|
|
|
|
|
||
Chapter 3
McLeod’s Ethics, Part I
While
J.S. Grewal, Pritam Singh, Khushwant Singh and I.J. Singh were acting as cheer leaders
for McLeod, it was Daljeet Singh who exposed McLeod’s
“Western methodology of historical research” and his academic ethics. For
example:
McLeod
questioned the authenticity of Kartarpuri Bir (Adi Granth, 1604 CE) and asserted that it is a copy of Banno Bir (1642 CE)
without even looking at Kartarpuri Bir or Bano Bir, and
without studying the relevant literature on the subject.1 To reach
this conclusion, he relied heavily on the writings of a discredited and
unskilled researcher, G.B. Singh (Gurbakhash Singh,
1877-1950) who himself had never seen the Kartarpuri Bir.2 But he ignored the works of Bhai
Jodh Singh who had meticulously examined both the
manuscripts3 or the works of Mahan Singh, Gurdit
Singh, Harbhajan Singh, and Pritam
Singh who had examined the Banno Bir.4
In 1984,
McLeod prepared a textual source book on Sikh religion for the
Further,
McLeod complains that Daljeet Singh’s criticism is
unfair because he [McLeod] had already renounced explicitly his earlier opinion
about Kartarpuri Bir6 and accuses Daljeet Singh of “selective reading.”
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 Pashaura Singh that my
original theory was wrong. Daljeet Singh was
obviously aware that I had read Jodh Singh’s book,
but still builds his argument on the portion which I had disowned.7
Perspectives on the Sikh Tradition
was followed soon after by a work clearly illustrating this practice of
selective amnesia. It was a small book with a lengthy title: Daljeet Singh’s Essays
on the Authenticity of Kartarpuri Bir
and the Integrated Logic and Unity of
Sikhism, comprising two lectures given at
“However,
this is not the impression that the reader gets on reading the relevant pages,”
remarks Ishwinder Singh.9 McLeod’s
assertions “I say explicitly that I had renounced them or withdrawn them
totally” are patently false. Ishwinder Singh is
absolutely correct, as I myself could not find these statements on the relevant
pages: 75-79 of The Evolution of the Sikh
Community in Sikhs and Sikhism
published in 1999. Nor there is any mention of “I was persuaded by my student Pashaura Singh that my original theory was wrong” in The Evolution of the Sikh Community, pp.
75-79 or Pashaura Singh’s Ph.D. thesis, pp. 138-139.10
Besides, McLeod
makes ludicrous statement when he says: “I certainly used these words, but only
in order to withdraw them totally in the paragraph that followed.” He first
makes a false statement: portions of the Kartarpur
text were ‘rather ineptly obliterated’, and then withdraws it totally in the
next paragraph. He justifies such statements under the cloak of “Western
methods of historical research.” Notwithstanding his assertion, “I say
explicitly that I had renounced them or withdrawn them totally,” McLeod
continues to cast doubts on the authenticity of Kartarpuri Bir.
“The
problem, which confronts us, arises from a comparison of the Kartarpur and Banno versions. We
note, in the first place, that the claim to the originality made on behalf of
the Kartarpur manuscript appears to be sound. Dr. Jodh Singh has argued this in a manner, which seems to be
entirely convincing.”11
Having
said that McLeod raises four questions regarding the extra material included in
the Banno version, which is absent in the Kartarpur manuscript and proposes solutions to reconcile
the difference between the two manuscripts. And he argues: “Finally, there was
ample evidence that others had already formed the same suspicion concerning the
Kartarpur manuscript and were seeking alternative
explanations.”12 Finally, after discussing Jodh
Singh’s Sri Kartarpuri
Bir De Darshan, he says
“it raises once again issues which previously had seemed to be satisfactorily
settled.” … “From this report it is clear that the issue should still be
regarded as open.” … “Whereas the hymns by Mira Bai
and Sur Das involve
interesting textual problems of no great significance, the same certainly
cannot be said about the Ramakali hymn by Guru Arjan.” Thus he goes on to renew his suspicion about the Ramakali hymn.13
The
bottom line is that McLeod does not say anywhere on pages 75-79 of The Evolution of the Sikh Community that
his earlier views about Kartarpuri Bir were
mistaken, and that he had explicitly renounced them. Moreover, Daljeet Singh did not condemn him, he simply responded in a
scholarly manner to the questions he raised about the Kartarpuri
Bir and solutions he proposed to reconcile the
difference between Kartarpur and Banno
versions “without even looking at both the manuscripts.” McLeod keeps harping
that being a Western historian he relies only on rigorous proof. But he
questioned the authenticity of Kartarpuri Bir and asserted that it is a copy of Banno Bir, without
even looking at both of them, but on the basis of unreliable evidence: The
writings of G.B. Singh2 and Sant Inder Singh Chakarvarti14 and, a “conversation
he had with C.H. Loehlin.”14
After
studying G.B. Singh’s writings on the Kartarpuri Bir, Bhai Jodh
Singh known for his polite manners and level-headedness remarked:
“In fact
every literate person would be ashamed of the manner in which G.B. Singh has
abused the word research.”15
Sant
Inder Singh Chakarvarti was
a preacher of the heretic Namdhari sect. Namdharis never miss the opportunity to subvert Sikhism, as
they believe in a line of living (physically fleshy) Gurus after Guru Gobind Singh and do not believe that Guru Gobind Singh invested Guruship on
the Aad Guru Granth Sahib.
Moreover, according to Jodh Singh, Sant Inder Singh Chakarvarti had no firsthand knowledge of the Kartarpuri Bir and had
nowhere stated that he saw or studied that manuscript.16 C.H. Loehlin was an American missionary, who was Vice-Principal
of Baring Union Christian College at Batala,
The
foregoing discussion makes it abundantly clear that it is not Daljeet Singh who practices “selective amnesia” but it is
McLeod who practices deceit! Daljeet Singh is
absolutely right when he concludes: McLeod’s criticism of the Kartarpuri Bir is “factually
incorrect, untenable, and, in parts, even misleading.”18 Is it not
ironic that Prof. Barrier wants us to believe: “Hew is very direct in
terms of his presentation of facts, quick to give others the benefit of doubt,
and careful in reaching broad conclusions?”19
Finally, McLeod is a master of
deception par excellence. For example, on page 112, he accuses Daljeet Singh of unfairly criticizing him for his views on Kartarpuri Bir6 which he says
he had explicitly renounced or totally withdrawn.8 However, on page 172 he
still raises questions about the Kartarpuri Bir.
The general question of the nature of the Kartarpuri text is still open, though not as a result of
anything that I have written. Many years ago I decided that questions
concerning the Adi Granth
were altogether too sensitive for an outsider to handle and that all research
should be left to scholars who were also Sikhs. The books by Piar Singh, Pashaura Singh, Gurinder Singh Mann and Balwant
Singh Dhillon show that the origin and nature of the
manuscript are still being debated and there are some considerable differences
of opinion. 20
Now would
Mr. Tiwana and his favorite scholars Khushwant Singh, J.S. Grewal, Pritam Singh, Gurinder Singh Mann, Jeevan Singh Deol, Pashaura Singh, Nikki Guninder Kaur Singh, Harjot Oberoi and I.J. Singh show us McLeod’s view, “I
say explicitly that I had renounced them or withdrawn them totally” anywhere in
The Evolution of the Sikh Community?
References
1. Daljeet Singh. Essays
On the Authenticity of Kartarpuri
Bir And The Integrated Logic And Unity Of Sikhism.
2. Ibid.,
pp. 31-37.
3. Ibid.,
pp. vii, xi, 81-87.
4. Ibid., pp.46-47.
5. Ibid.,
p. 73.
6. W. H.
McLeod. Discovering the
Sikhs: Autobiography of a Historian.
7. Ibid.,
p. 171.
8. Ibid.,
p. 112.
9. Ishwinder Singh. “The McLeod
Controversy.” Abstracts Of Sikh Studies, 2004, 6 (1), pp. 71-82.
10. Pashaura Singh, The Text And Meaning
Of The Adi Granth
(Ph.D. Thesis).
11. W.H.
McLeod. The Evolution
of the Sikh Community in Sikhs and
Sikhism.
12.
Ibid., pp. 76-77.
13.
Ibid., p. 78.
14.
Ibid., p. 77.
15. Daljeet Singh. Essays
On The Authenticity Of Kartarpuri
Bir And The Integrated Logic And Unity Of Sikhism.
16.
Ibid., p. 82.
17. W.H.
McLeod. The Evolution
of the Sikh Community in Sikhs and
Sikhism.
18. W.H.
McLeod. Discovering the
Sikhs: Autobiography of a Historian.
19.
Ibid., p. x.
20.
Ibid., p 172.
Previous Chapter | Table of Contents | Next Chapter
Copyright©2006 Baldev Singh. About the author
Print this Article
Email this Article
Comment on this Article