In defense of Dr.Pashaura Singh, which in itself becomes an oddity because true scholarship needs no defender? 1t becomes necessary to defend a scholar when he transgresses the legitimate limits of academic activity and joins politicians in trying to undermine the existence of an inconvenient group. This is what has been happening in relation to the Sikhs in India since 1947, the entire stress has been on dissolving the distinct Sikh identity; Of late this has taken the form of affirming that Sikhism is merely a sect of Hinduism. This argument does not cut much ice in the face of the existence of Sn Guru Granth which is a record of the mystic experiences of the Sikh prophets who affirm that theirs is a sovereign dispensation.
Challenge to separate Sikh identity can only be posed by denying that it is an authentic record of revelation. This has been tried by some others in the recent past. But they had to rescind their positions because it was possible to confront them with established facts to the contrary. Pashaura Singh has been found to be trying to achieve the same aim through a different route. He does not deny the originality of the Kanarpur volume compiled by Guru Arjun himself. He is trying to challenge the text of the original by raising the ghost of a previous draft of the same and would like 10 pave the way for later challenging the contents of the original.
Towards this end he has suggested that a manuscript bought by the Gum Nanak Dey University in 1987, is the earlier draft. For the following reasons MS1245 cannot be accepted to be anything but a later copy of the original Sikh scriptures: 1) Ii is an undated volume with the traditional dates of demise of the first five Gurus written in the same hand. Date of demise of Guru Arjun being included, it is clearly not a draft of the original unless according to western methodology it is quite in order to accept posthumously edited books. 2) There is no concept of a draft in relation to compilation of the Sikh scriptures in the last 400 years. All history and all tradition speak of only one volume being compiled. 3)The entire Concept of textual study which Pashaura Singh is paving the way for undertaking, is misconceived because Gur Granth has been compiled by the Prophet of the faith and no grounds for discovering the original text or its meaning exists, Particularly in this case because Pashaura Singh has already accepted the authenticity of the Kartarpur volume. 4) The volume he is using here is an apocryphal writing of a schismatic sect ostracized from Sikhism some centuries ago. Even while taking good care to hide its Mina origin he should have known that it is at best tainted evidence.
Before setting out to cast stones left and right must not the University look within and try to understand how it has been able to grant a degree of Ph.D., in spite of the above?
Every word of the open letter smacks of arrogance, unusual, at least to us in the not very enlightened East. Professor O’Connell regrets that the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbhandak Committee is not eligible to obtain his certificate of knowing the aims of modem scholarship. Precondition of which is that it must tolerate baseless attacks on the Sikh scriptures and the Sikh religion. The SGPC is woefully aware that the Rev. McLcod had recently attacked the original volume basing him on the Banno version which is dated 38 years later and which has always been universally regarded as a copy. Then for the purpose of proving the original to be a copy and the copy to be original he propounded the strange theory that parts of hymns which did not square with later Khalsa beliefs were obliterated in the original. For upholding this proposition it did not matter 10 the vintage western scholar that the original volume had always been in the custody of a sect opposed to Khalsa way and the strangest fact that no such obliteration actually exists in the volume. Would the professor excuse the SGPC for not understanding the ways of this special brand of western scholarship?
It is strange that a case for the favorite Pashaura Sigh is being built up on the supposed ignorance of the Eastern people to understand the “aims of western scholarship.” Pashaura Singh has received all his education in India though nobody will hold it against him, particularly because the aims of legitimate academic activity are the same everywhere. India, because also of its colonial past has been following the same system of education as followed in the west. It is also clear to the SGPC that no. Standards of scholarship justify the kind of destructive activity being carried out by the Batala group and the militants supporting it.
Some of the main formulations of this scholar are contrary to verifiable facts and are in support of a Christian missionary group, the aims of which can be readily discerned, it is the Sikh people who have to judge whether they are detrimental to the interests of Sikhism. Their well-reasoned conclusion has been the SGPC. Now it has put it to the genuine scholar to judge for himself whether the activity being conducted by scholars like Pashaura Singh and being sustained and promoted by professors like O’Connell is detrimental also the interests of truth. The Sikh people do not need the support of old scholars referred to, nor will it be deflected by the acidic and UN academic comments of those fast approaching menopause and intellectual barrenness. Contention of the SGPC is that Pashaura Singh has violated every canon of objectivity; His best defense in the circumstances is to exhibit how he has retained regard for truth. Crude attempts to intimidate the SGPC are not adequate. Citing of University norms is of no consequence unless it can also be shown that they have been actually followed. Recently an attempt was made to bring such violations of norms by Rev, McLcod to the notice of the concerned University. After a long drawn out correspondence on the subject, the University found it impossible to retire from his defense although the Reverend had to later rescind some of his earlier formulations. Correspondence with the University is published and will convince any impartial reader of the truth of the above contention.
Commendation of Pashaura Singh stands condemned by the very fact that it is found necessary. In the opinion of the Sikh people he is distorting the Sikh religion and is misleading the academic world misusing the prestige of the University. Let this be the central point of the debate. The Sikhs refuse to learn from O’Connell as to what is Sikhism or who is doing what for it of 10 it, It appears from the open letter that Pashaura Singh is being sold to the Sikhs in an attractive package by an aggressive salesman, Must we buy the goods recommended?
With respect to middle aged scholars interested in de-establishing Sikhism, it can be stated that there is no group of “elderly India educated” people trying to lead a “campaign against equally India educated Pashaura Singh.” Prof. O’Connell may not know the entire concept of education in India is western and as to standards of scholarship, they are universal and have been particularly favored by the Sikhs since they basically fit in very well with the Khalsa code of conduct. Western educated scholars do not know their own ground but they presume to teach a lesson or two to the Sikhs, Sikhs are interested in honest research and do not care who takes it up and where, provided it remains honest.
It is a figment of imagination that attempts are being made to “disrupt efforts to build up” Sikh studies. Protests are against the very determined effort to destroy the basis of Sikhism. For instance, one of the formulations of this highly recommended group of “three or four” easily identifiable scholars is, that Sikhism is not an independent dispensation but is a pari of either the Bhakti movement, Sant tradition or the Nath tradition, that is, eventually that of Hinduism, Sikhism does not need such pliable Scholars to continue with such propaganda of the interested parties, What good are they who consider gains of a few dollars much above regard for objectivity. If they really believe in what they wrote, would they not quit chairs meant for Sikh studies in favor of those meant to study Hinduism?
The SGPC has pointed out that Pashaura Singh has come to a wrong conclusion not warranted by the evidence cited, It is therefore clear that he is trying to please his masters who have been Pursuing allied aims for decades. These bad conclusions can be useful to the political enemies of the Sikhs and are of value to a certain set of missionaries who have not come out of the syndrome of White Man’s Burden, There is no use of recommending Pashaura Singh as an answer. It is good to know that he is at least a good family man and everybody will have regard for that trail, The SGPC is questioning his credentials as a scholar and his objectivity; that is what needs an explanation.
Others are considered unethical for calling in question the most irresponsible thesis based on conjectures, because they did not write 10 Pashaura Singh about their grievance. This ex India educated scholar finds it quite in order to write an open Jeter about it. Just as he (O’Connell) feels it is necessary to come to Pashaura Singh’s defense, others found it necessary to expose his unreasonable formulations. The SGPC represents the Sikh people and ‘cannot remain complacent about so sensitive an issue. Perceptions like the existence of a pressure group wailing to pounce upon a thesis writer are products of persecution mania usual to a pamphleteer like the present open letter writer. Similarly it is mischievous to suggest that indictment of his client has been particularly harsh. Much has been made of the temporary excommunication which is effective only as long as the concerned does not present him to the appropriate authority to explain him. Established standard procedure has been followed and no exception has been made in Pashaura Singh’s case. Closer look will reveal that the procedure followed to ensure the attendance of the accused is basically the same in all jurisprudence.
His shedding of crocodile tears would have been better appreciated had he take care not to whip up hysteria against the SGPC by writing the kind of open letter he has written. Similarly his interest in the welfare of the Sikh people would have struck a sympathetic chord had he not tried at the same time to cause a vertical schism within the Sikh Panth by attempting to pit the younger generation against the older. That however will not happen; a buffalo does not die to oblige the scavenger birds. With this open letter the game plan of the blasphemous group is clearer. They hope to be able to bring out the threatened schism by such pseudo-scientific writings, Even eastern educated people are able to make Out what is meant when the Wet-nurse becomes more concerned than the mother.
His indignation at the unethical use of the unpublished thesis is Quite in order and goes Well with Caste standards, The author must get an opportunity to revise his Opinion, If it is a hint that this is what is intended, then it should be welcome, for such foolhardiness Can hardly be reasonably sustained for long. One would however like to know what he wrote to Rey. McLeod when he similarly used the half-baked ideas from the similar unpublished works of Harjot Singh and Surjit Hans. The concept that body responsible for sustaining an erring scholar must be addressed is likewise sound. However, as mentioned earlier, that was tried when it was pointed out to a university that certain contentions of Rey McLeod were contrary to verifiable facts and conclusions drawn on their basis were therefore motivated, Response of that body was to tum a deaf ear, Must one indulge in that fruitless exercise again and again? Such options would be welcome once the concerned bodies established reputation for dealing with such objections in an impartial manner. Pashaura Singh goes ahead to undertake a textual examination after clearly admitting the existence of scripture compiled by the prophet of the faith. His exercise amounts (0 challenging the original text on the basis of a later undated apocryphal copy originating in a schismatic sect and having no clear record of custody. Is this the research that we are being called upon to support? No other university even in the darkest of dark continents would grant a Ph.D. degree for it. Since that is what has been done, are we being unreasonable when we draw warranted con clusions?
Whether the scholar has approached the Guru Granth with respect will be determined by the factors taken into account and ‘basis of conclusions reached, when the approach is unsound, the evidence concocted and the conclusions awry, the scholar must look within and explain. Here is a set of scholars who are on a weak wicket in all respects and yet are shouting like hell to drown the voices which are pointing this out to them. Scholar’s work is not the Pharaoh’s decree, it must partake of humility. Those who presume to teach that to the SGPC must exhibit that they imbibe it also. The threat 10 whip up sentiments of specified communities against the SGPC is hardly helpful and will never work.
The kind of dialogue now being sought was sought by certain scholars (of all ages) in the winter of 1990 but was denied for no rational reasons. If they are to retain their credibility, the seats of higher learning. Must not presume to be the sole repositories of truth, almost all the primary formulations of Rev. Mc Leod have been challenged by well-known scholars. Perfectly rational conclusions to the contrary have been drawn using sound methodology. Proceedings of such Seminars have been published and are available for scrutiny. Issues have been clearly defined and must, be taken up for dispassionate discussion immediately. That would indeed be a welcome step.
Gurtej Singh National Professor of Sikhism Chandigarh, India
Article extracted from this publication >> July 16, 1993
