I must confess my bewilderment and anguish at Jasbir Mann’s latest diatribe against me (June 4). He starts by lumping me with O’Connell from the University of Toronto. I wouldn’t mind that except that! Do not know O’Connell.
My views on Pashaura Singh’s thesis were published by you (Dec. 18, 1992). As I said then “Pashaura’s logic is dubious and his loyalty to McLeod misplaced.” At that time, I ‘also questioned the antecedents and authorship of MS1245. Jasbir should read that review.
To me it seems obvious that even if MS 1245 is a spurious document, its presence now is a matter of record and Sikh history. Further research is warranted as to how, when and by whom (or at whose behest) was it written, how ‘and under what circumstances was it acquired by Guru Nanak Dev University, and what was the evaluation by the University scholars who approved its purchase in 1987. There may be no quick or easy answers, but we need to try because this is the approach that a research scholar would take. Mann also fails to recognize the process involved in how scholarly research is published. At least in my kind of research (biomedical), manuscripts are submitted to scholarly journals, from where they are sent to other scholars for review. As a result of such peer review, papers are often returned for revisions or, at times, rejected, As Jasbir Mann knows well, lam not associated with Columbia or Toronto Universities; there isn’t anything I can do if they won’t publish his’ work. If he or other scholars wish to submit papers for scholarly review and publication, they should do so, like anybody else. Also, when Professors write against the Bible, it is not a criminal act in this country. I still thinks the Sikhs should use the World Sikh News to air issues of concern to all, though I am dismayed by the Pandora’s Box that has opened. Jasbir Mann appears obsessed with the ideas that Tam questioning the authenticity of the Guru Granth, or defending those who do. I don’t know how to respond to him since 1) am doing neither, and 2) such a simplistic view is not endorsed by me. Personalizing issues is a poor substitute for reason. Jasbir Mann persists in defining issues in his Own way, entirely differently from what I had hoped would be the focus of discussion. Let him define the “real issue” as he sees fit. My “real issue” is the notion of blasphemy in religion, particularly in Sikhism, and how to deal with sloppy research, He and seem to be talking apples and Oranges, and are not at all on the same wavelength, The tenor of the discussion is important. Continued this way, this exchange will neither win friends nor will it serve Sikhism very well. A productive dialogue requires some common ground, and elementary courtesy; the former is missing, the latter appears to be a casually in this exchange, I will certainly not respond to personal innuendo anymore. But these are questions of wider interest; therefore; [hope others will join in the discussion.
I.J.Singh New York
Article extracted from this publication >> June 25, 1993
