by: Dr. Kharak Singh Mann
The following is an interim report of the examination of the Manuscript 1245 which forms the basis of the conclusions and observations in the thesis of Pashaura Singh for Phd. degree. A detailed report by the scholars will follow.
The manuscript is neither a Bir of the Granth Sahib nor its earlier draft. It is only a collection of poems arranged ina haphazard manner. The arrangement of Ragas and Banis does not even remotely fall on the one in the Adi Granth (kartarpun Bir) authenticated by the Fifth Guru
Several Banis and hymns of Bhagats are missing in the Manuscript.
The handwriting of scribe is completely different from that of Bhai Gurdas who scribed the Kartarpuri Bir.
The Manuscript was purchased by GND University in 1987 from a dealer of Amritsar. Nobody knows its antecedents. The university authorities including the Librarian and the members of the purchase committee pleaded ignorance since according to them the dealer was not willing to part with his trade secret.
According to the supposed dealers note on the manuscript and Pashaura Singhs surmise there is a suggestion that manuscript is connected with the family of Baba Budha the well-known devout Sikh. The Ms 1245 has a Sloka attributed to Baba Budha in which like the Gurus he has used the name “Nanak” for himself. The successors of Baba Budha at Bir Baba Budha Sahib have completely denied the existence of any such Bir or any hymn ever composed by Baba Budha.
There is neither date or scribes name on the manuscript nor any evidence of its antiquity. Rather there is conclusive evidence that the manuscript was scribed much later than 1606 AD. There is a Nishan pasted on the Bir on leaf 1255 which the Scribe claims to be of the sixth master. Evidently the scribe wants us to believe that he wrote it during the tenure of Guru Hargobind. This claim has been rejected even by Pashaura Singh for the Nishan bears no resemblance to that of Guru Hargobind but resembles that of ninth Master. Thus there is no basis for Pashaura Singh to claim it as an earlier draft of the Adi Granth compiled by Guru Arjan Dev in 1604.
The Japuji version in the manuscript resembles closely with that of Meharban who had been considered enemy and excommunicated from the Panth by the Guru. The presence of word Nanak in the couplet on folio 3 also proves its Myna origin Bven the dealer said that he had obtained it from a Meharban group. The Collection is undoubtedly part of the Mina Sahitya. To call such literature an earlier draft of Guru Arjan is an unforgivable travesty of facts. This seems to have been planted in the university in 1987 perhaps with ulterior motives.
Scepters of most other religious faiths came into existence long after the demise of the prophets concerned. The ex-missionary group of Batala has been trying to deny originality and authenticity of the Adi Granth (Kartarpuri Bir) on frivolous grounds. The present attempt attributing changes in the Bani of Guru Nanak by Guru Arjan Dev Ji appears to be part of same plan.
The Ms 1245 gives on leaf 1255 dates of demise of the first five Gurus in the same handwriting and the same ink shade. This fact alone conclusively proves that MS 1245 is the post1606 collection. Pashaura Singh knows this and that is why he makes the mis-statement that the date of demise of sixth master was written later.
Moreover the dates of demise on folio 1255 do not mark the end of manuscript. The recording of collected hymns continues for another 22 pages. This shows that the work on the collection continued later than 1606.
It is also incorrect to interpret Mangalcharan contains the word Nirankar or kartar The word “karla purakh is clearly recorded.
By calling a forged and later Manuscript as first draft Pashaura Singh is considered to have committed blasphemy on four counts.
The Gurbani as proclaimed by Guru Nanak and other Gurus is not revealed Bani. For later it can be changed and has been changed by Guru Arjan. Its revealed and unalterable character was there by destroyed by the Gury himself.
That Guru Arjan made theological changes in the Bani of Guru Nanak.
That Guru Arjan made misrepresentations in so far as he passed his own Bani as Bani of Guru Nanak.
That the hymn which for Guru were not true Bani (or was Kachi Bani) are culogized by the scholar to be the true Bani of Guru Nanak and that the authentic Bani so declared by the Guru are not true of Gury Nanak.
Can travesty of facts of blasphemy go further than this?
Article extracted from this publication >> December 4, 1992
