|
|
|
|
|
||
Conclusion
How does McLeod defend his work?
Scholars
defend their research in a professional manner through dialogue and via
publications, seminars and conferences whereas propagandists carry out a
campaign of misinformation using surrogates. That is what McLeod has been doing
since the publication of Guru Nanak and the Sikh Religion in 1968. Let
me cite some examples.
When his
work was repudiated by Daljeet Singh, Jagjit Singh and others, instead of
responding to the criticism in a professional manner he used his student
Pashaura Singh to make personal attacks on the critics and not their work. This
is what Pashaura Singh wrote in his PhD thesis submitted to the
Since then much of the energy of Sikh scholars has
been devoted to proving the authenticity of the Karatrpuri bir [sic] or
recension. A great deal of this energy is directed these days at the writings
of W. H. McLeod, who has been raising questions about Adi Granth and making a
plea for sustained campaign of textual analysis to establish a sure and certain
text. Although McLeod combines sensitivity with meticulous care in his analysis
of Sikh documents, his arguments on Sikh scriptures have been received with
caution within the Sikh community. It is a conspicuous feature of the modern
Panth to perceive critical scholarship as an attack on the Sikh faith. That is
perhaps why the organized response offered by a group of Sikh scholars (of whom
the most notable include retired civil servants of the Government of India and
doctors of medicine, as well as academics) appear to be so defensive that one
can easily sense a feeling of insecurity in their approach. It appears to be a
new phenomenon linked with the post-1984 events. 1
Pashaura
Singh continues to defend McLeod vigorously while assaulting McLeod’s critics.
Here, it is instructive to note that several of the
more vocal critics lead (or at least
led) lives which do not exactly correspond with criticism which they are making
of academic scholars working in the area of Sikh studies. Commenting on the
life styles of three prominent critics, for instance, W.H. McLeod argues that
“one critic had grown his beard only after the [anti-academic] campaign was
initiated and then reverted to shaving; another allowed his children to cut
hair; and a third had previously held views which made it very difficult to
term him a fundamentalist. 2
McLeod
and his supporters have joined various Internet discussions groups of Sikh
laity to defend McLeod by spreading misinformation. To understand the nature of
this unacademic and unethical mode, let me take you to an Internet discussion
among “Sikh Diaspora Discussion Group” on McLeod’s Sikhs of Khalsa. When someone upset
Professor Cole by quoting the works
of Trilochan Singh and Gurdev Singh, he remarked on June 9, 2003 “I wouldn’t
recommend the books by Trilochan Singh or Gurdev Singh. They are vitriolic
rather than academic. But the main point I wish to make is read McLeod for yourself. Don’t accept the judgment of others¾such is the proper approach.”3 Earlier
on June 8, Prof. Barrier cautioned them to wait until:
Hew McLeod deals very specifically with these and
other allegations in his forth coming intellectual autobiography, Discovering the Sikhs. South Asia Books
will have the non-India distribution to the book, an orderly review of facts,
misinformation, and the specific networks of Sikhs who published conference
proceedings and individual papers, primarily in the 1980s and early 1990s. I
will circulate information on the volume when it appears in September. Those
who want to follow the charges, and more than adequate rebuttals by McLeod,
probably should wait until a definitive and systematic work is out and then
compare with the various items referred on the Sikh Diaspora Forum that allegedly
undermine his research and question his motives.3
This
is how Barrier and McLeod describe their experience with these groups:
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. Underlying the narrative is concern with academic honesty combined
with amazement at the degree of ferocity in many of the seminar papers, books
and articles launched to protect Sikhism from its perceived mortal enemy. …
Reviews, essays in cyber chat-rooms or organized forums (i.e. Sikh Diaspora and
Sikhe.com), and debate over identity, historical facts and interpretation,
woman, ritual -- any number of problems daily confronting Sikhs -- all use
Hew’s work either to support arguments or to serve as pawn which can be
denounced and shown to be illegitimate (along with any who might side with his
opinion).
… More and more Sikhs have begun to read Hew’s
articles and books, and, while disagreeing with points or theses, appreciate
what he has done, and take his word, namely, that his method is a historical
approach to tradition and that he respects Sikhism and would do nothing to
injure the sensitivities of Sikhs or cause discomfort.4
Defending Pashaura Singh’s thesis and scholarship
McLeod asserts:
It is in fact a grievous disgrace for those Sikhs
who joined on the hunt against him. Pashaura Singh’s thesis has since been
published by the Oxford University Press in New Delhi as The Guru Granth Sahib: Canon, Meaning and Authority and was a strong
contender for the best book published in Religious Studies for 2000. … From
time to time the Pashaura Singh debate is raised on the Internet (particularly
by Sikh-Diaspora, a discussion group of younger Sikhs). In this case, however,
Pashaura Singh appears to receive far more bouquets than brickbats.5
Further, Barrier’s defense of McLeod and his
scholarship in a foreword he wrote to Discovering
the Sikhs: Autobiography of a Historian makes a very interesting reading
indeed.
“The themes that were to appear again and again in
Sikh reviews of Hew’s work—missionary bias, cultural insensitivity, political
motives, and the like—became commonplace as academics and politicians
characterized his research as a threat to the community and Sikh understanding of
tradition and practice.”6
To impress this point further to the readers he goes
on to say:
Sikh scholars themselves experienced even more
serious attacks that threatened their teaching positions and sometimes
lives—good men and good scholars such as Fauja Singh and J.S. Grewal, among
others, and in a later generation Piar Singh and those associated with Hew,
such as Harjot Oberoi and Pashaura Singh. But Hew remained the designated
lightning rod for attack.7
Continuing with his campaign of misinformation
against the Sikhs, Barrier says:
Just as American politics, metaphor, and public
discourse were altered by attacks on September 11, 2001, so the growing
militancy and turmoil that culminated in the attack on
McLeod carries Barrier’s argument much further by
claiming that he himself is the victim of the Khalistan movement.
One must remember that behind this personal
experience lies the traumatic period in the history of the Sikhs. This is
marked, above all, by the campaign waged by Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale and by
Operation Blue Star, that wholly mistaken and disastrous attack launched by the
Government of India on the Golden Temple in June 1984. Since that time many
Sikhs have been involved in the bitter struggle for Khalistan. … After 1984
these conferences and publications that accompany them became much larger and
more frequent, particularly in North America.9
The question to ask is why did not McLeod or Barrier
respond to many of the seminar papers, books and articles “launched to protect
Sikhism from its perceived mortal enemy” in an honorable professional manner
instead of explaining McLeod work and methodology to Sikh laity on the Internet
discussions groups. McLeod and Barrier had numerous chances to challenge
McLeod’s critics since Guru Nanak and the
Sikh Religion was published in 1968. Instead of exhibiting their
professional competence and integrity, they resorted to the tactics of
politicians or propagandists or intelligence agents. I have dealt with
Barrier’s unprofessional conduct and McLeod’s fraudulent works thoroughly in
great detail.10, 11, 12, 13
Finally, Tiwana’s article “My favorite author”
represents another tactic that is used to defend his work. To understand how
this devious plan works, one should read Soft
Target: How the Indian Intelligence Service Penetrated Canada. (This book
is posted on the Internet and is available from Amazon or www.lorimer.ca).
Conclusion
I would
let the readers judge and draw their own
conclusions about W.H. McLeod and his scholarship as depicted in Tiwana’s
article: “My favorite author” or as described by McLeod himself in his writings
on Sikhism.
References
1. Pashaura Singh. The Text And
Meaning Of The Adi Granth (PhD Thesis).
2. Pashaura Singh. “Recent Trends
and Prospects in Sikh Studies.” Studies
in Religion/Sciences Religieuses, 1998, 27 (4), pp. 407-425.
3. D.S. Chahal. “Integrated And
Comprehensive Philosophy Of Sikhism.” Understnding
Sikhism Res. J. 2003, 5 (2), pp. 3-6.
4. W.H. McLeod. Discovering the Sikhs:
Autobiography of a Historian.
5. Ibid., pp. 102, 106.
6. Ibid., pp. ix-x.
7. Ibid., p. x.
8. Ibid., p. ix.
9. Ibid., pp. 134-135.
10. Baldev Singh. “Why I Disagree.” SikhSpectrum.com, Issue No.16, May 2004.
11. Baldev Singh. “An Unacademic
Advice.” Abstracts of Sikh Studies,
2004, 6 (3), 50-62.
12. Baldev Singh. “Understanding W.H. McLeod and His Work on Sikhism.” SikhSpectrum.com, Issue No. 21,
August 2005; www.globalsikhstudies.net;
Abstracts Of
Sikh Studies, July-September 2005, pp. 6-76.
13.
Baldev Singh. “W.H. McLeod’s Interpretation of Guru Nanak’s
Bani.” SikhSpectrum.com, Issue
No. 23, February 2006.
Previous Chapter | Table of Contents | Next Chapter
Copyright©2006 Baldev Singh. About the author
Print this Article
Email this Article
Comment on this Article