Guru Arjun with his unique vision of himself authenticated the revealed Bani of the Gurus in the Adi Granth (Kartarpur Bir) in 1604 A.D., thereby excluding for all times any scope of reduction, or form, or textual criticisms, and declaring that what is included in the Adi Granth, is alone Bani, and what is outside it, unless it is a copy of it, is not the Bani of the Gurus.
But, W.H. McLeod, a former limb of the Christian Mission in Punjab, which came their a under the wings of the British Colonialism, to convert and civilize the heathens, started in 1975 the game of “mud dying” the holy waters saying, “Portions of the Kartarpuri manuscript were rather in reply obliterated in order to bring the two versions into line.” “The conclusion which seemed to be emerging with increasing assurance was that widely disseminated Banno version must represent the original text: and that Karlapuri manuscript must be a shortened version of the same text, A few portions must have been deleted, because they could not be reconciled with beliefs subsequently accepted by the Panth, This much appears to be well established,” in 1979, he wrote “The earliest, rep resenting the nearest approach to Guru Arjun’s dictation, would be Banno., The second and intermediary recension bearing the actual marks of a later revision through the excision of unacceptable material would be Kartapur.” in 1989 he repeated, “The comparison suggests that Banno recension may actually represent the original text inscribed by Bhai Gurdas,” Actually, it was well known that the Banno Bir had been scribed in 1642 A.D. McLeod’s level and intention can be assessed from the fact that he wrote all this against the Sikh Scripture without even examining the Kartapuri Bir or the Banno Bir. McLeod was accused of Blasphemy for alleging motivated deletions, implying that the Kartapuri Bir or Adi Granth was a forged one, even when he knew that Dr Jodh Singh’s work of 1968 had categorically stated that there was no deletion of Ramkali hymn in the Kartapuri Bir, After this accusation of blasphemy against him, in 1990, he seemingly retraced his position, saying that on studying Jodh Singhs’ work of 1968 (which he had even quoted in his book 1975), he abandoned the notion of doubt about the originality of the Kartapuri Bir. These being the facts, we leave it to the reader to assess the veracity of his statements,
Now the role of “muddying™ the holy waters and felt blasphemy appears to have been taken up by Pashora Singh whose thesis for Ph.D. was guided by McLeod as supervisor.
Every Sikh knows that since the Bani is revealed, no one could ever think of changing even a word or matra (Vowel) of it. Much less could anyone think of committing a blasphemy by changing a doc trine or concept of Guru Nanak or other gurus. It is well known that the Guru banished his own son, Ram Rai, for changing a single word, and the 10th Master was very angry with a Sikh who pronounced one word wrongly which could be misconstrued.
But Pashaura Singh writes, “Guru Arjun worked over the text of the Mul Mantar in successive drafts to give it the final form. The Guru Nanak Dev University manuscript, which is an early draft of the Adi Granth, gives the form of the Mul Mantar, before its standardization.” “Another significant point is that Guru Arjun added the word “Purakh™ in the received text of the Mul Mantar, it clearly indicates that by his time the personal (Purakh) aspect of the Supreme Being acquired prominence as compared with Guru Nanak’s emphasis on the Formless (Nirankar) nature of the Ultimate Reality. This may provide an ad equate explanation of the subsequent developments that took place in Sikh Doctrines as well as within the Panth since the days of Guru Nanak. This will, however, challenge the traditional understanding of the Mul Mantar as being created in its present from by Guru Nanak himself.” Similarly, he writes, “The comparison of this text with earlier forms of the Mul Mantar given above, clearly indicates the addition of the word “Nirvairu” (without enmity), which Guru Ram Das employs to put emphasis on the divine attribute of benevolence. This may reflect his firm resolves to counter the situation of hostility in real life, created by the animosity of his rivals with the spirit of love and friendliness. Thus a new theological dimension is added to the Sikh understanding of the Ultimate Reality. “Thus, the same temporal considerations, he has attributed to the Fourth Guru for using the word “Nirvairu,” and adding new dimension, because he was suffering hostility in social life. Further, he writes, “In his final version, Guru Arjun replaced the phrase Satguru prasadi (by the grace of the True Guru) with our prasadi (by the grace of the Guru), “The implication of all these apparently blasphemous statements is that the description of God’s attributes is not the result of rev elation or spiritual experience, but follows needs of social milieu, i.e., the Marxian logic of environment governing all thought and denial of spirituality. He also writes, “A comparative analysis of this text with the standard version of the Japuji reveals the following important differences which illuminate the different stages in the process of its development.” “The most distinctive difference is that the introductory couplet of the Japuji is missing in the earlier text. In the standard version it reads “The Eternal one, From the Beginning, Through All Time, Present Now, the Everlasting Reality’ Evidently this shalok was added by Guru Arjun much later when he produced the final text of the Japuji.” “Evidently Guru Arjun modified the language of certain words,” “There are numerous such examples throughout the text of the Japuji, where Guru Arjun refined the language of certain passages and polished the meter.”
“All these examples clearly indicate that certain linguistic revisions were made at the same time of standardization of the text of the Japuji.”
Traditionally, the concluding shalok a of the Japuyi is understood to be Guru Nanak’s own composition, There are, however, scholars who regard Guru Angad as the real author.” (the scholar who is Cited in support, is no other than McLeod.) “Second, Guru Nanak may have initiated his successor, Bhai Lehna, into the poetic skill of verse Composition in the literary form of shalok, and this training may have been a part of his designation to the office of Guru ship. The two gurus may have worked together on the text of the epilogue of the Japuji, and, accordingly, both may be regarded as its joint authors.”
The author has attacked the Spiritual basis and the unalterable character of the Sikh Scripture. Not only has the sanctity of the Bani and its revealed character, as pronounced by the Gurus themselves, been violated, but he has also asserted that Guru Arjun changed the fundamental concept about God laid down by Guru Nanak, from a formless God to a Personal God, who is the object of worship and prayer. This change, he adds, the guru made purely out of temporal considerations and to suit subsequent developments in the Panth, requiring a shift in doc tines. All his arguments support the Mechanical theory of social challenge and response, eroding the theory of spirituality. By willingly or unwillingly pursuing the Marxian line, Pashuara Singh has tried to undo the work of Guru Arjun who with his eternal vision, stopped all possibility of textual or like criticism, as had happened in the case of scriptures, compiled by devotees scores of years or centuries after the demise of the concerned prophet, Now the author by his work seeks to open the flood gates of such destructive, baseless and wild conjectures, which, Dr. Jodh Singh said in reference to G.B. Singh’s criticism of the authenticity of the Kartapuri Bir, strikes at the very roots of the spiritual and revelatory origin of the Bani and the consequent Sikh faith.
It is amazing that practically all the assertions of Pashaura Singh are based on a manuscript which has no authenticity, no history and no dating to suggest its alleged earlier character as a draft by Guru Arjun, It is a manuscript, which the Guru Nanak Dev University catalogued only in 1987, after its purchase from the dealer that year. Nothing is known as to who or when anyone wrote it, or how the dealer got it, There is not yet an iota of evidence to suggest that it is an early manuscript or draft. On the contrary it is clear that the manuscript is a later copy of the Adi Granth probably of the time of the Ninth Guru, the scribe himself has claimed it to be only of the time of the Sixth Guru by interpolating a paper which he calls nishan of the Sixth Guru, and which claim Pashaura Singh himself concedes, is incorrect, the nishan presumably being of the Ninth Guru, Pashora Singh says that the manuscript was scribed by a Bhalla, because in it many lines have been devoted to the praise of the Third master. He adds that the writer must be Bhai Gurdas, although the handwriting does not tally with the one in the Kartapuri Bir. But he argues that the difference should not matter, because Bhai Gurdas must have improved his handwriting when he wrote the Kartapuri Bir, He also concedes that its Gurmukhi writing is without many vowels. Yet, while calling it a draft by Guru Arjun he neither explains why the guru allowed a eulogy to the Third Guru alone to the exclusion of antilogy to Guru Nanak, the Fourth or other Gurus, nor does he explain a radical change in the writing of Bhai Gurdas from the one without vowels to the one with all the necessary Manwas, or why Guru Arjun allowed the alleged draft to be written without mantras, when the script had been Standardized much earlier, probably on the time of the Second Master, In fact, in the time of the Fifth Guru, Gurmukhi was being written, except by less illiterate persons, with necessary vowels, Pashaura Singh makes the ridiculous suggestion about Bhai Gurdas having written the draft because he knows that it would be even more ridiculous to say that the draft was got written by Guru Arjun from an unknown Sikh, who was discarded later and the original was got written from Bhai Gurdas. There is not the least sign of any mark pretended or otherwise of the Fifth Guru, It is self-contradictory to vouch for the authenticity of a manuscript the writer or owner of which is considered to have forged the Nishan of the Sixth Guru, Pashora Singh’s assertions about change by the Fifth Master are apparently blasphemous, because the very basis of his arguments is castle in the air. It is strange that McLeod called the Banno Bir the original one, because it contained more material than that in the Kartapuri Bir, and now he seems to have approved of the argument that GND University (GNDU MS #1245) is the original draft, because it contains far less material than that in the Kartapuri Bir. Such lack of consistency would cast a cloud on the seriousness or objectivity of the rationale.
There is no evidence to suggest that any Granth or Pothi is truer than the Adi Granth compiled by the Guru after his scrutiny of the authenticity of the Bani of the Gurus. This unique step the Sikh Prophet took, which no other prophet had taken, in order to eliminate the possibility of any clumsy attempt to question the authenticity and sanctity of the Bani, Pashaura Singh’s work has to be assessed in this light. It is distressing that an authentic Granth compiled by the Guru is called tampered with or forged, and a manuscript with an apparently forged Nishan of the Sixth Guru is accepted as authentic. Let the reader judge the level or motive of such scholarship.
Nothing has been emphasized more in the Guru Granth than the revelatory and authentic character of the Bani in the Adi Granth compiled by the Guru. And nothing is more sacred than the Shabad therein and its truth. What Pashora Singh has repeatedly asserted, we feel, is clearly contrary to the established and recorded authenticity and revelatory and unalterable character of the Bani, We, therefore, believe that his statements are baseless and blasphemous, and need thoughtful and appropriate response from the Sangats and other organizations who should Consider Jathedars of the Takhats and other religious institutions or Taksals, that concerned with the Bani and the Sikh faith, should also be addressed. The Jathedar of the Takhats, being the authority On the subject, could be requested to call the explanation of Pashuara Singh, and deal with him according to Gurmat, Further, it appears necessary to obtain legal advice to find if what has taken place is actionable,
The Overall rationale of the SIS is unsatisfactory and faulty, But we have no desire to comment On that at present, The author appears by and large, to have chosen, by consent or compulsion, to be only the mouthpiece of his super visor,
In the thesis “THE TEXT AND MEANING OF THE ADI GRANTH”, the author Pishaura Singh has attacked the spiritual basis and the unalterable character of the Sikh Scripture. Not only has the sanctity of the Bani and its revealed character, a8 pronounced by the Gurus themselves, been violated, but he has also asserted that Guru Arjun changed the fundamental concept about God laid down by Guru Nanak, from a formless God to a Personal God, who is the object of worship and prayer. This change, he adds, the guru made purely out of temporal considerations and to suit subsequent developments in the Panth, requiring a shift in doctrines at the very roots of the spiritual and revelatory origin of the Bani and the consequent Sikh faith. Editor. Note: Dr.S. Singh’s response to thesis of Pashaura Singh is given here
Article extracted from this publication >> October 2, 1992
