APPENDIX A

 

W.H. McLeod

 

 

 

Jakobsh’s understanding of Sikhism is based on McLeod’s writings and she has quoted him repeatedly in support of her thesis to spread false propaganda against Sikhism:

 

“W. H. McLeod has almost single-handedly transformed the academic study of Sikhs through his near exhaustive scope of inquiry.”¹

 

It is important and essential for the readers to know how McLeod has become “one of the foremost scholars and the leading authority on Sikhism.” W.H. McLeod has created a unique precedent by getting his Ph.D. in Sikhism with no oversight from the University of London. Enough has been written about McLeod’s “expertise and scholarship” on Sikhism, but it needs to be highlighted here, as McLeod is Jakobsh’s main source on Sikhism ¾ Jakobsh is McLeod’s academic grandchild¾a lineage of fraudulent research on Sikhism.

 

While McLeod was studying at the Theological Hall, he had second thoughts about his chosen career as a clergyman.² And he dreaded the thought of a parish life in New Zealand.³ However, after completing his studies in 1957, somehow he managed to go to Punjab at a time when the entry of Western missionaries was banned in India. At that time due to the ongoing “Cold War,” Europeans coming to India were suspected as CIA or British intelligence agents, but here was McLeod, a Presbyterian missionary in Punjab, the state which shares border with Pakistan, India’s perpetual sworn enemy, and Kashmir a disputed territory. He obtained his Ph.D. in Sikhism unfairly from the University of London and got himself declared as the leading authority on Sikhism through clever maneuvers. Prof. A.L. Basham, his supervisor, knew hardly anything about Guru Nanak and very little about the Punjabi language. This is how McLeod writes about his experience with his research supervisor:

 

Apparently, and as expected he made only three minor changes to the thesis; one of which was his insistence on the use of the plural form “appendices” instead of “appendixes. … Once a month I was required to appear before him and report progress and difficulties. I would outline the difficulties and at each of them he would nod his head wisely and make some such comment as “Yes, that is a problem”, or “That is a difficulty we all have.” After the interview was over I would ask myself what have I gained from it and the answer would be that I had derived nothing. Professor Basham was, however, an experienced supervisor and even if I received no direct guidance concerning my thesis topic I did at least get the understanding noises which at that time I needed.⁴

 

Moreover, McLeod had very little interaction with the two examiners who did not even read the complete thesis before approving it.⁵ Again in McLeod’s own words:

 

When I presented myself for the viva on July 13th Dr. Allchin, one of the examiners whom I had not previously met, opened the questioning by frowning very severely at me. “Mr. McLeod,” he said, “We have a serious criticism to make of this thesis.” This, needless to say, is just what the nervous candidate does not want to hear. Dr. Allchin paused and then went on: “You did not allow us sufficient time to read it.” It was a joke and he and the other examiner Professor Parrinder, together with Professor Basham, joined in the jolly laughter. It soon became clear, however, that neither examiner had in fact managed to read the complete thesis, and after a single question from each I was dismissed. Fortunately they both agreed to sustain the thesis. ⁵

                       

It should not surprise anyone that Prof. Parrinder knew nothing of Guru Nanak and the Sikh religion except what he learned from McLeod’s thesis.⁶ In other words, McLeod himself was the supervisor as well as the examiner of his thesis. Then who determined the veracity of the contents of the thesis? And who ascertained its adequacy for the award of a Ph.D. degree? After all, the thesis was not about English literature; it was about Guru Nanak’s authentic teachings enshrined in Aad Guru Granth Sahib (AGGS) as pointed out by McLeod himself:

 

The Adi Granth contains a substantial number of works by Guru Nanak. These can all be accepted as authentic. It is clear that Guru Arjan compiled the Adi Granth with considerable care and the principal source, which he used, was a collection, which had been recorded at the instance of the third Guru, Amar Das, who was only ten years younger than Guru Nanak.⁷

One may ask McLeod why didn’t he pick a thesis supervisor or examiners with expertise in Sikhism? One may even question the University of London for falling short on the standards. Was Fauja Singh, “an honest and honorable historian of Punjab”⁸ or Ganda Singh, “certainly an eminent Sikh historian” ⁹ or any other Indian scholar not good enough to be his thesis supervisor or examiner? Besides, why were the contents of the thesis kept out of view until November 1968^{10, 11} while the University of London accepted the thesis in July 1965?¹² Why were even his friends, Ganda Singh and Harbans Singh,¹⁰,¹¹ who had offered assistance in his work, kept in the dark until 1968 when “Guru Nanak and the Sikh Religion” was released ¾ upon which McLeod was hailed as  “widely known as being among the foremost scholars of Sikh studies in the world?”¹¹

 

Generally, scholars spend many years and sometimes their entire research career before being recognized as “being among the foremost scholars in their field” by their peers. But here McLeod was awarded this distinction by R.C. Zaehner (1913-74), Professor of Eastern Religion and Ethics at the University of Oxford,^{11, 13} who reviewed Guru Nanak and the Sikh Religion in the Times Literary Supplement in 1968.¹⁴ In other words, McLeod became “one of the foremost scholars of Sikhism” simply through the publication of his Ph.D. thesis which bypassed all the rigors of academic reviews.¹⁴ Did Zaehner, who was an alcoholic, ¹³ know anything about Guru Nanak’s teachings? After the publication of Zaehner’s review, McLeod rightly expressed his jubilation: “Professor Zaehner could never have known what joy he created!”¹¹ From thereon, McLeod has never missed an opportunity to self-promote himself.

 

Given this historical background, one wouldn’t be wrong to question his academic credentials, the quality of his scholarship and academic ethics. While at the same time one would not be wide off the mark to understand “how and why” McLeod manipulated the mantra: “one of the foremost scholars of Sikhism”¹⁵ to spread misinformation about Sikhism persistently and consistently since the 1960s. For example, Sikhs have endowed several Sikh Chairs in North America. Is it a mere coincidence that the holders of the three chairs have one common outstanding qualification ¾ their relationship to McLeod? He supervised Pashaura Singh’s Ph.D. thesis and was consultant to Harjot Oberoi and Gurinder Singh Mann for their Ph.D. researches.

 

For detailed analysis of McLeod’s writings, see: www.globalsikhstudies.net; www.sikhspectrum.com (August 2005); Abstracts of Sikh Studies, July-September 2005, pp.6-76.

 

 

 

 

References

 

1. Doris R. Jakobsh. Relocating Gender In Sikh History: Transformation, Meaning and Identity. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2003, p. 233.

2. W. H. McLeod. Discovering the Sikhs: Autobiography of a Historian. Delhi: Permanent Black, 2004, pp. 22-23.

3. Ibid., pp. 26-28.

4. Ibid., p. 39.

5. Ibid., p. 40.

6. Ibid., p. 63.

7. W. H. McLeod. Guru Nanak and the Sikh Religion. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1996, p. 162.

8. W. H. McLeod. Discovering the Sikhs: Autobiography of a Historian. Delhi: Permanent Black, 2004, p. 148.

9. Ibid., p. 137.

10. Ibid., pp. 46-47.

11. Ibid., pp. 62-63.

12. Ibid., pp. 39-40.

13. Ibid., P. 68.

14. Ibid., p. 62.

15. W. H. McLeod. Guru Nanak and the Sikh Religion. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1996, cover.

Previous Chapter | Table of Contents | Next Chapter

Copyright©2006 Baldev Singh. About the author

Print this Article                Email this Article                Comment on this Article