by Dr. Jasbir Singh Mann, M.D.

It is unfortunate that Dr.I.J.Singh’s letter in your March 5th issue seems to miss both the decisive significance of a monumental event and the real issue arising from the research of Pashaura Singh and Piar Singh. The Fifth Master with his unparalleled vision compiled the Adi Granth in order to eliminate for all times the possibility of questioning the authenticity of Gurbani, particularly because even then some. persons belonging to schismatic groups, had started giving Currency to fake verses as the Bani of Gurus, The Seventh Master punished his son, Ram Rai, which demonstrates that change in the dhur ki bani is unthinkable. But these unquestionable decisions are being attacked on the pretext of research. One claims to have found a draft of the Aad Granth. The other says that the original Aad Granth was lost. Both are asserting that these were never heard in history before.

The arrogance and motives of researchers who make such suggestions, are too obvious to need any comments. The issue is not of any research. But blasphemy is an offence, both under Western and Indian laws. If any person violates the Law, it can hardly be an issue of research or discussion. Libel against and ordinary person is an offence. Does Dr. Singh suggest that this is permissible against the Guru on the plea of research? For, existing so called research says that the Fifth Guru made theological changes in Guru Nanak’s bani, and passed his own version of it as the bani of Guru Nanak.

Doctor Singh must understand that even academics has its own parameters and physical evidence used by Dr.Pashaura for his research is not authentic. Under the Garb of academic freedom nobody has the right to undermine Sikh doctrines. Sikhs have rightly paid attention to Pashaura Singh’s re search as he is going to further teach Sikhism in the West and such teachings can be disastrous for new generations of Sikhs and western friends of Sikhism who are keen to learn Sikhism because “if you read wrong books you will gel wrong answers.” Doctor I. J.Singh should know the basic notion of blasphemy in Sikh ide ology came from the Seventh Master, I agree with Dr.I J.Singh that intellectual historical analysis enhances understanding of religion, but if the basic documents used in research are unauthentic and translations used are manipulative then such research will produce disaster.

For the whole Sikh world Guru Granth is not only a Holy book like the Bible, Quran, Ved or Geeta, but is also an Eternal Guru and is revered and bowed to in all Gurdwaras and many Sikh homes daily, There is no threat if you analyze the philosophy of Gurbani but to challenge its authenticity is a pure case of blasphemy which is undebatable and must be handled by religious code. Itis notthe Sikh religion alone but all other religions in the universe system which are being misinterpreted by these liberal academics. The parameters used by them to study religion are historical. anthropological or so biological which gives wrong answers, The study of religion should only be studied with parameters of theology to get the right answers,

Doctor I.J.Singh’s question “How should religion respond to irresponsible research.” The answer is Clear that one has to assess whether it is authentic research or blasphemy or blasphemy under cover of research. With the vision of the Fifth Guru to compile authentic bani and concept of Pacci Bani and by Sikh history and Sikh tradition, punishment of Ram Rai by Seventh Master clearly shows the path and guidelines how to handle blasphemy or research under cover of blasphemy in Sikhism,

Doctor I,J.Singh knows that at tempts by S.G.P.C. have been made to condemn and stop such writings in the past and they are following the path laid by the Seventh Master. Similarly on January 28,1993 not only the S.G.P.C. but various representatives, over 70 in number, from Patiala University, Punjab University, Guru Nanak Foundation, Guru Gobind Singh Foundation, Chief Khalsa Dewan, Damdami, Taksal (both sections), Delhi Gurdwara Committee, U.P. Sikh Pratinidhi Board, Kendri Singh Sabha, Tarunadal, Sewa Organization, Institute of Sikh Studies, Ex principals of Gurmat College, The Sikh Missionary College and many others in consonant with Sikh scriptures, Sikh history and traditions by unanimous vote decided that work done by Pashaura is blasphemous and is not debatable and should be handled by the religious code. Let the Jathedar of Akal Takhat give the final opinion on the issue,

I have read several articles by Dr I.J.Singh in World Sikh News and found that in his writings, he will always ty to play both sides of the fence, But in my opinion this issue of blasphemous research is very serious because it is undermining the basic Sikh Sovereign and unique doctrines and would like if Dr I. J.Singh or his academic friends who believe in academic freedom give a straight forward answer on the following questions:

1) Can dhur ki bani be altered?

2) What is his opinion about the concept of Pacci Bani by the Fifth Guru by compiling Adi Granth and eliminating once and for all any questions of authentic bani?

3) Does he think that Guru Granth which is being revered and respected by all Sikh World is sull incomplete or impure?

4) If he thinks Guru Granth Sahib is still incomplete or impure and its authenticity needs more research, then how and why and with what understanding he revers and bows before, Guru Granth as sanctified by the 10th Master?

5) Authenticity of Kartarpuri Bir by the Fifth Guru is well accepted by all Sikh Panth and all Sikh universities. If1JSingh and his fellows still think it is incomplete or impure, will he or his friends do more research and produce a New Adi Granth which will be accepted by Sikh Panth. If they are unable to do that then such research on authenticity of Adi Granth is just a research under cover of blasphemy and is creating confusion and misleading the public?

6) How one can accept the authenticity of Govindval Pothis before refuting the well docu mented research of Prof.Sahib Singh, principal Harbhajan Singh and principal Teja Singh, which indicates that the Fifth Guru had all the bani of previous Gurus with him when he compiled the Adi Granth?

7) How to justify actual dates written on Govindval Pothis in 1652 (1595 CE) and blessing Bar indicating use of the word Hundi suggesting Guru Amardas dictated such hymn?

8) Authenticity of GNDU MS 1245 as an early draft prepared by 5th Guru. Where was it before 1987, and on leaf 1255 dates of demise of the first five Gurus in same handwriting and same ink shade, is the single fact alone proves MS 1245 is post1605 collections, Guru Nanak Dey university’s opinion on this manuscripts very clear that it was written during time of the 6th Guru and afterwards and it is not an early draft as presumed by Pashaura.

9) Who wrote articles in Sikh Courier and Sikh Review in 1987 and 1990 under authorship of Dr.Loehlin when he was an invalid Or dead suggesting “Western friends of Sikhism and the Sikhs likewise, have noted this lack of Critical interest on part of the Sikhs, fortunately many of their scholars and research experts are doing research on textural and historical problems.”

10) Why should I.J.Singh object to the tradition set by Guru Har Rai Sahib?

In my opinion S.G.P.C. and all Sikh organizations followed the path as laid by our Gurus and “Prohibited blasphemy and not research.”

Article extracted from this publication >>  April 30, 1993