When EL wrote the article “SGPC and Research on the Adi Granth” for the World Sikh News, my aim was clear to initiate a communitywide discussion on what is freedom of expression and what would ‘be legitimate limits on it. It is gratifying that many have responded, and i hope many more will. Tam writing today, because the parameters of the debate need to be restated, otherwise an educational discussion will degenerate into a petty squabble.
Clearly, there can be no absolute freedom of expression; for instance, no one may yell “Fire” in a crowded theater. The question is how should an organized, established religion react to provocative, even inimical writing or dissent. Saluja from Skokie addresses the issue. He suggests that the Sikhs need to establish a coterie of Scholars who speak authoritatively for the Sikh religion. Yes, except that a university may or may not accept their advice.You’see, universities in the western tradition allow a professor considerable leeway in the choice of research topic as also in how he pursues it. In the scientific tradition the acceptance of scholarly writing depends ultimately on whether the findings can be independently corroborated, and that is often a Matter of time, even centuries. Science is full of false hypotheses which were accepted until further research made it necessary to abandon or modify them. But a major premise is that unpopular research is not suppressed; the answer to bad research is more research, not less.
Dhillon and Jasbir Mann need to keep in mind that professors can and do write against the Bible everyday without losing their jobs, unless they work for a Church Supported institution, About two years ago, the movie “The last temptation of Christ was widely shown through thousand of Christian were deeply offended. To make such movies or write such books is nota criminal act or an indictable offense in this century, in this country; [have many such books. An academician can be penalized only if he works for a religious university, even then the civil or criminal law will take no notice of him. The concepts of blasphemy and punishment for it were common in the middle ages but times have changed.
There is no question that the Guru Granth as we know it is the authentic Sikh canon. Nobody has the right to suggest that it is not, or that it should be changed. Such a suggestion would be analogous to if he widely cited episode of Guru Har Rai. Some years ago, Babu Teja Singh was excommunicated for modifying the body of the Guru Granth; a reconciliation occurred later through the efforts of many including Bhai Vir Singh. Yes, do keep in mind the example of Guru Har Rai but apply it only where it fits. The authenticity of the Guru Granth is not questioned in my article and is definitely not the focus of any debate suggested by me. Jasbir Mann has missed the point of the discussion.
Of the many questions posed by Jasbir Mann, some, like the status of GNDU MS 1245, need research, others are more easily answered. But they are not relevant to the discussion. My purpose here is not to defend or reject Pashaura Singh or Piar Singh. I have no ax to grind in these issues. My opinions on the former’s thesis were published, and I have not seen the book by the latter. Since both sides Pashaura and Mann are unequally unhappy with my analysis, T must be saying something night.
At one place Mann accuses that I attempt to play both sides of the” Again, he fails to understand that my purpose in writing is to present a point of view, but more importantly, to offer enough information from all aspects so that the reader can also make his own judgment. | am not in the business to win converts to my cause, but to contribute to my own and our community’s education and growth, If I can present a reasonably balanced view of an issue, L would be quite proud of it.
I am writing today to implore that the focus must shift away from persons to issues. Let’s learn to differ without personalizing issues, and to disagree without being disagreeable. A discussion is not a dispute, nor should it become one. | am not on trial here; 1 have floated some ideas that need to be explored, A belligerent posture (as Mann has adopted) seems point less.
I remind you that what happened to Galitco and Spinoza was sometime ago. The case of Salman Rushdie is recent. The Catholic Church used to compile lists of books that a Catholic must not read but not any more, Remember that you have not convinced a man merely because you have silenced him. The point of the communitywide discussion is what do the Sikhs think? How should the Sikhs attempt to influence what goes on around them and to them? The Sikhs are a thinking people. Let the discussion continue. LJ. Singh
Editor’s Note: WSN received other letters on this issue expressing similar a similar view, therefore we have published Dr, Singh’s response to best represent those who are in agreement. Our thanks to the other writers, including frequent correspondent, Dr. Amrit Kaur.
Article extracted from this publication >> May 21, 1993
