The study of the thesis reveals it to be a case of misplaced scholarship and blasphemy The author attempts to make the readers believe his baseless assumptions to be his “new findings” regarding Gurus and Guru Granth Sahib. Most of the statements are incorrect and some are self-contradictory.
- Review of the Abstract:
- It’s very first para gives an unexpected severe shock to a Sikh; “It also examines various factors that first led to the emergence of three different traditions of the Adi Granth and then to the eventual standardization of its text.”
“Standardize” means to conform to a standard to make uniform to remove irregularities or variations. The author thus gives the impression that there were three different accepted recessions of the Adi Granth from which a standard version was prepared. While the fact is that Panth always accepted the Kartarpur Bir as the genuine Bir. Ironically the author accepts this at P20 “The debate started in 1944 when G.B.Singh set about marshalling evidence to challenge the authenticity of the Kartarpur manuscript as being the original text.” He also agrees “G.B.Singh seemed to be serving the Arya Samaj interest as evidenced by his defence of Dayanandi arguments in his book.” Where lies the question of the standardization of the Bir removing irregularities and variations. This statement is basically wrong and is an attack on the revelation aspect of Gurbani.
“Three different traditions’ is also a misleading part of the statement. It gives acceptability to the Birs containing modified or fake hymns further it limits the fake versions of two only. Both these observations are incorrect. Birs are available with many kinds of changes made in them by different writers for example: with and without Ragmala with and without Rattan Mala with and without fake hymns (In Ramkali and at other places) arrangement and sequence of some hymns with and without Dhunis and many other variations A scholar knowing all this was not expected to limit the fake traditions (wrong and not accepted by the Panth as genuine) to two only particularly when he himself noted many variations as at P 76.
- The second para makes the reader wonder if those statements could be made by a Sikh. “Examination of earlier manuscripts has revealed that Guru Arjan worked over a number of drafts to produce the final text in 1604 CE.” This statement is wrong even if author’s all unbelievable assumptions are taken to be true. He is misleading the readers to believe that the Guru made many drafts before the one written in 1604. Such incorrect baseless statements will be quoted and spread by other “scholars” being true and based on Ph.D. research.
The author mentions only one such draft GNDU MS1245. Others he assumed might be somewhere not yet traced by the Sikhs Even the MS1245 has not been proved to be prepared by the Guru. It is again an assumption by the author based on the following: (i) old forms of writing (ii) less bani (iii) differences in titles, etc. Knowing that the writing styles in the two Birsare different and there is no solid reason to believe it to be written by Bhai Gurdas under the guidance of the Guru, the author makes one more unique assumption, “Bhai Gurdas improved his handwriting.”
Based on the information given in the thesis, non-else but Kartarpur Bir is the only draft prepared by the Guru, (i) Kartarpur Bir has more than 1/4 of the total pages blank. A copy prepared from an earlier draft is not supposed to have that many blank pages, as is the case with all other copies. Blank pages were left to include late received hymns at the right place, such additions, as is evidenced from the study of the manuscript were actually made.
(ii) There are deletions, changes, corrections, and notes in the margins as they are supposed to be in a draft; a copy cannot have these kinds of deletions/writings.
Regarding MS1245 who wrote it, why and where it was written, From the observations mentioned by the author (i) old writing style, (ii) absence of Bhagat Bani and other Banis, (iii) some different tile words, (v) Bhallas did not accept the Guru and (v) Bir was written by a Bhalla, (vi) some incorrect claims made in the Bir on 8 page, etc., one can state that it was prepared by the Bhallas, opponents of the Guru, to claim right to Guruship. They excluded Bhagat Bani and Sata Balwand Var to keep in it only Guru-Bani (without Sat Guru’s Bani others are fake, by Guru Amar Das), or some of the Bani was not available to them. Further they retained the original vowel form to prove its genuineness rather than adopting new whiting forms and styles.
Thus, the finding “The Guru worked over a number of drafts,” and important conclusion of the Study, is not acceptable when logically examined.
- The author makes another wrong claim, “One important Outcome of this study is that the Kartarpur manuscript as compiled by Guru Arjan is confirmed through scrutiny of the manuscript evidence as the final text of the Adi Granth.”
It means the author believes that Bhai Jodh Singh team of scholars who studied it page by page over a long time wrote without “scrutiny of manuscript evidence.” Against this he himself writes that they made a thorough study of the manuscript, Why should the author doubt their integrity? And why should McLeod, his guide, have falsely accused the Sikhs of deleting the hymns from the Bir to suit their thinking? The Sikhs have to address themselves about the observation and writings of such “scholars.”
- Review of Text:
- Twisting Gurbani meanings to fit with his assumptions:
There are many wrong translations, and quotes chosen out of context to build or endorse his own baseless theories. Out of them three cases are reported below:
(i) P2 “It would appear that Guru Nanak had a clear vision of preserving his own Bani by committing it to memory in the first place and then possibly to writing during his own life time. He maintained that one might lose the divine Word through oral recitation alone, if one has not written it down to preserve it.
Reading the complete hymn reveals that the correct message of the quote is: Without God’s will (without having been written by God) one cannot know the Truth; talking alone (without practicing truth) is a losing process i.e by this one spoils his soul.
The hymn has not even a distant concern with the above theory, “preserving Bani by oral recitation, and later writing down for rear of its being lost” coined by the author. This comment (or findings as the author wants the readers to accept) has lowered the status of the Guru and Gurbani by saying that Guru thought of writing down the revealed Bani later in his life.
(ii) After quoting hymn the author writes, “Here the reference to both his father’s and grandfather’s “treasure” may suggest that Guru Arjan received at least two sets of manuscripts of Gurbani, one belonging to his father and the other to his grandfather.”
It is unbelievable that a Sikh born and raised in a village does not know that the phrase means “ancestral.” To suit his theory he separates the words and literally translates them to assume there were two separate manuscripts, one obtained from Guru Ram Das and the second from Guru Amar Das. We know there are no such pot his or their copies available containing Bani of the individual Gurus.
(iii) P30 its translation should be: This hymn got written twice, it is (at) 52.
But read the results of his “research” and observe what kind of changes the author makes in its translation and interpretation. “At a number of places Guru Arjan discards one or other of his own hymns and points out that a better version of the same is to be found somewhere else. For instance there is a marginal note in folio 836/1 referring to one of Guru Arjan hymns, “This hymn is unnecessarily repeated here, its actual place is at (number) 52.”
A simple note indicating that the shabad got rewritten has been wrongly translated by adding words “unnecessarily” to give negative feelings, Further, he construes from it a highly objectionable and baseless statement that the Guru discarded one version in preference to a better version.
‘The author also assumes the first Salok in Japji was written by Guni Arjan Dev.
Then would he say that the Guru revised his Salok when he included it in Sukhmani by replacing “+E” with A+ to havea better version of the old Salok? Then why the inferior version was retained in Japji?
Further, there are three versions of Sodar in Guru Granth Sahib, all by Guru Nanak Dev. Will the author say which the best of the three is, and why Guru Arjan Dev retained the other two. Why only the best version was not retained and others ignored by the Guru.
‘The thesis is full of imaginations and assumptions which do not stand the test of logic. Instead of research work it may better be mentioned as assumptions work.
- Hold your heart to read the following “research findings of the author.”
P 26 “Their (Ravidas’ hymn and Dhanna’s hymn) inclusion in the scripture reflects a situation where in the followers of those Bhagats (The Jats and the Cobblers) were attracted into the Sikh fold in large numbers.”
P 174 “It should be emphasized that the inclusion of the Bhagat Bani in the Adi Granth may have been motivated primarily by the popular impulse of the times in which different sectarian traditions were equally involved in molding the poetry of the Sants into collection of scriptures.”
P 175 “Although Kabir is prominently represented in the Sikh scripture followed by Nam Dev,
Ravi Das, and Sheikh Farid, 11 other figures from different regions and casts are given a token representation to justify the Sikh claim to universality.”
P 176 “It may be stated that the selection of the Bhagat Bani was not made exclusively on the basis of the identity with the teachings of the Gurus.”
Through all these and similar other statements, the author stresses that primarily there were worldly reasons (other than the recording of the divine message for the seekers of truth) for the inclusion of the Bhagat Bani in the Guru Granth Sahib. Attraction of the followers of the Bhagats to the Sikh fold has been mentioned as the main reason for it, Further, token representation was given to 11 Bhagats of different castes so that Gurus could make a claim to the universality of Gurhan.
Is it not a blasphemy? Does it not lower the status of the Guru Granth from a divine revelation to a political document for increasing the number of the Sikhs by pleasing them?
Gurbani repeatedly stress the brotherhood of humanity, being the foundation of Sikh faith. Caste Pride has been deplored repeatedly since Guru Nanak Dev, the founder of the faith P 349 Guru Granth P1330 Guru Granth.
Bhagats too have spoken very strongly against the caste pride. How could the Gurus be accused of identifying Bhagats because of their castes so as to claim universality? Does not the hymn (anybody
who loves God, realizes Him) give the message of universality? Is inclusion of Bhagat Bani not an endorsement of this philosophy? Is it not a fact that Bhagat Bani was accepted by Guru Nanak Dev and other Gurus (sec the closeness of the words in the hymns)? Is it not a fact that Bhagat Bani was included in the Goindwal Pothis by Guru Amar Dass? With these facts, how dare a person, just to claim new finding for his Ph.D. Degree can accuse the fifth Guru of being “motivated primarily by the popular impulse of the times” to include Bhagat Bani. ; Note: these are not the only wrong conclusions and baseless assumptions; they are mentioned as a sample.
- Professional honesty
McLeod has made many false accusations about the Gurus, Sikhs and their scriptures, obviously to destroy their image under the presence of writing Sikh history for the English knowing people.
The author himself found in his study that both the accusations (by McLeod) relating to the Sikh scripture were false.
(i) The Sikhs deleted from the Kartarpur Bir a hymn relating to their hair cutting ceremony of the Sikh Guru.-McLeod.
The author has however, found that there was no such Shabad and no deletion in the Bir.
(ii) Doctrine of Guru Granth was not given by the Gurus but invented by the Sikhs to solve their dilemma after the death of Guru Gobind Singh. -McLeod.
The author concludes from his Study, “The verse Guru Ramdas clearly foreshadowed the doctrine of “Guru Granth.”
However, in the face of these findings of his own and more research material (provided to the author personally) regarding other accusations of McLeod being false and malicious, he still states in his thesis at P 21:
“Although ‘McLeod combines Sensitivity with meticulous care in his analysis of Sikh documents, his arguments on the Sikh Scriptures have been received with caution within the Sikh community. It is a conspicuous feature of the modern Panth to perceive critical scholarship as an attack on Sikh faith.
On the other hand, in the very Next sentence at P2] he refuses to accept Sikhs, who protested against these false accusations, as scholars. To chide their credibility he mentions them to be retired civil servants of the Government of India and doctor of medicine as well as academics. Further he accuses them to be having a “feeling of insecurity” and relates it to post-1984 events to label them reactionaries, if not terrorists, He ignores the fact (Which is known to him) that Protests, against false accusations by McLeod under the grab of critical Scholarship, were made Much earlier than the 1984 incident,
Those who have read the writings of his advisor McLeod (who accuses the Gurus of being insincere and one Guru changing the philosophy of the previous Guru, etc.) should not be surprised to read this.
McLeod’s writings were judged by Sikh scholars as bundle of assumptions and imaginations. His student is supposed to be following the same path.
Note: Before closing, it may be said that all this has been written under the clock of research and freedom of speech, A great author needs to be quoted here. In his book Six great Ideas, Martimer J.Alder writes that freedom has to be regulated by justice. When freedom violates justice, it becomes a license and has to be restricted.
Here is an ideal case where some writers have converted their freedom of speech and writing into a license to make false accusations against the Sikhs faith and distort their history.
This issue needs to be discussed among the scholars who had been fed for more than two decades on assumptions and imaginations of the biased writers as history of the Sikhs and their faith.
Article extracted from this publication >> November 27, 1992
