DISCORD IN THE SIKH PANTH.

• Author: McLEOD, W.H.
• Position: Scholarly disagreements over religion

Attacks have been made against the author by some Sikhs, convinced that his research is designed to undermine the Sikh faith. Such attacks, however, have not been nearly as vigorous as those directed against three Sikh scholars, regarded by their critics as renegades. Various reasons account for this turmoil in the Sikh community, pointing to the ever-present need for dealing cautiously with any academic analysis of a living faith. At the same time that analysis, tactful though it should be, remains essential--for it is often enough the nature of scholarship itself that is at issue.

IN HIS BOOK ENTITLED Ernest Trumpp and W. H. McLeod as Scholars of Sikh History, Religion and Culture, Trilochan Singh writes as follows:

During my travels abroad and prolonged stay in U.K. and U.S.A. I did not find a single Christian, Muslim or Jew Scholar (sic) whose attitude was even remotely so disgracefully malicious and dishonourable as that of Hew McLeod. [1]

Strong words indeed, and their meaning is frequently repeated in various passages throughout the book. In general, however, the treatment which I have received from Sikhs has been considerably more muted than I was perhaps entitled to expect. For one thing, many Sikhs share a concern for a rational understanding of Sikh society, and are prepared to acknowledge that even when uncomfortable, the conclusions which I reach may nevertheless be well founded. Secondly, I live in distant New Zealand, far away from any pressure that affronted members of the Sikh community might otherwise apply. Thirdly, I am not a member of the Sikh community and for that reason cannot be summoned to answer for my deeds before other members of the Panth. [2]

Other scholars, however, have not been as lucky. In recent years three academics have aroused anger in the Sikh community and have been vigorously attacked for their views. All three are Sikhs, two of them working in North American universities and the third employed by Guru Nanak Dev University in the Punjab.

The first of these is Dr. Pashaura Singh. On November 22, 1991, the University of Toronto conferred on him the degree of Ph.D. Pashaura Singh had earned the degree in Religious Studies with a dissertation entitled "The Text and Meaning of the Adi Granth," and was the first person to have graduated at the doctoral level in Sikh Studies from a Canadian university. The following year, in September 1992, he was appointed to a nontenured position in Sikh and Punjabi Studies at the University of Michigan. Meanwhile his Ph.D. dissertation had been photocopied without authorization and copies of it were freely circulated around North America and other parts of the world.

The first article concerning the dissertation appeared on October 2, 1992 in World Sikh News, a Sikh newspaper published from Stockton, California. Numerous articles and letters followed during the latter months of 1992 and early in 1993, many of them roundly accusing Pashaura Singh of the most monstrous blasphemy. Soon they were followed by judgment from the Punjab. A group was appointed by the Dharam Parchar Committee of the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (the S.G.P.C. [3] and this group issued a statement supporting the accusation of blasphemy.

This statement was subsequently confirmed on November 2 by the S.G.P.C., which notified its decision in a press statement issued by the president, Gurcharan Singh Tohra. In view of the seriousness of the matter, the statement declared: "Sikh sangats [congregations] the world over and the gurdwaras [Sikh temples] should boycott and not extend any cooperation, whatsoever, to S. Pashaura Singh." The S.G.P.C. also drew attention to the fact that Pashaura Singh had committed blasphemy in a dissertation written "under the supervision of Dr. McLeod," who has "been at work for long with a view to creating confusion among the Sikhs throughout the world, regarding authenticity of the holy Gurbani embodied in the holy Guru Granth Sahib. [4]

Pashaura Singh was scarcely a person who might be expected to commit blasphemy. A loyal Amrit-dhari Sikh, [5] he had been educated in Gurmat College (a theological institution in Patiala) and was awarded a Gold Medal for his final results in the M.A. He was then employed by a Sikh school in New Delhi as a teacher of Sikh history and religion. Subsequently he took up an appointment as granthi (clergyman) in the Calgary gurdwara and while there completed another M.A. degree from the University of Calgary. This provided him with the means to apply for entry to the University of Toronto, where he wrote the dissertation that has created so much controversy. In this dissertation he applied the routine techniques of textual criticism to the sacred scripture of the Sikhs. This he did with considerable caution and reverence, and the work which he produced seemed to those practiced in the art of textual criticism to be a generally conservative one.

But his treatment was certainly not represented as conservative by those who had photocopied the dissertation. Accompanied by damning comments the dissertation was circulated widely. These comments are well illustrated in an article by Professor Surinder Singh Kohli:

The Scripture is a revelation from God to man, [and] therefore it is blasphemous to suggest or say that Guru Arjan Dev worked over a number of drafts to produce the final text of Scripture... [6]

Professor Kobli continues:

None would accept the blasphemous statement of the researcher that Guru Arjan Dev, who received the bani [the words of sacred scripture] intuitively from the Lord, modified his own hymns in a number of places. Why has the research[er] not visualized the consequences of denigrating the revelatory character of the scripture and indulging in blasphemy by specifying such a manuscript as the basis of his research, which is undated, unauthentic and without any historical significance? .... This challenge of the researcher regarding the traditional understanding of the Mul Mantar is, in fact, a challenge to the whole Panth [the Sikh community]. It is the height of Blasphemy.... The researcher has wilfully indulged in an irreligious exercise and act of blasphemy, knowing full well as a Sikh the sentiments and beliefs of his own people.... A great disservice has been done through this research. The Sikh religious institutions should take a note of such blasphemous works, which try to demolish the spiritual foundation of their faith. [7]

There were two major objections lodged against Pashaura Singh's dissertation, together with one other complaint. This last was Pashaura Singh's reference to Guru Arjan as having been "killed," whereas Sikh tradition had always regarded him as being "martyred." It was a complaint easily answered, though not easily communicated to those who had made it. In the draft dissertation Pashaura Singh had actually referred to the Guru as being martyred, but one of his examiners had objected to the term and had required him to substitute a neutral word.

The two major objections were as follows. Firstly, Pashaura Singh had made use of the recently discovered MS 1245 in the library of Guru Nanak Dev University, judging it to be earlier than Guru Arjan's Kartarpur text of 1603-4 C.E. (the text which is traditionally regarded as the substance of the Adi Granth) and treating it as one of the versions used by the Guru when compiling his final copy. Ms 1245 contained the hymns of the Gurus in a form that was very similar to that recorded in the 1603-4 text. Several reasons were advanced for the slightly earlier date which Pashaura Singh thought should be attached to MS 1245, including the Gurmukhi style in which it was written. The difference in age separating the two versions was not very great, Pashaura Singh estimating that MS 1245 would have been copied between 1595 and 1604 CE.

Secondly, Pashaura Singh was alleged to have claimed that the wording of the Adi Granth was different from what the Gurus had originally uttered. Most of this aspect of the dispute concerned the wording of the Mul Mantra, the "Basic Credal Statement" with which the scripture begins. The Mul Mantra is believed to be by Guru Nanak and Pashaura Singh was able to show that older versions of the text differed marginally from the version which was recorded under the supervision of Guru Arjan in the Kartarpur manuscript. The variant readings made no difference to the actual meaning of the Mul Mantra. These were variants in spelling and in the extra wording which distinguishes the later versions. Two earlier texts were used. These were that of the Goindval Pothis and, a little later, that of MS 1245.

The Goindval Pothis ("volumes") had originally been four in number, only two of which are known to be still extant. [8] These had been recorded at the direction of the third Guru, Amar Das, probably in 1570-72, and the volume containing the Mul Mantra still survives. The differences that appear in these...