|
|
|
|
|
||
Chapter 2
McLeod’s Credentials as a Historian
Scholars know that research in any field is the
determination of facts. Obtaining facts and their further analysis to drive
home the truth through careful investigation is no easy skill to acquire. The
integrity of a scholar is fundamental to objective research. Research done with
a bias or motive leads to erroneous and unsustainable results. In other words,
a research scholar is the disseminator of truth, and not a propagandist. A
researcher adds to our knowledge of the subject via careful investigation based
on sound reasoning and solid evidence, not on wild speculation, assumptions,
hearsays and flimsy evidence. Research clarifies the information pool on the
subject and not makes it murkier or muddier. In this respect, the words of Guru
Nanak are very relevant and timely:
It is astonishing that in the age of Kal Yug
(nowadays) an impure/defective object is called pure/genuine and an ignorant
person is called an erudite, as truth is not recognized.
AGGS, M 1, p. 229.
O Priest (pandey)! Do not tell lies, speak the truth; cure your
self-conceit by imbibing the Truth.
AGGS, M 1, p. 904.
One loses credibility by one’s own actions and no
one trusts him/her again.
AGGS, M 5, p. 268.
Nanak, ultimately falsehood is defeated and truth
triumphs.
AGGS, M 1, p. 953.
McLeod keeps talking ad nauseam that his critics do
not understand his “Western methodology of
historical research.” Now the question is where did he learn the rigors
required for implementing “Western methodology of historical research,” since
his training was in the field of Christian theology as a Christian missionary,
a profession riddled with blind faith, which carries barely a hint of “Western
methodology of historical research!” As discussed in chapter 1, neither his
thesis supervisor nor thesis examiners had a clue of what he was doing! So who
trained him in the discipline of research on Religion or the History of
Religion? Besides, where is the evidence that he has the temperament, training
and knowledge of Aad Guru Granth
Sahib, the only authentic source of Nanakian
philosophy (Gurmat),
which is necessary to conduct any meaningful research on Sikhism?
In the
years that followed since the publication of
Guru Nanak and the Sikh Religion in 1968, many Sikh scholars have critiqued
his works and oddly enough, while responding to his critics, McLeod has used a
five-pronged strategy to defend himself and deflect the criticism.
First, McLeod insists that his
critics are traditionalists or conservative or fundamentalists who do not
appreciate and understand “his methodology of historical research”.
Second, he ignores or neglects to
respond to criticism of his work as long as possible and when he does, he uses
surrogates to attack his critics.1
Third, McLeod singles out
non-academic critics for vehement attack, while keeping silent about academic
critics.
Fourth, he misleads readers by
claiming that it is not only him, but even Sikh scholars of repute who have
been harassed and vilified, and
Fifth, he claims that younger
Sikhs especially those living in the Diaspora understand and appreciate his
work.
In
defending his work, McLeod employs the following tactics:
The
pattern that I have devised was never to represent the teachings of Guru Nanak
in the form in which they had been delivered in the early decades of the
sixteenth century. It was, however, a pattern that could be understandable to
readers educated in the Western manner.2
The
second factor is that I am a Western historian, trained in the Western methods
of historical research and adhering to Western notions of historiography. No
attempt has ever been made to conceal this fact. I have always maintained that
I am a Western historian and if that status deprives me of reasonable
understanding of Sikhism then so be it. … 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. At least as far as the religion of Sikhs is concerned
the object of my research has certainly not been to tell Sikhs what they should
believe. It is to tell inquisitive Westerners what Sikhism apparently means in
terms they can understand. This, it should be noted, does not apply to this
book, which is primarily for Sikhs. My previous works have, however, been
directed at Westerners or at others who have been educated by Western methods
and who think in a Western mode.3
Scholars
argue logically in a scholarly manner to defend their work whereas McLeod
argues, “I have always maintained that I am a Western historian and if that
status deprives me of reasonable understanding of Sikhism then so be it.” Does
the “Western education system” or “Western methodology of historical research”
permit the teaching of a distorted version of Sikhism to “inquisitive educated
Westerners”? Only paid propagandists make such statements! The objective of
research in any field is to find the truth.
McLeod
has been a prolific writer on Sikhism since 1968, but he has not bothered to
respond to the vigorous and serious criticism of his work in a professional
manner. Isn’t it strange that after more than three decades, in 2004, he tells
us that his writings are for the “inquisitive Westerners” or those “educated by
Western methods and who think in a Western mode?” Isn’t it ironic that his
“research on Sikhism” is not meant for Sikhs? Isn’t it then bizarre when he
asserts that Discovering the Sikhs:
Autobiography of a Historian is primarily for the Sikhs, as he wants to
explain his methodology to them?
This
means that the book is primarily for the Sikhs. To them can
be added the small number of Western scholars who regard Sikh history and
religion as their chief concern, and I would hope also that those who follow
History in general (particularly the History of Religion) will have their
attention enlisted. … It should be remembered, however, that basically
this book is a work in which I seek to explain my method to the Sikhs. I
endeavor to spell it out clearly and to define for them what features lie
behind the various books and articles I have published.4
Research
often generates controversies, more so in the humanities than in the hard
sciences. 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. When someone’s work is challenged or criticized, it is
resolved in a professional manner promptly via dialogue through publications,
or seminars and conferences. Did McLeod do any of that?
During my
research career of forty years, I have published many articles and attended and
participated in many seminars and conferences but I have never heard of a
scholar who regarded the criticism of his or her work as personal attack or
offensive or failed to respond to the criticism of his/her work. Here we have
McLeod who started writing on Sikhism in 1960s but failed to respond to the
criticism of his work until 2004 when he published his autobiography. It is no
wonder that the “younger generation” of Sikh scholars mentioned in Tiwana’s article such as Gurinder
Singh Mann, Jeevan Singh Deol,
Pashaura Singh, Nikki Guninder
Kaur Singh, Harjot Oberoi and I. J. Singh “who hold McLeod in high esteem”
also walk in McLeod’s footsteps, as they too turn a deaf ear when their
research is questioned or challenged. None of them responds to the criticism of
their work.
To genuine
scholars their scholarly reputation is of utmost importance. To protect their
credibility they defend any challenge to their research. I cannot think of one
reason why genuine scholars will not respond to criticism. Only a paid propagandist revels in spreading
false information. Inspite of all this Tiwana wants
the Sikhs to trust McLeod’s writings because J.S. Grewal,
Pritam Singh, Khushwant
Singh and the “younger generation” of Sikh scholars hold McLeod in high esteem.
In my lengthy and detailed review of Prof. Doris Jakobsh’s
Relocating
Gender in Sikh History Transformation, Meaning and Identity
(SikhSpectrum.com, November 2006) I have
demonstrated that she has misinterpreted all the verses of gurbani (Guru’s hymns) to claim that Sikh Gurus were anti-women and
maligned the Sikhs using anti-Sikh writings. Did any of the scholars whom Tiwana wants the Sikhs to trust take notice of Jakobsh’s work? On the other hand, Prof. Harjot Oberoi supervised her work
and, Prof. Pashaura Singh hailed her work as:
“Notwithstanding these criticisms, Jakobsh’s book still stands out as a major contribution to
Sikh studies and to the field of gender studies in general. It is written in an
engaging style. It is likely to generate a lively debate within the Sikh
community on the position of women in Sikhism. I strongly recommend it to both
specialists and lay readers.”5
Before I started writing my review, I called Nikki Guninder Kaur Singh to find out
if she had responded to Jakobsh’s work, as Jakobsh had ridiculed her scholarship.
She responded respectfully, “Uncle, Doris is a good
friend, neither have I responded to her work nor I would, we do not do that
sort of a thing.”
I asked, “Why do you think that Guru Gobind Singh is the author of Chandi Dee Var.”
“Uncle I grew up listening this from my father,
Prof. Harbans Singh, the author of Encyclopedia of
Sikhism,” she replied.
“Well that Encyclopedia has superficial and
superfluous information and statements that are contradictory and an outright
repudiation of Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat),” I
countered.
That ended the dialogue.
Recently, while working on an article on Khushwant Singh, I was looking for some important
information on Sir Sobha Singh who is also Khushwant Singh’s father. The information about Sir Sobha Singh in Harbans Singh’s
Encyclopedia is all praise and flattery with the omission of a crucial fact
that Sir Sobha Singh was the prosecution witness
against the legendary Bhagat Singh, a hero of the
Indian people.6
Further,
Tiwana wants Sikhs to trust or listen only to those
critics of McLeod whose works are published by prestigious publishing houses
like Oxford University Press or Cambridge University Press. When anyone
determines the worth of someone’s work on the basis of whether it was published
by a prestigious publication house like Oxford University Press or Cambridge
University Press then it is nothing more than a naked display of ignorance. Unsubstantiated
facts and false information packaged and published by Oxford University Press
or The Sikh Review or Daily Ajit or The Tribune will always remain false. If
the author cannot defend his work or is afraid to subject it to public scrutiny
then what difference does it make whether it was published by Oxford University
Press or in a cheap tabloid.
In
my opinion the three best books on Sikhism are (i) Sikhism: A Comparative Study of its Theology
and Mysticism by Daljeet Singh, (ii) The Sikh Revolution: A Perspective View
by Jagjit Singh, and (iii) A Construction of Sikh History From Sikh Literature by Surjeet Hans published by Singh Brothers, Bahri Publications and ABS Publications, respectively.
Furthermore, Professor Sahib Singh’s monumental work Shri Guru Granth Sahib Darpan
(ten part series), Bhai Kahan
Singh’s Mahan Kosh
and Max A. Macauliffe’s The Sikh Religion are published by Raj
Publishers, National Book Shop and Low Price Publications, respectively. Does Tiwana want us to believe that none of these works are to
be taken seriously since they were not published by
Khushwant
Singh, whose books were published by the Princeton University Press in 1960s,
does not understand the purpose and the accomplishment of the Sikh Revolution,
not to speak of the unique and liberating philosophy of universal humanism of Aad Guru Granth Sahib. In the
1960s Khushwant described Sikhism as an offspring
“born out of the wedlock between Hinduism and Islam.”7 Whereas in his interview with Tiwana in 2003, he called Sikhs as Kesadhari (one who keeps
unshorn hair) Hindus and Aad Guru Granth Sahib as the
essence of Vedas and Upanishads.8 Similarly,
J.S. Grewal whose The
Sikhs Of The Punjab is published by the Cambridge University Press makes no
mention of the Jallianwala Bagh
massacre.9 Why? Jallianwala Bagh massacre is arguably one of the most despicable events
in the history of British colonial rule over
Highlighting McLeod’s
accomplishments, Tiwana writes:
He has admirers in
One would think that we have come a long way from
the 19th century when according to the 1881 census conducted by the British, Sikhs were the most illiterate community in
It is understandable that Navtej
Randhawa’s great-grandfather may have been
illiterate, but what about Navtej or Tiwana, as there are excellent education facilities readily
accessible both in
References
1. Baldev Singh. “An Unacademic
Advice”, Abstracts of Sikh Studies,
2004, 6 (3), 50-62.
2. W.H.
McLeod. Discovering the
Sikhs: Autobiography of Historian.
3. Ibid.,
p. 129.
4. Ibid.,
p. 1.
5. S.S. Sodhi. “Pashaura Singh calls Jakobsh, book a ‘major contribution’”. The Sikh Review, December 2004, p.71.
6. Gurdev
S. Deol. Shaheed Bhagat Singh: A Biography.
7. W.H.
McLeod. Exploring
Sikhism.
8. J.S. Tiwana. “An Interview With S. Khushwant Singh: Our Grand
Old Man.” The Sikh Bulletin,
September 2003, pp. 13-15.
9. J.S. Grewal. The Sikhs Of The
10. Sangat
Singh. The Sikhs in
History.
Previous Chapter | Table of Contents | Next Chapter
Copyright©2006 Baldev Singh. About the author
Print this Article
Email this Article
Comment on this Article