My rejoinder to Professor I.J. Singh that The Sikh Review refused to publish. Prof. Singh's letter is published below.

In his response (The Sikh Review (T.S.R.), May 2006, p. 78) to my rejoinder (T.S.R., April 2006, pp. 71-74) to “Endowed Chairs in Sikhism at Western Universities” (T.S.R., February 2006, pp. 56-59), Prof. I.J. Singh has ignored the questions I raised about the false and misleading statements in that article. Instead, he now says that I grossly misread their position and suggests that I reread his review articles on the works of Prof. McLeod and his associates. I would request Prof. Singh to reread his article and my rejoinder carefully and point out where I am wrong?

Prof. Singh says, “Our essay was NOT intended to analyze the idea of Sikh Chairs, much less to evaluate their academic achievements, or to promote the model. Its primary purpose was quite narrow ¾ to look at what the expectations of American/UK universities – and community - are, when chairs are established. If the chairs are to be established, we need to understand how the system works.”

1. If this was their primary objective in publishing the article “Endowed Chairs in Sikhism at Western Universities” then it failed to clearly communicate their objective. Besides, I would like Prof. Singh to explain how does the following paragraph in the aforementioned article tally with their objective as stated by them.

While Muslims swordsmen conquered for the faith, Christian missionaries were willing to explore tentatively on the frontiers of empire to bring the good news to even a few more souls. … In our own Sikh tradition, beginning right from the time of our Gurus, Sikh theologians were sent to the centers of higher learning such as the famous Benaras Hindu University for research and dialogue.

Doesn’t this paragraph represent gross distortion of the history of Islam, Christianity and Sikhism? If Prof. Singh feels that I am wrong then can he provide me with answers to the following two questions?

a. When did Islamic armies invade Indonesia, Malaysia, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Philippines and Tanzania? What happened to the aborigines of Australia, Americas and Africa when Christians conquered and colonized the native populations? Why was Maharaja Dalip Singh, a ten-year old boy kidnapped by British colonists and converted to Christianity?

b. Who were the Sikh Gurus who sent Sikh theologians for research and dialogue to the famous “Benaras Hindu University”? Can he also name these Sikh theologians? Furthermore, did the famous Benaras University or anything like it exist at the time of the Sikh Gurus?

According to Aad Guru Granth Sahib (p. 476) Benaras was known as the center of thugs. Moreover, didn’t Guru Nanak reject all essentials of Hinduism: incarnation of God, caste system, transmigration, karma, hell, heaven, gods, goddesses, idol worship, and the method or approach to attain salvation as preached by Indian and Semitic religions? Besides, didn’t he reject Sanskrit as well as its script as a medium for the propagation of his philosophy? Given these truths why would any Guru send Sikhs to Benaras and for what purpose?

2. Furthermore, isn’t the statement “An endowed Chair is the highest honor that can be bestowed upon a professor, who has already accumulated an excellent track record in the specialty area” misleading?

If this were the case then what was Harjot Oberoi, Pashaura Singh or Gurinder Singh Mann’s “already accumulated excellent track record” before they occupied these Sikh Chairs? To my knowledge the one “common outstanding qualification” of the three is their relationship to McLeod, who supervised Pashaura Singh’s thesis and was consultant to Oberoi and Mann for their Ph.D. theses.

3. I have read Prof. I.J. Singh’s writings on Sikhism, his reviews and other general articles. I regard all of his writings, including book reviews, as “popular writings” because he never quotes Aad Guru Granth Sahib or provides documentary evidence in support of his arguments. Scholarly reviews of academic work require strong documentary evidence and logical arguments; mere statements are meaningless.

4. In their article I.J. Singh and his co-authors have given the impression that Western universities are autonomous and work on the principle of “academic freedom,” but this is not necessarily true. For example, what often goes on in the “departments of humanities” is not research for “truth” but propaganda to advance particular viewpoint/agenda. Quite often faculty members work as consultants to various governmental agencies including intelligence gathering and spying. So what is often cloaked as academic freedom may be academic terror, academic oppression or academic colonization.

5.Since Prof. Singh and his co-authors have vast academic experiences and first hands knowledge of “how the system works” at Western universities, would they kindly explain to the Sikhs how a discredited candidate, who was demoted from assistant professor to a lecturer at the University of Michigan, got an appointment as full professor in the same field/specialty at University of California (Riverside)?

Finally, I want to remind Sikhs, particularly the advocates and sponsors of Sikh Chairs, that “Sikh resources” are being used to undermine “Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat/Sikhi) and the Sikh Identity.” We ignore the Punjabi proverb, apnia jutian apne sier (one is beaten on the head by the enemy by one’s own shoes) at our own peril.

Note: The article “Endowed Chairs in Sikhism at Western Universities” that started this debate was published by Raghbir Singh Basi, I.J. Singh, Harbans Lal and Indarjit Singh in the Sikh Review, February 2006, pp. 56-59.