The book contains the text of six Radhakrishnan Lectures for 198- 6-8 7 which could not be delivered, now published by the Trustees. It contains a number of controversial statements which need to be brought to public notice.
Firstly, McLeod states that “Guru Hargobind had adopted a new policy, one which dramatically expresses in donning of two symbolic swords” (p. 24). He fails to acknowledge the unity, consistency and continuity of the message and teaching of the Sikh Gurus. In fact the Sikh doctrine is one, not two, as mentioned in Guru Granth Sahib:
“Ika Bani, Ik Gur, Iko Sabad yeechar” (GGS, p. 64 6).
This means, The Revelation is one, the Guru is one and Contemplation of the Holy Word is One. All the Gurus emphasized the primacy of human life, the importance of human rights, and the need of self-reliance for survival.
They rejected all types of inequality, injustice and tyranny. Guru Nanak said so in his Babar Vani, while Guru Gobind Singh did so in the Zafar nama. The Gurus taught the lesson of facing the challenges of life and the need of sacrifice for a good cause or survival. Guru Nanak wrote: “If you want to play the game of love, come to my path, holding your head on your palm,” (GGS, p. 1422). Again Guru Nanak said, “If God wills, he brandishes the sword to cut the head of the enemy.” (GGS, p 145). Likewise, “if a powerful lion attacks a heard of cattle, then the Master of the herd is answerable”(GGS p.3 60). Ina similar vein, Guru Arjan affirmed: “First accept death, forget the desire to live” (GGS p 1102). Kabir in Guru Granth Sahib wrote: “He is a warrior who fights for his faith.” (GGS, p 1105). Guru Gobind Singh wrote: “When the time of my end approaches, let me die fighting on the battlefield” (Dasam Granth p. 99). The use of force for self defence or protection of the poor and the helpless is not inconsistent with saintliness and the stand of the first five Gurus.
Meeri and Peeri are complimentary and not contradictory.
They are like two sides of the same coin. Meeri rightly understood does not imply autocratic power or exploitation, but benevolent administration based on equity and ethnics. So both are necessary as envisioned by Guru Hargobind and Guru Gobind Singh. That is the rationale behind the establishment of the Khalsa Panth.
The unity of Sikh thought and practice was noted by Mohsin Fani, the author of Dabistan and a contemporary of Guru Hargobind. He wrote: “whoever does not acknowledge Guru Arjan to be the very self of Baba Nanak becomes a nonbeliever (non Sikh).” In Bachitar Natak, Guru Gobind Singh wrote: “Nanak transformed himself to Angad and spread Dharma in the world. He was called Amardas in the next succession. A lamp was lighted from the lamp when the opportune time came for the boon, the Guru was called Ramdass.” (Dasam Granth)
Secondly while dealing with the Rahit, McLeod arbitrarily rejects the Tankhah Nama and Uttarprasan of Bhai Nanadal and the Rahit name of Bhai Daya Singh on the ground that Nandlal “could never have written the kind of verse which these Rahit nama offer, and in all cases the language indicates a significant remove from the Gurus own time and environment” (p3 7). McLeod is historian, but not an expert in linguistics and hence this lapse. Dr. Ganda Singh accepts it and includes in Nandlal Granth vali. Similarly his interpretation of the word Sahijdhari Sikhs is incorrect. According to Sikh history, Sahijdhar is are “slow adapters,” who accept the doctrine but are slack in taking the outer symbols. However Mcleod thinks differently, insisting on the meaning of the word “Sahaj”, He feels that the Nanak panthic who practice “Nam simaran” and are opposed to the outward symbols of the new Khalsa identity are the Sahijdhari , that is those who affirm “sahaj” are Sahijdhari Sikhs. (p.45).
Thirdly, according to McLeod, “Sikhs were taught to see themselves as monotheists, and to spur the idolatry of Hindus. Macauliffe was a notorious offender, ably assisted by Sikhs who had been trained to think in a western mode”(p. 74). To call names to the first great British writer on Sikh religion is not only discourteous, but also cynical on the part of McLeod whose present work was published by the same Claredon Press, Oxford, which released Maculiffs six volumes 80 years ago. Similarly, it is unfortunate that McLeod should, at the end of this book, call those who do not agree with his views as orthodox.
Fourthly, McLeod does not agree with the definition of a Sikh mentioned in the Sikh Gurdwaras Act of 1925 which mentions that the declarant has also to state “that I have no other religion.” He thinks that for Sahijdhari Sikhs this could undoubtedly pose a serious problem, for many of them indeed regarded themselves both Hindu and Sikh” (p. 93). For him
to advocate that a person can have two religions at the same time is as absurd as to call a Christian both Jew and Christian. The Delhi Gurdwaras Management Act of 19 71 passed by the Indian Parliament is the latest and the final pronouncement on the definition on a Sikh. It adds the words “one who keeps unshorn hair,” to the earlier definition mentioned in the 1925 Sikh Gurdwaras Act. This clearly upholds the Sikh identity, and therefore leaves no room for doubt. McLeod does not approve of the latest definition on a flimsy ground, namely that the “Legislation may well reflect the temporary influence of a pressure group” (p98). As such, he has made a new classification of “Affiliated KhaIsa”, to cover “Kesadhari and Mona Sikhs,” which is as much open to objection as his inclusion of Nirankari, Namdhari and Radhasoamis under the category of Sikhs. The last three types have a living Guru in place of Guru Granth Sahib and as such fail to qualify as Sikhs, under both the Acts of 1925 and 19 71.
Finally, McLeod offers a long definition of his own at the end of the book. It suffers from a serious drawback. How can those “who decline to accept the basic requirements of Rahit (namely ban on cutting of hair and smoking) be accepted as Sikhs, as McLeod pleads, on the understanding that to discharge customary duties” (p 121), position of Sahijdharis is that they are acceptable if they comply with the definition given in the Delhi Gurdwaras Act of 19 71 namely those (i) who believe in the teaching of the ten Gurus and Guru Granth Sahib, (ii) who perform all ceremonies according to Sikh rites, (iii) who do not smoke, take alcohol, tobacco or Halal meat in any forms, and (iv) who are born in non-Sikh families but are not patit.”
As McLeod has invited response to his definition it will be good if he modifies his definition in the light of comments made above in the next edition. This edition is very highly priced and therefore very few will have the Opportunity to buy this book.
Dr. Gobind Singh Mansukhani
Article extracted from this publication >> June 29, 1990
