Guru Nanak and the Sikh Religion – A Critical Review

The Oxford India Paperback edition of Guru Nanak and the Sikh Religion offer an opportunity to revisit W.H. McLeod’s pioneering contribution to Sikh studies. The volume is a revised version of his doctoral thesis, The Life and Doctrine of Guru Nanak, completed at the University of London in 1965. First published in 1968 (with a preface dated Batala, 1967), the work has since appeared in several Indian editions, including 1976 and 1988, culminating in the 1996 edition presently under consideration.

More than half of the book covers Guru Nanak’s life. McLeod stands out as the first Western scholar to apply a “quest for the historical Jesus” approach to Sikh tradition, using critical techniques from New Testament studies for analyzing the Janam-Sakhis. While this comparative method has strengths, it risks imposing Christian textual assumptions on a different religious context. The critical model associated with Adolf von Harnack, McLeod constructs a five-fold classificatory scale: “the established,” “the probable,” “the possible,” “the improbable,” and “the impossible.” He evaluates 124 Sakhis within this framework. However, occasional inconsistency in applying his own criteria leaves readers uncertain about which narratives, if any, qualify as definitively “established.”

Given the hagiographic character of the Janam-Sakhis, McLeod’s conclusion that authentic biographical material is limited is understandable. However, a closer look at specific decisions reveals, in my judgment, a tendency toward premature dismissal: notably, Guru Nanak’s alleged travels to Mecca and Medina, and his visit to Baghdad.

For example, McLeod doubts the Meccan journey on the grounds that non-Muslims were barred from entry. In support, he references the nineteenth-century travels of Sir Richard, Francis Burton and J.F. Keane, who entered in disguise. Burton completed his pilgrimage between June and September 1853. However, Edward Rice observes that Burton was not the first European to enter Mecca; earlier Europeans had been brought there as captives and later escaped. ¹ The historical rigidity of the so-called ‘ban’ is thus less absolute than sometimes assumed. More significantly, McLeod asserts that such restrictions existed in the early sixteenth century when Nanak is believed to have traveled, yet he provides no citation to substantiate this claim.

For the Baghdad inscription, McLeod leaned on Dr. V.L. Menage, who admitted difficulty interpreting its Turkman text. Despite Menage’s uncertainties and admission of limited expertise, his translation was uncritically accepted and used to dismiss epigraphic evidence that might challenge McLeod’s thesis, raising clear methodological concerns.

Further reinforcing McLeod’s skepticism, Bruce B. Lawrence later referred to the ‘facetious Baghdad inscription.’³ This reference highlights a broader scholarly tendency in which certain interpretive positions become mutually reinforced within a close academic circle.

Transitioning from biographical analysis to theology, the most compelling portion of the book remains McLeod’s treatment of Guru Nanak’s teachings. His exposition of Nanak’s theology is lucid and often sensitive to the poetic and doctrinal depth of the original compositions. Indeed, his analysis remains one of the finest English-language presentations of Nanak’s thought.

However, an error appears in his rendering of the Mul Mantra (p. 163). Two variant transliterations appear across editions:

“I Oankar sat nam karta purukh nirabhau nirvair akal
Murat Ajuni Saibhang Gur Prasadi.”

Neither accurately reflects the original formulation. The introduction of “Om” is particularly problematic, as the Mul Mantra does not contain the symbol in the manner implied.

Turning to McLeod’s placement of Sikhism within broader religious frameworks, historically, Sikhism has been interpreted under three primary models: (1) a hybrid of Hinduism and Islam; (2) a branch of the broader Bhakti movement; and (3) an independent religious system. McLeod rejects the first model, arguing that Guru Nanak regarded both conventional Hinduism and Islam as fundamentally flawed rather than partially correct. In its place, he advances what may be considered a fourth model: the Sant tradition.

In describing McLeod, the Sant tradition is described as blending Vaishnava Bhakti, Nath hatha-yoga, and Sufi elements, yet ultimately centers his analysis of Nanak’s theology on Vaishnava Bhakti. The broader label “Sant tradition” is retained despite this focus. A more rigorous justification for this narrowing would strengthen the argument.  McLeod’s admiration for Guru Nanak is evident. He acknowledges the poetic brilliance of Nanak’s compositions and recognizes that the hymns of the Adi Granth cannot be the work of an illiterate or semi-literate author. Yet when addressing the source of Nanak’s education, he suggests it was likely acquired in small charitable schools attached to mosques or temples. Such a hypothesis appears speculative and inadequate to explain the intellectual and theological sophistication he himself attributes to Nanak.

In sum, Guru Nanak and the Sikh Religion remain foundational to modern Sikh studies. Even where one disputes its conclusions, its methodological boldness and literary sensitivity ensure its continued relevance. McLeod’s analysis of Nanak’s teachings is eloquent and often profound. His contribution is significant—though not beyond critical engagement.

Footnotes

1. Edward Rice, Captain Sir Richard Francis Burton (New York: Harper Perennial, 1990), 235.
2. Sangat Singh, The Sikhs in History (New Delhi: Uncommon Books, 1996), 17n.
3. Karine Schomer and W.H. McLeod, eds. The Sants: Studies in a Devotional Tradition of India (Berkeley: Berkeley Religious Studies Series, 1987; Delhi: Motilal Banarsidas, 1987), 361.