers that Sikhism is based on unsound oral tradition. When such theories are challenged, either he remains silent or lets his surrogates including his students, attack his critics. In the meantime, others who piggyback on McLeod ply their trade as Sikh scholars by propagating his baseless theories. Generally, scholars present their work in unambiguous, concise, and definite statements, whereas McLeod does the opposite. He uses “if and but”, “I said this but I also said that”, “yes and no” and “may be and may be not”, leaving it up to the readers to draw their own conclusions. He has used this style throughout his writings and he has replied in the same manner to the questions raised by Gurdev Singh in Perspectives on the Sikh Tradition.101 He uses clever language to blame Gurdev Singh for misunderstanding his writings. In spite of admitting his mistakes or modifying and retracting his earlier statements, he continues to insist on distorting the truth in a clever manner in his answers to Gurdev Singh’s questions. For the sake of brevity I examined the following four answers. a. Guru Gobind Singh did not appoint the Granth Sahib as Guru of Sikhs: McLeod says: According to what I have written Guru Gobind Singh, we are told, did not appoint the Granth Sahib as Guru of the Sikhs. This belief was subsequently adopted by the Sikhs in order to impart cohesion to a hard-pressed people. But this is not what I wrote. What I said was that it may have been the situation, not that it was definitely the case. It was, in other words, a possible theory and it remains no more than that. As a theory I am unwilling to give up. No firm evidence exists for the belief that a pronouncement to this effect was made by Guru Gobind Singh. I do, however, accept that he may have done so and the near-contemporary evidence provided by Sainapat supports this. As a result the theory may be mistaken.102 First of all every Guru before Guru Gobind appointed his successor. Why does McLeod think that Guru Gobind Singh did not and for what reason? Secondly, when he proposed his theory, why did he ignore the contemporary evidence of Sainapat and the views of Sikh historians, for example, his own esteemed friend, J.S. Grewal? Guru Gobind Singh did not nominate any individual as his successor. For nearly a century now the Sikhs had been nurtured in the belief that Guruship was confined to the family of Guru Ram Das. This is explicitly stated not only in the Bachittar Natak towards the end of the seventeenth century but also at the beginning in the vars of Bhai Gurdas. At the time of Guru Gobind Singh’s death, however, there was none in the three generations of the surviving Sodhis who could be considered for taking up this grave responsibility. More important than this was the process by which Guruship had been gradually impersonalized, bringing bani and sangat into parallel prominence with the personal Guru. The decision taken by Guru Gobind Singh did not abolish Guruship itself but personal Guruship. The position of the Guru was henceforth given to the Khalsa and to shabad-bani as a logical development from Guru Nanak’s decision to nominate a disciple as the Guru during his lifetime and his equation of the Shabad with the Guru. As a further logical development, the decision of Guru Gobind Singh crystallized into twin doctrine of Guru-Panth and Guru-Granth. Larger and larger number of Sikh came to believe that Guruship after Guru Gobind Singh was vested in the Khalsa Panth and the Granth.103 Furthermore, Guru Nanak and his successors have pointed out that shabad (bani) is the Guru. When the Jogis asked Guru Nanak, “Who is your Guru or whose disciple are you?” “The shabad (Word) is my Guru and my mind which is focused on the shabad and comprehends it, is the disciple,” he replied. Here he has made it abundantly clear that Guru is the shabad (Divine knowledge), not the Guru person. Guru person is the medium for transmitting the Divine knowledge. AGGS, M, 1, p. 942. Marvelous is the bani (Word) as it is the embodiment of the Formless One and nothing equals it. AGGS, M 3, p. 515. Word is the Guru and Guru is the Word as it contains the elixir of spiritual life. The Guru utters the Word, the Sikh who accepts it, certainly finds salvation through the Word. AGGS, M 4, p. 982. Adi Granth (Pothi) is the place to meet God. In other words, it is the bani enshrined in Adi Granth, which puts a Sikh on the path to realization of God. AGGS, M5, p. 1226. McLeod himself has said the same thing very explicitly: “The Word is the Guru and the mind (which is focused on it) continuously is the disciple.”104 So why is he unwilling to give up his theory that Guru Gobind Singh did not appoint Guru Granth Sahib as Guru? Why is he so adamant on destroying the core of the Sikh belief system that Aad Guru Granth Sahib is the eternal Guru for the Sikhs? Is it just a mere coincidence that he was invited to a Namdhari Conference in 2001? 105 Namdharis do not believe that Guru Gobind Singh appointed Guru Granth Sahib as the Guru of the Sikhs and they have their own line of Gurus after Guru Gobind Singh. b. Jats changed the course of Sikh movement: McLeod says: Gurdev Singh is largely correct with regard to what I say concerning the influence of Jats. There are, however, two further points that should be added. One is that Guru Hargobind’s policy of open warfare must be traced to the hostility that the Mughal authorities in Lahore showed at this time. The presence of a strong Jat constituency in the Panth made Guru Hargobind’s policy possible, but it certainly cannot be held to have caused it. The second point is that the effect of Jat cultural patterns within the Panth is a theory, not an established fact. To this it should be added that I have yet to be persuaded that there is a better theory.106 Why does he still insist, “I have yet to be persuaded that there is a better theory” in spite of the fact that his theory has no merit, and it has been refuted point by point by Jagjit Singh?107,108 And what was he trying to accomplish by advancing this theory in the first place? McLeod was disappointed and frustrated as Sikh scholars rejected his perspective/interpretation of Sikhism and Sikhs expressed very little interest in his writings. His Jat theory is a calculated scheme to kill two birds with one stone. He is trying to win the approval of his writings from Sikh Jats, who constitute a majority of the Panth by appealing to human weakness¾chauvinism. Also, at the same time, he is lending a helping hand to those who have been trying to undermine Sikhism by destroying the cohesiveness of the Panth since 1947. Though McLeod admits that the effect of Jat cultural patterns within the Panth is a theory, not an established fact, others are still propagating this absurd theory as an established fact. Recently, Prof. Mark Juergenmeyer padded his resume by authoring, “The Sword of Sikhism”: A study of Sikh militancy.” He states: “Members of the tribal group, the Jats, began joining the Sikh community at the end of the sixteenth century. They were great warriors and imposed their martial values and symbols onto the whole of the Sikh community.”109 Where did Juergenmeyer learn that Jats were warriors before joining the Sikh movement? He did not even bother to check the criticism of “Jat theory” by Jagjit Singh107,108 and J.S. Grewal110 or McLeod’s own altered views on the subject. Moreover, the Indian history is silent about the role of Jats as warriors from 710 AD when a young Muslim commander, Mohammed Bin Qassem led an expedition to Sindh and looted town after town in the Jat heartland and carried away thousands of men and women as slaves. There is no evidence that the Jats of Sindh, Rajasthan, Punjab, Haryana, and Uttar Pardesh ever fought against Muslim invaders. How could they? Being Shudra, they were not allowed to wear arms, which was the prerogative of Rajputs and Khatris according to caste rules. Whereas Rajputs were among the celebrated commanders of the Mughal army, there is no evidence that the Mughals recruited Jats in the armed forces. Furthermore, to escape persecution from Muslim rulers, a majority of the Jat population converted to Islam. Ishwinder Singh has aptly pointed out that Juergenmeyer has given no reference to support his statement; instead he has relied on McLeod’s The Evolution of the Sikh Community. “They were great warriors and imposed their martial values and symbols onto the whole of the Sikh community” implies that it is an established fact.111 What a travesty of historical truth and disregard for academic ethics? c. Gurus did not preach one religious doctrine: Earlier McLeod claimed that the ten Gurus did not preach one set of religious doctrine or system and particularly the third Guru created new institutions on old Hindu lines, the very thing Guru Nanak had spurned.112 Now he has retracted most of these statements. The ten Gurus did preach one set of doctrines. The paramount stress that Guru Nanak laid on the nam and regular practice of nam simran lay at the very heart of the system that was upheld by all the Gurus from the first to the tenth. The features that were introduced by the third Guru were additions, not changes. … The fact that Guru Amar Das introduced customs that were taken from Hindu society apparently has much to do with Gurdev Singh’s objection. There was, however, nothing wrong with doing this, provided that Guru Nanak’s emphasis on the nam was preserved. For Amar Das it was an entirely natural source. The problem lies rather in the insistent message of Kahn Singh Nabha and the Singh Sabha movement that ham hindu nahin (We are not Hindu).113 He does not explain why the assertion “We are not Hindu” is not compatible with Guru Nanak’s teachings or the practices that Guru Amar Das introduced. Did not Guru Arjan say the same thing¾we are neither Hindu nor Muslim? Neither do we fast like Hindus, nor observe Ramadan like Muslims. We dwell only on the One, Who protects everyone. We don’t follow the Hindu or Muslim religion. We dwell on the One, Whom Hindus call Gusain* and Muslims call Allah. Neither do we go on a pilgrimage to Mecca, nor to sacred Hindu centers. We serve only the One, not anyone else. Neither do we follow the Hindu worship or the Muslim prayer. We meditate on the Formless One. We are neither Hindus nor Muslims. Our bodies and breaths belong to the Almighty, Whom people call Allah or Ram. Hey Kabir, “Say that we have found the Lord through Guru’s guidance.” *Gusani means Lord of the Earth. AGGS, M 5, p. 1136. By saying “The problem lies rather in the insistent message of Kahn Singh Nabha and the Singh Sabha Movement that ham hindu nahin (we are not Hindu)” McLeod is endorsing Harjot Oberoi’s thesis, The Construction of Religious Boundaries and the views of those who claim that Sikhs are “Kesadhari Hindus”. That is why in his writings he makes no mention of the Sikhs being described as Hindus in article 25 (2b) of the Indian constitution or of the imposition of the Hindu Code Bill on them. McLeod says, “My primary objective has been to communicate an understanding of the Sikh people and their religion to educated Western readers, and that consequently, it is important that I speak to their mode of understanding.”23 There is no doubt that he has succeeded in communicating his version of Sikhism to Western readers. For example, Crispin Paine published an article “Sikh Pilgrimage: A Study in Ambiguity” in which he out did even McLeod in distorting the Gurus’ teachings about pilgrimage. He starts out by claiming that even Guru Nanak himself was ambivalent toward pilgrimages.114 There is hardly any verse of gurbani in the article that the author did not distort to support his thesis. In a befitting response to this article, Ishwinder Singh in his article “Sikh Pilgrimage: A search for Ambiguity”115 makes it very clear that he is primarily concerned with the teachings of Sikh Gurus with regard to pilgrimage, not what the Sikhs practice. And Singh concluded that there is no ambiguity in the teachings of Gurus with regard to pilgrimage: the only pilgrimage is the awareness of the Infinite within each of us. The integrity and credibility of McLeod and Paine is vividly reflected in their terse comments on Ishwinder Singh’s rebuttal published in the SikhSpectrum.116 “It is an exploratory paper and I am absolutely delighted if in some way I have helped to prompt discussion of these matters,” remarked Paine. He does not acknowledge the mistakes in his paper, amounting to gross distortion of the Gurus’ teachings with regard to pilgrimage. He is not bothered a bit. He is happy to add one more fraudulent publication to his resume. McLeod says, “The article is very well written, as it brings out the teachings of the Gurus clearly. If Sikhs fully accept their teachings, why then are they so attached to Darbar Sahib?” Look at the logic of McLeod! Not only has he changed the subject altogether, but has even injected the “Darbar Sahib” into the fruitless debate. He admonishes the Sikhs for not being faithful to the teachings of the Gurus. He completely ignores Paine’s distortion and offers no word of advice to Paine. Is it because Paine is simply exaggerating what McLeod himself said in The Evolution of Sikh community? Why do articles like Paine’s “Sikh Pilgrimage: A Study in Ambiguity” get published in Western journals? “We publish only novel and high quality work,” is the answer I got from Shinder Singh Thandi, one of the editors of International Journal of Punjab Studies. Considering the names of some of the editorial advisors, it is not surprising why Shinder Singh Thandhi considers distortion of Sikhism as novel work.117 d. Guru Nanak and the Sant Tradition: In Aad Guru Granth Sahib, the words sant, sadh and bhagat occur frequently and interchangeably. Their meaning is the same, and in English, it has been translated as a saint, though it does not convey the proper meaning. In the Adi Granth, compiled in 1604, the honorific “bhagat” is used for Namdev, Kabir, Ravidas and others, and their banis (compositions) are called “bhagat bani”. Had they been known as “sants” at that time, Guru Arjan would have used the honorific “sant” for them. Therefore, sant came to be associated with their names later on. Under the heading “Academic Statements Which Do Not Agree With Mine” McLeod has responded only to an article by Shackle et al, though he has cited two more articles, one by Balwinder Bhogal and the other by Nirvikar Singh. It is not difficult to understand why he did not discuss Nirvikar Singh’s article: “Guru Nanak and the ‘Sants’: A Reappraisal.”    Was Guru Nanak a “Sant”? What does the term “Sant tradition” mean in this context? This paper surveys the state of academic responses to these questions. We make the case that the concept of “Sant tradition” and the membership of Guru Nanak in that tradition are quite problematic. In doing so we argue that previous attempts to frame arguments on these issues in terms of “historical scholarship” versus faith are flawed and sometimes ahistorical themselves. Instead, alternative answers emerge from within standard scholarly inquiry, depending on varying interpretations and combinations of fragmentary historical facts. We show how this process of interpretation and selection occurs particularly in W.H. McLeod’s writings on the subject. We also discuss the nature of the sources used by scholars, and the biases that may thereby be introduced.118 In response to this article, McLeod complained about why he was singled out as the main target in the article. But he was forced to acknowledge the fact that the “sant tradition” label applied to Northern Indian bhakats (bhagats) such as Kabir and Ravidas does not emerge until the nineteenth century. Nevertheless, he argues that the term is useful in distinguishing individuals such as these from Vaishnava sarguna bhakats.119 It is a lame argument, as he has not made any effort to distinguish Sikh Gurus from other categories of gurus. On the contrary, he has made an unsuccessful attempt to link them to Nath yogis and Vaishnava bhakats through his so-called sant tradition: “It was the influence of Nath doctrine and practice upon Vaishnava bhakti, which was primarily responsible for the emergence of the Sant synthesis. Muslim beliefs, both Sufi and orthodox, had at most a marginal effect.”120 He gives his favorite answer, “yes and no” to the question: was Guru Nanak a Sant?119