CONTESTING INTERPRETATIONS OF THE SIKH TRADITION
Author: J. S. GREWAL
Published by: Manohar Publishers, 2/6, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi
Pages: 315

Reviewed by Dr Gurdarshan Singh Dhillon

The book under review is divided into three parts. The first part deals with the origin and development of the Sikh Studies from the last quarter of the eighteenth century to the third quarter of the twentieth. The second part takes up the issues raised in the ’Perspectives on the Sikh Tradition’, a book on Sikh Studies, edited by Justice Gurdev Singh. Third part of the book deals with more recent controversies and current debate going on in the field of Sikh Studies.

The writer believes that a ‘dispassionate discussion may lead to mutual understanding between the contestants for a more fruitful dialogue in Sikh Studies’. He professes to be neutral between the contestants and tries to ‘narrow the gap’ between them and thinks that the debate may lead to a new agenda in Sikh Studies. The book takes up the issue of Western methodology as applied to Eastern religions especially Sikhism. Grewal believes that Sikh Studies by European writers in the late 18th century are characterised by empirical approach. These writers rejected all spiritual and mythical elements to formulate rational interpretation of the evidence at their disposal. He has drawn the conclusion that the cardinal assumption of the western writers was that rational cognition of the past was possible only in terms of the human and the natural as opposed to the suprahuman and the supranatural. Grewal thinks that J.D. Cunningham was rather exceptional in postulating co-relations between ideology, Sikh polity, Sikh social order and Sikh identity.

It is noteworthy that early Western writings on the Sikh history and on other aspects of Sikh life were motivated by political and evangelistic considerations. Some of these writings were taken up at the behest of the British East India Company which looked upon the Sikhs as a potent threat to the political ambitions of the Britishers in India. The first encounter of the British with the Sikhs was as a political power not as a religious community. A careful survey of the writings of Colonel A.L. Polier, Major James Browne, Charles Wilkins, George Forster and John Malcolm reveals that they all took due notice of the role and inspiration of Sikh ideology in the development of Sikh community as a political power. Although they were aware of the history making potential of the Sikh ideology, they were equally conscious of the close relationship between religion and politics of the Sikhs. But the work of these early western writers was hampered because of the lack of knowledge of the living, unbroken and reliable Sikh tradition. Limitations of these writers also arose from the absence of personal contacts with the Sikhs and lack of knowledge of their language. They gathered scraps of information and as a consequence of which their accounts remained partial, patchy and superficial. These writings were not systematic and these writers were far from being custodians of abstract ideas like reason, justice and truth as has been made out by Grewal. Most of them could not set high standards of scholarship and could not produce objective, integrated and impartial accounts. Forster writes, ”My knowledge of the subject does not permit me to deduce, on substantial authority, their history from the period in which Nanak their first institutor and law-giver lived, or mark with an order of dates the progress which these people have made, and the varying gradations of their power, until their attainment of their present state of national importance.” (Vol. I, p. 291)

It was reserved for J.D. Cunningham to put the record straight. He stood on the pedestal of his own individual independence and was able to analyze the truth of the moment in terms of higher and wider truth. He became familiar with the mainsprings of Sikh inspiration, studied them profoundly, explored them in all their bearings till his mind was pervaded with them. His quest for truth led him to fathom more significant currents below the surface of events. He fully appreciated the role of Sikh ideology in shaping Sikh history. As Grewal has rightly said, ‘Cunnigham’s work proved to be a source of inspiration for quite a few Indian historians of the Sikhs during the twentieth century’.

What was it that made Cunnigham’s work of such lasting value? Had it been based on purely empirical evidence his understanding of Sikhism would not have been complete. Had he formed purely rational interpretation of the evidence at his disposal, his book would not have been so much appreciated. Had he adopted ’methodological atheism’, a term frequently used in Grewal’s book, he would have narrowed the scope of his study.

Cunnigham marshalled his facts and formulated his arguments without fear or favour. He had a superb and almost intuitive grasp of the dynamics of the Sikh struggle and was able to eloquently bring out the valour of the Sikhs during the Anglo-Sikh Wars. He tried to explain Ranjit Singh’s rise to power as the fulfilment of the mission of the Gurus. He did not interpret history in terms of personality. His assessment was that in case the Sikhs were free from overwhelming odds, the polity, which threw up a man like Ranjit Singh, would be able to tackle the crisis following his death. Cunningham was dismissed from service and had to face degradation at the hands of the British because of the honest and truthful interpretation of Sikhism and Sikh history. Cunningham’s work is remarkable for its command of source material, sound historical judgement and intuitive grasp of the situation which illumined the past in all its complexity.

During the colonial rule some striking developments could be seen in the field of Sikh Studies. Grewal notes that Cunningham’s interpretation of the Sikh past could not suit the purposes of the new rulers. The Western scholars undertook the study of Sikh religion. What is Sikhism and how is it related to the earlier religious traditions of Hinduism and Islam? Is it a distinct religion or a sect of Hinduism? These and a whole series of other questions relating to the origin of Sikhism were also raised. Divergence of views on these issues among the Western scholars can be attributed to several factors. Primarily it was lack of deep study and ignorance of Sikh tradition.

Dr. Trumpp, a German missionary, was paid by the India Office and then by the colonial government to bring out a translation of the Granth Sahib. His bias against non-Christian religions and his ignorance of language crippled his understanding of the Sikh scripture. Grewal points out that Trumpp raised the question of discovering the historical Guru Nanak, interpreting his evidence completely in human terms. Had Trumpp applied the same parameters for the understanding of Christianity and had he raised the question of discovering the historical Christ, there would have been some justification for his assessment of Guru Nanak, stripped of his divinity.

Surprisingly Grewal has not taken any note of Trumpp’s bias against Sikhism. Trumpp wrote, ”The Sikh Granth is incoherent and shallow in the extreme, and couched at the same time in dark and perplexing language in order to cover these defects.” Sikhism in his opinion was ”a waning religion that will soon belong to history.” The Sikhs lodged a strong protest with Lord Curzon: ”Dr. Trumpp has cruelly misrepresented our Granth Sahib, our holy Gurus and our religion, which we so prize. He has spoken of the language of our sacred Volume in very offensive terms.” Instead of condemning the biased and unacademic approach of a mercenary scholar like Trumpp, Grewal tries to reinforce the notion that it was a rational cognition of the Sikh past which added a major item to the agenda of Sikh Studies in the future. How could Trumpp’s biased interpretation of Sikh scripture be made a basis for the agenda of Sikh Studies?

Another western scholar M.A. Macauliffe took due note of the biased attitude of Dr. Trumpp. One of the main objects of his voluminous work on Sikhism was to endeavour to make some reparation to the Sikhs for the insults which he (Trumpp) offered to their Gurus and their religion. His six volume set not only contains translation of the major portion of the Sikh scripture but also includes the lives of Sikh Gurus, their followers and contemporaries. Macauliffe recognised that Sikhism was a divinely instituted faith. He perceived Sikhism as an original dispensation and refuted Trumpp’s contention that it was a reformed sect of Hinduism. Dorothy Field also agreed with Macauliffe that’Sikhism should be regarded a new and separate world religion rather than a sect of Hindus.” Trumpp’s onslaught on Sikhism was also sought to be confronted by many Sikh scholars culminating in Bhai Kahn Singh’s famous treatise Ham Hindu Nahin. The eighteenth century was a tumultuous period when the Sikhs could not turn their attention to their history and religion. It was left to the Singh Sabha leaders to undertake the onerous task of rectifying the biased and erroneous interpretations of Sikh history and religion.

Grewal’s contention that none of the Sikh writers, mentioned by him, was inclined to make Sikh identity the basis of Sikh politics and much less of Sikh nationalism is not tenable. There is ample evidence to prove that the assertion of distinct and separate Sikh identity did form the basis of Sikh politics. It was this assertion that led to the recognition of the religio-political identity of the Sikhs in the passing of the Anand Marriage Act (1909) and the Montague- Chelmsford Reforms (1919).

Grewal notices that with the passage of time Christian – Sikh dialogue in the Punjab came to be marked by sobriety. He says, ”Archer and Loehlin were writing more than half a century after Trumpp. By then, Christian attitudes towards Indian religions had changed a great deal. Denunciation was replaced by serious effort to understand.” (p. 114)

Here Grewal entangles himself in a web of self-contradiction. In the earlier part of the book he takes no note of the denunciatory approach of Trumpp towards Sikhism. Now he admits that serious effort to understand Sikhism started half a century later. He argues at length to prove that Archer emphasized the need of a historical biography of Guru Nanak, posing the problem deliberately in terms of the Nanak of faith and the Nanak of history, carrying the implication of a thorough analysis of the Janamsakhis’. The true import of Archer’s rationale cannot be understood in terms of the two categories coined by Grewal i.e. the Nanak of faith and the Nanak of history. According to Archer’s interpretation there is no dichotomy between the two Nanaks. Archer writes, ”He (Nanak) is what India and the world in general think he is; he is also what Sikhs think of him – he is historico-theological to them… the two Nanaks are not always to be distinguished from each other. They are two in one both in practice and in theory.” (p. 57) Archer’s remarks are twisted and torn out of context by Grewal. No historical biography of Guru Nanak can ever overlook his status and role as a prophet.

Grewal links the current debate in Sikh Studies to the publication in 1986 of ’Perspectives on the Sikh Tradition’, a book edited by Justice Gurdev Singh and published by the Academy of Sikh Religion and Culture from Patiala.

The book is primarily a refutation of the works of W.H. McLeod. In his foreword to the book, Khushwant Singh states that Mcleod was on weak ground and some of his conclusions erroneous’. Grewal in the introduction to his book states that McLeod’s ’position was not always fully and fairly presented’. ’Perspectives on the Sikh Tradition’ includes evaluation of McLeod’s controversial works by Noel Q.King, Justice Gurdev Singh, Daljeet Singh and Jagjit Singh. The issues raised by these scholars have not been properly answered by Grewal. In his book Guru Nanak and the Sikh Religion (1968), McLeod has clearly tried to demolish Guru Nanak’s status as a prophet. In its Preface, he states that it is a ’study of the man Guru Nanak’.

As noted by Daljeet Singh McLeod’s perception of Guru Nanak stems from his inadequate understanding of the Guru’s world-view, which does not permit any dichotomy between the spiritual and the secular realms of human existence. Grewal too has overlooked Daljeet Singh’s argument, in his anxiety to defend McLeod. Grewal has criticised Justice Gurdev Singh for attributing extra academic or infra-academic motives to McLeod and for looking upon him as a Christian missionary trying to undermine non-Christian traditions. There is no doubt that with his selective use of source material and unbalanced approach McLoeod betrays a lack of academic integrity. He often lets predisposition get the better of his scholarly perception and makes himself open to the charge of extraneous considerations. There is no sufficient justification for what he includes, represses, censors, abstracts, marks or conceals.

McLeod interprets Sikhism as a religion of interiority and does not acknowledge its life-affirming and revolutionary character. He does not take cognisance of the extroversion, dynamism and socio-political vitality of the faith founded by Guru Nanak. He fails to note that a religion based mainly on interiority and passivity could not have such a powerful hold on the minds of the people. He turns a blind eye to the eventful Sikh history full of sacrifices and martyrdoms. Most of McLeod’s so-called reasoning consists of finding arguments to prove that there was no originality in the teachings of Guru Nanak and that his religious experience was not revelatory. How could McLeod measure the spiritual and mystical heights of the Guru with his rational- empirical tools? He has no yardstick to judge the nature of a prophet. How can he cast doubts on the status of the Guru as a Prophet? Would he venture to judge the founders of Christianity and Islam with the same empirical standards with which he has judged the founder of Sikhism? It is in the fitness of things that scholars should compare, analyse and sympathise. This approach can narrow the distance between divergent views. Grewal does concede that rational-empirical method has its limitations but still he uses all manner of excuses to defend McLeod.

Scope of history should not be restricted. History is all-inclusive and multi-dimensional. It is comprehensive. Operation of history is not confined to the plane of practical work-a-day life. It is an investigation of the entire past in all its areas and by all means. Historical methodology, adopted by McLeod and Harjot Oberoi needs to come out of the narrow grooves of woefully inadequate rationalism and widen its horizons. Kant in his famous treatise ’Critique of Pure Reason’ asserts that in any comprehensive system of thought pure reason alone cannot suffice. Comte, one of the giants who shaped the modern mind,considers the atheist ’the most irrational of all theologians’. The atheist while essaying to speak of God begins by ’denying the very things of which he is speaking.’ This is exactly what Mcleod has done in relation to Sikh Studies. He denies that Guru Nanak gave tangible shape to his ideals through institutions which played a decisive role in shaping the course of Sikh history. He has tried to reduce Sikhism to a set of abstract ideas and ideals. His work is marked by self-righteousness,rhetorical over-statements and self- serving conclusions. In a move more subtle than Dr. Trumpp’s, Mcleod seems to have turned from an active Christian propagandist to a stark athiest, in order to legitimise his assault on Sikhism. He seems to have put on the garb of an academician to conceal his motive.

Justice Gurdev Singh, Daljeet Singh and Jagjit Singh very strongly refute Mcleod’s contention that the achievement of the Sikh Gurus was restricted to the ideological plane. The Sikh movement gave a clear socio-political orientation to the Sikh society and established a separate identity for the Sikhs. Grewal is silent on the issue of identity.

Grewal has also failed to note that Mcleod has cast doubts on the authenticity of the Sikh scripture,omitting reference to half a dozen books specifically dealing with the subject. Mcleod has not cared to examine the Kartarpuri Bir, nor has he taken cognisance of the observations of scholars who have made a page-by page and line-by line in-depth study of the Bir. Bhai Jodh Singh, Mahan Singh and Daljeet Singh have given ample credible evidence to prove the authenticity of the Kartarpuri Bir. A scholar should tread his path with utmost caution and propriety. Selective use of material is bound to lead to partisan conclusions and misrepresentation.

Grewal believes that the ongoing debate degenerates into a question of the subjective status of the contestants, insider versus outsider or believer versus nonbeliever. Such analysis presupposes lack of critical standards and irrational involvement on the part of believers and criticism on the part of non-believers. Grewal tries to bridge the gap between the contestants by playing the role of a mediator but does not succeed. What kind of middle way does he suggest between believers and non-believers?

A community’s self-image cannot be overlooked by the non-believers and outsiders. The present is historically as significant as the past. E.H. Carr describes history, ”as a continous process of interaction between the historian and his facts, and unending dialogue between the present and the past.” Nietzche believes that the best explanation of the past can be in the prespective of the present and by those who are engaged in the building of the future and who, by the very task they are engaged in, have the right to judge the past. Nietzche is of the opinion that the past in its pure rational form does not exist at all. It is multi-dimensional. Grewal believes that the controversy would lead to a new agenda in Sikh Studies. But he has not been able to define this new agenda. We believe that the central issue that has come to the fore is that of research methodology but it relates to the religious studies in general and not to the Sikh Studies in the particular. If at all a new agenda has to be evolved it should apply to the study of all religions. Edward Gibbon in ’The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire’, one of the great histories of all times, points out that every age has had unbelievers to convince and heretics to confute but, “the duty of the historian does not call upon him to interpose his private judgement in this nice and important controversy; he ought not to dissemble the difficulty of adopting such a theory as may reconcile the interest of religion with that of reason, of making a proper application of that theory.” Rational scientific enquiry has dominated the Western world but the West is still far from having developed the real temper of science. It has still to bring the spiritual and the empirical realms of life into creative harmony.

Grewal wrote this book as a part of the paid project assigned to him by the Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR). It is worth mentioning that the ICHR is an organ of the Government of India.

Gurdarshan Singh Dhillon
Professor of History, Panjab University, Chandigarh
Res. 2059, Sector 15-C, Chandigarh
~ ~ ~

THE HISTORICAL IDENTITY OF “DASAM GRANTH”
by Jagjit Singh

[Reproduced from Abstract of Sikh Studies, July 1994]

The first and foremost prerequisite for the historical study of a document is to verify its identity and veracity; for, otherwise, if the foundation becomes questionable, the superstructure built upon it automatically loses its validity. So, let us begin with the history of the origin of the earliest birs (original manuscripts) of ‘Dasam Granth’.

1. HISTORY OF THE BIRS
Gyani Gyan Singh has given in his ‘Panth Parkash’ (published by Bhasha Vibhag, Punjab, 1970) recognition to four birs (pp. 321- 322), and Mahan Kosh, out of these four, to two (p. 616). These four birs are: First one associated with the name of Bhai Mani Singh, second deposited at present in Gurdwara Moti Bagh, Patiala, third deposited in the Dewan Khana, Sangrur, and the fourth deposited in Gurdwara Janam Asthan, Patna.

Dr Ratan Singh Jaggi is the only scholar who claims to have examined these four birs from the point of view of probing their history and origin. He has examined many other birs, besides these four, but he does not consider them to be very old. (Dasam Granth Karitartav, p. 91). Hence, we will confine our examination to the four birs listed above.

The first bir, associated with the name of Bhai Mani Singh, was in the custody of Raja Gulab Singh Sethi (Hanuman Road, New Delhi) when Dr Jaggi interviewed him on 5.12.1959. According to Raja Gulab Singh, some army man (sainik) happened to get this bir in the loot, when Multan was conquered by Maharaja Ranjit Singh in 1818CE. Afterwards, this sainik was one of the contingent of 800 men the Maharaja sent to Hyderabad (Deccan), and the sainik took the bir along with him. He and his descendants came to settle permanently at Hazur Sahib (Deccan), and the bir remained with them till Raja Gulab Singh bought it from these descendants in 1944-45CE (Karitartav, p. 92).

The original source of the second bir (i.e., of Gurdwara Moti Bagh) is traced by Gyani Gyan Singh to Bhai Sukha Singh, granthi of Gurdwara Patna. According to his Panth Parkash (pp. 321-322), Bhai Sukha Singh composed, or compiled, or created (rachi) this bir in Samat 1832 (1775CE). Afterwards, his son Charat Singh added five leaves to it, imitating the hand-writing of Guru Gobind Singh. He claimed these leaves to be in the Guru’s own handwriting just for the sake of monetary considerations. From Charat Singh this amended bir passed on to Baba Hakim Singh and from Hakim Singh to Gurdwara Moti Bagh.

One 85 year old Bedi Natha Singh, who claimed to be a descendant of Baba Hakim Singh, and was a resident of village Raghu Majra (Patiala), told Dr Jaggi in October 1959 that it was in fact Nahar Singh who got the bir from Charat Singh, and presented it to Maharaja Ranjit Singh. Ranjit Singh got the bir installed in his private gurdwara, and put Nahar Singh in charge of it. On the death of the Maharaja, Nahar Singh brought the bir to his home, from where it passed on to Baba Hakim Singh, who was the son-in-law of Nahar Singh’s grandson. Baba Hakim Singh presented the bir to Maharaja Mahinder Singh of Patiala (1862-1876CE), and the Maharaja got the bir installed in Gurdwara Moti Bagh (Karitartav, p. 94). The story has no corroboration whatsoever.

All the information Dr Jaggi could get about the third important bir, which is in the custody of Gurdwara Dewan Khana, Sangrur, was from granthi Bhai Nandan Singh. He told Dr Jaggi that this bir was presented to Maharaja Sarup Singh of Jind (1837-1864CE) by a Pathan at Delhi in 1857, when the Maharaja went there to help the British in the mutiny (Karitartav, p. 95). The bir has no earlier history.

The fourth important bir is stored, along with some other birs, in the store-house attached to Gurdwara Janam Asthan, Patna (Bihar). Nobody was able to give any information regarding the history of this or other birs there (Karitartav, p. 97).

These stories about the history of the four birs are just cock and bull stories. How did a valuable document, such as the bir associated with the name of Bhai Mani Singh, come to be in Multan in 1818CE, when this place was, at that time, far away from the centres of Sikh culture or political power? Similarly, how did the bir, at present at Sangrur, come to be in the possession of a Pathan (and not a Sikh) in far off Delhi in 1857CE? Apart from this, these stories about the history of the four birs can by no means be regarded as reliable historical evidence.

What is very significant is what these stories, relating to the history of the two important birs, begin with, in the case of the first one, with the conquest of Multan in 1818CE, and in the case of the third bir, with the Mutiny of 1857CE. As Bhai Mani Singh was martyred in 1734CE, the supposed compilation of Dasam Granth by him could not have been completed later than that period. This leaves a time-gap of at least 81 years and 120 years between the time of the sudden discovery at odd places, of the first and third birs, respectively, and the period of Bhai Mani Singh. How is it that these documents, which the Sikh society should have valued, had they been genuine, remained unknown and unnoticed for so long? In any case, there is no historical evidence available to trace the ‘missing link’.

2. HISTORICITY OF DASAM GRANTH
The historicity of Dasam Granth is also non-existent. The only source-material relating to Dasam Granth is Sikh literature. And the contemporary and near-contemporary Sikh literature of the period of Guru Gobind Singh (Sri Gur Sobha, Parchian Sewa Das, Koer Singh’s Gurbilas Patshahi Das) does not mention Dasam Granth or any like literature of the Guru period at all. It is only in the Sikh literature of the post-Guru period that one comes across sketchy references to some compositions of the time of the Tenth Guru.

2.1 Bhai Mani Singh’s Letter
Chronologically, the so-called letter of Bhai Mani Singh to Mataji is the first document which has been given importance by some scholars for connecting the compilation of Dasam Granth with the name of Bhai Mani Singh. This letter could not have been written earlier than 1716CE, as it mentions the rumour of Banda having escaped from custody. For he was arrested and executed in that year.

Dr Jaggi has given solid reasons for suspecting this letter to be fake. In all the Gurmukhi prose writings of that period (e.g., the Hukamnamas of Guru Gobind Singh and Banda), words constituting a sentence were joined together, without leaving blank spaces between them. And, this method of writing continued to be followed right upto 1867CE, as shown by a copy of the newspaper ‘Akhbar Sri Darbar Sahib’ published in that year. But the words in the so-called letter of Bhai Mani Singh are not joined together, and are separated by blank spaces. Also, as Dr Jaggi has discussed in detail, the shape of letters and the liberal use of bindi of the Gurmukhi script in the letter are different from the writings of Bhai Mani Singh’s period. This clearly shows that the so-called letter of Bhai Mani Singh is forged, and it was so done at a much later period than 1867CE (for details, see Karitartav pp. 38-45). Secondly, the letter is a clear fake attempt to associate Bhai Mani Singh’s name with Charitro Pakhyan. For, it is unthinkable that a learned Sikh like Bhai Mani Singh would send Charitro Pakhyan to Mataji, as it is a document which Sikhs are reluctant to read or recite in the presence of a lady or in sangat.

2.2 Bansavalinama
The second document of note is ‘Bansavalinama Dasan Patshahian Ka’ written by Kesar Singh Chhibber (edited by Dr Jaggi, pp. 135-136), who completed his work in 1779CE, i.e., 71 years after the demise of Guru Gobind Singh Ji and 45 years after the martyrdom of Bhai Mani Singh. Chhibber tells us that Guru Gobind Singh composed, ‘Samund Sagar Granth’, and that this granth was consigned to the waters of a rivulet in Samat 1758. ‘Samat Saturan Sai Athwanje so granth jee nadi pavaia’. He further tells that the Guru composed another granth ‘Avtar Leela’ and the packets (sanchian) of this granth were scattered to the winds due to warfare. ‘Khind gaian, judh larai Karke Kidhre Kidhre so gaian’. He also adds that Bhai Mani Singh got collected the Avtar Leela Granth in 1782 Samat (1725CE). It is a clear self-contradiction of Chhibber to say that what was completely lost or scattered, Bhai Mani Singh could bring intact again in 1725CE, about three decades later, especially when there is historically no trace of it for a century thereafter.

Statements of Chhibber cannot at all be considered historical evidence. Besides, his work is separated from the period of the Tenth Guru by 71 years; and from that of Bhai Mani Singh by at least 45 years, if not more. Evidently, his work rests, not on any historical basis, but on hearsay, as he himself admits at several places in his accounts. He writes in the very beginning (p. 1) that his account is based on what he has heard and what he remembers (of what he has heard). ‘Suni Sunai bolke joi rahi hai yad’. Again “That story I had heard, I have incorporated into my book for my own entertainment”. ‘Soi Kahani Suni Sunai, apni sauk nal pothi hai banai’. How can such memory or record be taken to be reliable (unless it is corroborated by other independent accounts). He was over 70 years old when he completed his work, and, has, according to authorities, made clear mistakes in the dates he records. (Karitartav, pp. 28-29).

However, we will point out an implication which Chhibber’s account leads to. He says that the Samund Sagar Granth which Guru Gobind Singh composed was thrown into a rivulet in his life time, and that the second granth was scattered to different places due to warfare. If that is so, what is the historical evidence to specify as to what the previous literature exactly related to, or, who were its authors? Could it be imagined that had the literature been of any importance to Sikhs, it would have been thrown in a river? Therefore there is no historical validity to link the literature of the period of Guru Gobind Singh with that of the post-Guru period.

2.3 Other Documents
The third document we need mention is Mehma Parkash (1800CE). However, it does not go beyond telling that granth named Vidya Sagar was compiled at the time of Guru Gobind Singh, and names some of the poets whose compositions were included in it.

Besides these three documents we have noted above, there are ‘Guru Partap Suraj’, by Bhai Santokh Singh (1843CE), ‘Panth Parkash’, by Gyani Gyan Singh (1930CE) and Mahan Kosh (1930CE). These need not even be taken into account, as they belong to a very late period, and appear to only reiterate, in one form or other, what had been written earlier.

3. CONCLUSION
The origin and history of the earliest available birs of Dasam Granth besides being unknown are suspect. The history of the compilation of ‘Dasam Granth’, as one volume, is equally unknown. As we said in the beginning, if the foundation becomes questionable, the superstructure built upon it automatically losses its validity.

There is no historical evidence for linking the Dasam Granth in its present form, either with the Tenth Master, or with the literature thrown or lost, or with the name of Bhai Mani Singh, or with any known or tangible material existing for over a century before it. The recent story of a granth presented by the Tenth Master and its existence is also of the same brand. For, it has been now introduced three centuries after the alleged event.
~~~

DASAM GRANTH – ITS HISTORY
by Daljeet Singh

[A brilliant exposition on history of "Dasam Granth" by Late S. Daljeet Singh, founder of Institute of Sikh Studies.]

INTRODUCTION
Since the time the writings or pothis, to be later compiled and called the granth of the Tenth Master, were originally found, there has been a controversy about their authorship, authenticity and histor icity. Very few persons have made a serious study about their genuineness. The issue is important, and writers like O’Connell and others have often made accusations like:
“A conspicuous deficiency already mentioned is the general reluctance to grapple effectively with the Dasam Granth. The period whence it comes is absolutely crucial, and until it is adequately treated, we shall continue to grope in our efforts to trace the course of Sikh history or development of Sikh tradition”. It is, therefore, necessary to assess the veracity of facts, and to indicate the probabilities of the issue, so that it is understood in its right academic perspective.

HISTORY – 18TH CENTURY CHHIBBER’S STORY
Most of the evidence about the present work called the ‘Dasam Granth’ is negative. The earliest reference about some writings by the Tenth Master is by Chhibber in his ‘Bansavalinama’. Contemporary historians of the period of Guru Gobind Singh like Sainapat, Bhai Nandlal, Chaupa Singh, Sewadas, Koer Singh or Bhai Mani Singh, make no mention of the Dasam Granth or any such writing in the period. This negative evidence is quite significant and strong.

For, had there been any compilation like the Dasam Granth, these contemporary chroniclers could never have failed to mention it. The first reference to some writings by the Tenth Guru is in Chhibber’s ‘Bansavalinama’ written 71 years after the Guru’s demise. This volume, as assessed by scholars like Jaggi, Kohli and others, has not been found to be very reliable as to its dates and other particulars. Besides, the author himself says that he is no chronicler, but has based the writing merely on hearsay, and just as a matter of his hobby: “I state what I had heard and what I could recollect.” “This hearsay I record just by way of my hobby (shauk).”[1] Thus, Chhibber himself discounts the historical accuracy of his statements, for, he claims to belong only to the third generation of a Brahmin family whose head was a contemporary of the Tenth Master.

Further, two important points have also to be kept in view. First, most Brahmin writers always have a strong, natural and understandable bias to give a Brahminical colour to the Sikh religion and its history, even though all the Sikh Gurus were emphatic to proclaim the independence of their system and the Panth. The Fifth Master wrote:
“I keep not the Hindu fast, nor do I observe Muslim month of fast;
I serve only Him, who emancipates all; He is my Gosain;
He is my Allah; I have found release from the Hindus as from the Turks;
I visit not the pilgrim places of Hindus, nor go to Kaaba for Haj;
1 serve only God, I serve not any other;
I worship not the Hindu way, nor say the Muslim prayers;
I bow to the one God within my heart;
I am neither a Hindu, nor a Muslim;
For, my body and life belong to Him, Allah and Ram.”[2]

Second, Guru Gobind Singh had put the final seal on this complete separateness, by the creation of the Khalsa, the Nash Doctrine (Dharam Nash, Bharam Nash, Karam Nash, Sharam Nash and Janam Nash), and the declaration of Guru Granth Sahib as the sole Ideological Guide and Living Guru of the Sikhs. Yet, these writings have shown a subtle tendency to reshape and reframe Sikh events, so that these are accepted by the gullible as a part of the Brahminical tradition.

Following is what Chhibber records: The Guru got written a Granth (book) called ‘Samundar Sagar’. Later he got it thrown in a river.” “Later still he composed other writings.” “But, during the battles at Anandpur, the leaves of these writings or packets (Sanchian) were scattered to the wind and lost.”[3] Chhibber is vague about the contents or nature of these writings. Once he calls it ‘Samundar Sagar’, at another time ‘Avtar Leela’.[4] There is no reference at all to ‘Dasam Granth’, ‘Bachittar Natak’, ‘Chandi Charitar’, ‘Chandi di Var’, ‘Charitropakhyan’ or ‘Chaubis Avtar’, as these are called now.

It is clear that it was peace time when the Guru had thrown the Samundar Sagar Granth in the river. Could it ever happen that he would destroy gurbani, his own or that of earlier Gurus, or any thing of value to Sikhs? Gurbani has always been considered sacred, and been venerated more than even the Guru. Evidently, the writings were such as could conveniently be discarded. The argument applies doubly to the packets that were never completed or compiled, and were allowed to be scattered.

Thus, Chhibber’s story adds nothing to our knowledge about the Dasam Granth writings, their compilation or loss. Therefore, the negative evidence of all contemporary chroniclers, coupled with the evidence of
Chhibber’s story, shows that till the end of the 18th century, there was nothing known about any granth of the Tenth Guru, or any writings now regarded as its chapters or contents. In fact, the only granth or compilation mentioned in the literature is ‘Vidya Sagar’ or ‘Samundar Sagar Granth’, the contents of which have no relation to the present Dasam Granth.

CHHIBBER’S STORY CONTRADICTED
Chhibber alleges three facts. First, that the Tenth Master initially created a granth called Samundar Sagar, and had it thrown into a river. Later, some papers (Sanchis) were prepared, but these, too, were scattered to the wind and lost in the time of battles. Second, he records that in 1725 A.D. Bhai Mani Singh compiled a granth combining the bani of Aad Granth and the writings that subsequently came to be called Dasam Granth. For doing this mix-up, and thereby violating the prescribed sequence or method of writing gurbani, a poor Sikh, when he saw the combined granth, cursed Bhai Sahib saying that just as he had disjointed the gurbani and mixed it up, he would also be cut to pieces.[5] Chhibber never writes chronologically. For example, in a still later couplet no. 389, he writes that in 1698 A.D. Guru Gobind Singh rejected the request of the Sikhs to combine the Aad Granth with his own writings.[6] It is very significant that the entire book of Chhibber is packed with his use and narration of Brahminical practices, and stories of demons, fairies, Horn, Mantras, curses, etc., even though he knows that these are opposed to the doctrines in the Guru Granth Sahib. In short, his Brahminical faith and prejudices are glaringly evident.

In addition, the above version of Chhibber, we find, is contradicted both by Gian Singh and Sarup Das Bhalla on all the essential points concerning Dasam Granth writings. Gian Singh never mentions that Samundar Sagar Granth or Sanchis of Avtar Leela stories were prepared, thrown or lost. He also contradicts Chhibber that Sikhs at any time made a request to the Guru to combine his bani with the Aad Granth. All he states is that once Sikhs requested the Guru to compile his own bani, but he categorically declined to do so, saying that such a request should never be made again.[7] He also contradicts Chhibber’s version that Bhai Mani Singh ever combined the two, and later suffered a ‘curse’ from a poor Sikh for doing so. He only states that in response to a suggestion by some Sikhs, he wrote gurbani in separate words for the purpose of explaining its meaning ( teeka ), and that the sangat disapproved of it, saying that he would suffer for it.[8] But the sangat conceded that his faith in the Guru will remain unshaken. This satisfied Bhai Sahib. However, he indicates that on the request of Sikhs, he collected the bani of Guru Gobind Singh.[9]

‘Mehma Parkash’ of Sarup Das Bhalla, a late 18th century or an early 19th century production, materially gives the same impression as does Gian Singh. Bhalla, a non-Brahmin, contradics all the three assertions of Chhibber, namely, the preparation or loss of any granth like Samundar Sagar or Sanchis of other writings, the request of Sikhs to the Guru to add his bani to the Aad Granth, or any combined compilation by Bhai Mani Singh, and the curse by a poor Sikh. On the other hand, Bhalla gives the story that the Guru got prepared a granth, since lost, called Vidya Sagar, which constituted translations of Sanskrit literature.[10] He does not say that the Sikhs ever requested the Guru to include his bani in the Aad Granth, nor that Bhai Sahib ever produced any such compilation.

These being the realities, there is little doubt that Chhibber’s version is not only unworthy of reliance, but is clearly the result of a prejudiced twist to facts as they really were. For, it is unthinkable that Bhai Sahib would ever combine the two, as alleged by Chhibber and as now sought to be supported by the presence of the Delhi and Sangrur birs, when he knew full well that the Guru had clearly frowned upon such an idea. Had Bhai Sahib prepared any bir, it would be the authentic version, and there could never have been the possibility of such widely variant versions of the granth, as actually exist now. For, every bir would have been a copy of it. Nor is there any reason for the complete disappearance of it. Because, we find, that the Delhi bir , which has no history, is certainly not Bhai Sahib’s production.

For the reasons and facts given above there is little doubt that the story of Chhibber stands belied, and that the version that Bhai Mani Singh compiled the Dasam Granth, is a distortion that has no historical, ideological or factual basis or possibility.

19TH CENTURY
The existence of Dasam Granth is mentioned for the first time in mid-nineteenth century by Bhai Santokh Singh, and later by Giani Gian Singh and others. Later, Bhai Kahn Singh and others repeat the story of Bhai Santokh Singh, suggesting that the bir of Dasam Granth was compiled by Bhai Mani Singh. It is also stated that there were many objections to the compilation in one volume of the various writings that had earlier existed separately. But, the final decision to do so or not, rested on the chance factor of the success or otherwise of the mission of Sukha Singh and Mehtab Singh against Massa Ranghar. The reality, however, is that none of these writers have given any shred of evidence to support the story of its compilation. In the absence of any authentic historical evidence, it is simply impossible to attribute the present collection, or any part of it, to Bhai Sahib. It is equally impossible to believe that if a respected contemporary of the Guru like Bhai Sahib had really compiled the granth, or any part of it, there could ever have been a controversy about it among the Sikhs so as to require them to resort to the chance decision depending on the success of Mehtab Singh and Sukha Singh. Bhai Mani Singh’s position being preeminent as a trusted scribe and devout Sikh of the Guru, could any Sikh or Panth disregard or doubt his testimony about the Dasam Granth, if it had been there? There is, thus, little doubt that the story of Dasam Granth’s compilation by Bhai Sahib has no historical basis. In fact, it is a motivated fabrication to give credence to the story of Dasam Granth compilation.

LETTER BY BHAI MANI SINGH
The supportive story of a letter written by Bhai Sahib, about the collection of Charitropakhyan, to Mata ji at Delhi is another fabrication. Dr Jaggi has examined in detail the veracity of’ this letter and found it to be unreliable. The method of writing separate words, as in this letter, was not at all in vogue in the time of Bhai Sahib. Nor is the practice visible in the contemporary manuscripts. The words or language used also relates to a later period. Besides, the use of bindi, other features, matras and shape of letters are comparatively modern. Very probably the letter is written by a metallic nib which was not available in those times. The words used are rather unsophisticated and could not have been from a learned gurmukh like Bhai Sahib. It is also strange that the letter mentions 303 Charitars or stories, whereas everywhere else the number is 404.[11] Nor has the letter been forthcoming from a natural custody. It was never heard of in the 18th or 19th centuries, and its appearance is only a mid 20th century phenomenon. It is strange that Dr Ashta who accepts it, has done so virtually without any examination of it. Charitropakhyan is a writing which no Sikh, granthi, or scholar has been willing to read or send to his mother, sister or daughter. No one has so far read it out in the open sangat. It is, indeed, unlikely that a gurmukh like Bhai Sahib would send its manuscript to venerated Mata ji. It is, thus, historically baseless to connect Bhai Sahib or Mata ji in any manner with the collection or compilation of Dasam Granth or any part of it.

The above rationale makes it plain that there is no evidence whatsoever of the existence of Dasam Granth or any part of it in the 18th or even the 19th century. All we now know is the later appearance of some manuscripts or Birs of the Dasam Granth. Four of them are regarded as the oldest. We shall consider their reliability or authenticity.

BHAI MANI SINGH BIR
Raja Gulab Singh of Delhi purchased a bir in 1944-45, which is known as the Bhai Mani Singh Bir. Nothing historically verifiable is known about it, except a story given by him that a soldier of Ranjit Singh found or looted it during an attack on Multan in 1818 A.D. The soldier then shifted to and settled at Hyderabad. How the bir got to Multan and remained unknown for 125 years, is quite enigmatic and unexplained. External evidence about its history is completely missing. The bir is far from being a speaking manuscript. For, the authorship is unknown, as also the place or time of its compilation. In a corner of a page there is a slanting postscript, recording 1713 A.D. as the date of it.

Jaggi’s examination and its photocopy clearly show it to be a suspicious interpolation. The ink and writing of this entry are different from those of the original bir. The handwriting and shape of letters are also
comparatively crude. Its introduction in slanting lines in a corner proves its belated character.[12] In fact, it is a thoughtless fabrication of the date. For, the story of Bhai Sahib’s collection of its parts and the Panthic decision to have them in one volume following Massa Ranghar’s death, relate to a time about two decades later.

All the internal evidence of the bir is against its authenticity. Jaggi finds that the writer of the bir does not seem to be a good scribe or to have a good knowledge of the Gurmukhi script or the Punjabi language.[13] Therefore, it is not at all possible to connect this bir with Bhai Sahib. On the other hand, the scribe is a Hindi-knowing person who is distinctly interested in distorting the Sikh doctrines and mixing up Sikh literature with Puranic literature.[14] And this is, exactly what he has done. The bir comprises both the bani of the Gurus and that of the Dasam Granth. Gurbani has not been recorded as in Guru Granth Sahib, i.e., raag -wise. It is done Guru-wise and Bhagat Bani is mostly at the end of the combined volume. It shows conclusively that the scribe is a non-Sikh who, without any knowledge of the prescribed method of writing gurbani, is out to do the heretical distortion of mixing-up dhur ki bani with Puranic myths about worship of Devis and Avtars. For, no Sikh, and much less a gurmukh like Bhai Sahib, could ever plan to combine the two and flout the sacred sequence of gurbani (written raag-wise) laid down by the Gurus. The shape of writing and its language suggest that the distortion was done long after the demise of Bhai Sahib, when the Sikh world was engaged in its life and death struggle with the Empire and the invaders.

Thus, the lack of any history of the manuscript for over 200 years, its internal evidence of interpolation, shape of letters and language, together with the heretical change of method in writing gurbani, and its mix-up with Puranic and Avtar-worship literature, conclusively exclude the possibility of the bir being a production of Sikh quarters. On the other hand, the probability is that it is a compilation by those either unconversant with Sikh doctrines, tradition and literature, or those out to confuse the Sikh ideology. In any case, the manuscript has no historical or academic value as an authentic bir.

MOTI BAGH BIR
The bir of Moti Bagh is another manuscript that has no verifiable history. In 1959, one Natha Singh stated that his ancestor, one Hakam Singh had given this bir to Maharaja Mohinder Singh (1862-1876 A.D.), that earlier one Nahar Singh had obtained it from Charat Singh, son of Sukha Singh, and that the former had been obtaining for it a grant from Maharaja Ranjit Singh. But, no part of its history is verifiable, or is otherwise corroborated. Nor is there anything in the internal evidence of the bir to support the story or any part of it. The bir shows that it had been compiled by more than one person.

Jaggi opines that the age of the paper and the character of words and writing show that it could not have been compiled earlier than a hundred years after the demise of the Tenth Guru.[15]

SANGRUR BIR
The granthi at gurdwara Deodi Sahib Dewan Khara, Sangrur, says that in 1857 A.D. the bir had been presented to the Raja by a Pathan of Delhi, when he had gone there in aid of the British. The bir was in two parts, pages 1 to 600 contained gurbani from Guru Granth Sahib, and pages 601 to 1166 the chapters that form Dasam Granth. The first part stands lost. Its history before 1857 A.D. is unknown. Internal evidence suggests that it is a combined collection of bani from the Guru Granth Sahib and the chapters of Dasam Granth. Since the very system of combining dhur ki bani with Puranic and Avtar and other literature is opposed to the specific tradition laid down by the Gurus, the heretical mix-up has been done, as explained earlier, by non-Sikh elements. For, it is inconceivable that a composition like the Charitropakhyan, which even the SGPC, vide, its letter no. 36672 dated 3.8. 1972, has declared to be a composition from Hindu mythology and not by the Tenth Master, could have been combined with sacred gurbani by any Sikh. This fact alone shows conclusively that the Dasam Granth, which contains Charitropakhyan, could never be a compilation of Sikh quarters, much less could it be by the Tenth Guru. The bir, thus, is of no historical or academic value.

PATNA BIR
The Patna Bir has also no historical value. Nothing worthwhile about it was narrated to Jaggi when he examined it there. The writing is simple, except that red ink has also been used. The arguments against the authenticity of its compilation, production, and mix-up of the Tenth Master’s bani with Charitropakhyan, as noted earlier, also apply to this volume. Jaggi feels that the condition of the paper, shape of letters, writing, etc., suggest that it is a production of the 19th century.[16]

NO BIR IS AUTHENTIC
Dr Jaggi’s detailed descriptions of these and other birs shows that in matters of contents, number of hymns and Chhands, sequence of topics, list of writings, distribution of writings, or headings, etc., etc., there is no uniformity between any two birs. In fact, some of these contain additional material clearly known to be from non-Sikh sources. The conclusion is inevitable that these birs are odd, assorted and belated compilations or collections of unconnected and disjointed materials, made by individuals from non-Sikh quarters, who were neither conversant with the Sikh literature, nor with the method and sanctity of writing gurbani. Their only interest was to mix-up Sikh literature with Puranic and Avtar literature so as to show both of them as parts of a single tradition. For, had the compilers been acquainted with Sikh practices and quarters, there would not have been such a variation in contents, combinations, sequence, number of hymns, as is evidenced by the different birs.

Nor are these birs, for the same reasons, copies from one traceable or authentic source. This conclusion is fortified by the facts that not only have these birs virtually no known history, but the earlier ones relate to the period when struggle with the Empire was intense and there was a price on every Sikh head. And, later when peace came, in the late 18th or early 19th century, these writings containing mixed-up literature were quietly introduced and got copied without much scrutiny. Otherwise, how could it be that no bir bears any authentic date or name of a known Sikh scribe of the Guru, of the early Sikh period? We also find that some of the errors are too gross to be committed by a person conversant with gurbani. Jaggi has listed many of these errors in chapter six of his book. These errors and their repetition show their non-Sikh origin. These are very significant aspects of the old compilations, and in any serious assessment of their value, the importance of their import and implications cannot be ignored.

Here it is necessary to mention an unverified story that the Tenth Master had initiated a move to translate into Gurmukhi some ancient literature. It is well known that in his short life he was faced with colossal tasks, and his accomplishments, as dec lared by H.R. Gupta, were indeed superhuman in every field of his activities: “His dreams and deeds brought a wonderful change in his own generation in the religious, military and political life of the people. His personality was so fascinating, so bewitching, so dynamic, so momentous and so unforgettable, that we are seized with wonder at the changes which took place in Punjab within one year and half of his death. He was the greatest genius of his age. Whenever we touch that short life, as he died at the age of forty two, we are at once brought into contact with a live wire. He was a meteor that consumed itself to light the world. He was luminous like the sun and had conquered death. He possessed a rare combination of so many excellences, supreme self-denial, marvellous intellect, super-human will-power, great heart and limitless energy…”[17] It is quite apparent that whatever translations were done by Brahmins and Sikhs, were lost, and could not be suitably compiled or scrutinized about their utility in his time or even later. In any case, there is no historical evidence to this effect. Very probably it is only the Brahminical quarters who had later the time and interest to compile those translations and combine them with gurbani. This view, we feel, explains all aspects of the Dasam Granth and what Jaggi considers its numerous inconsistencies and contradictions.

INTERNAL EVIDENCE
I. Historical Contradictions: There are, as detailed by Jaggi, many historical and other incongruities in the Dasam Granth which it would be naive to attribute to the Tenth Master.[18] We give only two instances.

(i) In the story of Prithoo Raja, the author has shown that the legendary Shakuntala had connection not with Prince Dushyant, but with the mythical Prithoo. According to Bhagwat Puran, Prithoo was an Avtar of Vishnu who appeared in Treta Yug. But Shakuntala’s story of love with Dushyant in Bhagwat Puran is entirely different. Thus, the writer who has joined Prithoo and Shakuntala, could not be concerned with the purity of Puranic stories. But his only interest appears to be to link the bani of Guru Gobind Singh Sahib with concocted Hindu legends, so that he is shown to be part of the Brahminical lore and legend.[19]

(ii) Similarly, in the story of Raghu Raja, to say that Sanyasis regarded him as Dutt, Yogis as Gorakh Nath, Bairagis as Ramanand, and Muslims as Prophet Mohammad, shows that the interest of the story writer is not to narrate any rational history or myth. He only seeks to represent that the Guru accepted Hindu mythology and tradition, and for the purpose to distort Sikh doctrines and ideas.[20]

By no means can the authorship of such cock-and-bull stories be attributed to the lofty personality of the Guru. Obviously, the interest of the authors of these incongruities is quite extraneous to any faithful representation of events, doctrines, ideas, or even myths.

Another fact that seriously affects the historicity of these writings, is quite significant. Normally, the preparation, compilation or reproduction of a granth by a scholar is a great achievement, and the same is kept as a treasure, which the author or his family is always reluctant to part with. But, in the case of
these manuscripts or birs not only their history and names or identity of compilers are unknown, but, we also find, that none of the compilers or custodians ever showed any reluctance to part with them. On the other hand, an apparent aim seems to have been that the compilation reaches an important place or a distinguished person, that could confer authenticity to it.

II. Ideological Contradictions: The unity of spirit of all the Ten Gurus is a fundamental of Sikhism, which stands emphasised and recorded in Guru Granth Sahib. The second basic and unalterable concept of Sikhism, as opposed to that of Brahminism, is that God does not incarnate. This concept is an integral element of the Creedal hymn (Mul Mantra) of Guru Nanak in the very beginning of the Guru Granth Sahib.[21] This concept is the cornerstone of Sikh theology. So much so, that the Guru says : “May that mouth burn which says that God incarnate.”[22] “God alone is the one who is not born of a woman.”[23] “God is self-existent, without form and incarnates not.”[24] The Gurus clearly deny belief in the theory of incarnation of God. In order to dispel such ideas they state, “The Formless alone, Nanak, is without fear, many are Ramas as the dust of His Feet, many Krishnas. Many are their stories and many are the Vedas. The Gurus write that He created Countless Brahmas, Sivas and Vishnus.”[25]

The above is the categoric thesis of the Gurus and the Guru Granth Sahib, the sole Ideological Guide of the Sikhs. We have to test any idea, doctrine or practice on the touchstone of gurbani. For, it is unimaginable that any Guru or Sikh could approve of anything incongruous with the Creedal statement of Guru Nanak. It is in the above context that we have to examine and test the authenticity of what is in any granth, not specifically authenticated by the Gurus.

DEVI & AVTAR WORSHIP IN THE DASAM GRANTH
Dr Jaggi has made a detailed examination of the issue. He finds that except for about 70 pages of the Dasam Granth, including Jap Sahib, Swayyas, Akal Ustat (excluding hymns in praise of Durga), Asphotak Chhand and Zaffarnama, the other contents which involve worship of Avtars, Devis and Mahakal are mostly from the Puranic literature. Following are some instances of Devi Worship. (For details see chapter 9 of Jaggi’s book).
I. Tribhangi Chhands (201-220, In Akal Ustat) are clearly in praise of the Devi.
II. In Shashtarnama in the beginning there is a whole chapter (27 chhands) in praise of the Devi.
III. Chandi Chariter I & II, Chaubis Avtar, Rudra Avtar including parts of Charitropakhyan, all relate to the Puranic myths that are in praise of the Devi and Avtars.
IV. Similarly, in the above Puranic stories there are numerous hymns in praise of Maha Kal, who is a Tantric or Sakat deity, pages 55,56,57,58, 73,156,157,183,185, 254,310,612,613,642, etc.
V. Worship of Devi under the name of Kalika, Chandi, Siva or Durga is found at pages 74, 76, 99,117, 255,118,309, 310,116,673,675, etc.
VI. Apart from the Var of Durga, there is the entire Puranic story of the Devi coming to the rescue of the mythical Indra and fighting battles with demon Maikhasur, involving trillions of soldiers (Devi worship Chhands and narration of the myth).
VII. In Chandi Charitar Ukat Bilas the author mentions that he has virtually made the composition from 700 slokas of Markand Purana. He adds that whoever hears or recites the same for any specific boon, the Devi would certainly grant it instantaneously (Chandi Chariter, Ukat Bilas – sloka 232).
VIII. In Chandi Chariter II in the sloka 261 the author writes that whoever remembers or worships the Devi with devotion, shall attain salvation. Similarly, in the Durga Var the author writes that whoever recites the same, will achieve salvation and not be born again (stanza or pauri – 55).
IX. Whether it is Rama Avtar, Parasnath Avtar, Krishna Avtar, Brahma Avtar, or the other Puranic stories, these all relate to the worship to the Devi and Avtars.
X. Charitropakhyan, too, involves worship of the Devi and Kal or Maha Kal (Charitra 405, Chhands 52, 77,126 and 132). The very facts that no Sikh is willing to read it hi the presence of women or the sangat, and that the SGPC has called it a Puranic myth and not work of the Tenth Guru, show that it is no longer considered a part of the Dasam Granth.

The above few instances prove that, apart from the about 70 pages or so, the writings in the Dasam Granth positively accept and involve Devi and Avtar worship. Accordingly, these writings (Chandi Charitra and Chandi Di Var – 126 pages, Chaubis Avtar – 744 pages, Brahm Rudra Avtar – 383 pages, Charitropakhyan and Hikayat – 923 pages) are opposed to the doctrines of the Gurus and Guru Granth Sahib.

GURU GRANTH SAHIB ON DEVI AND AVTAR WORSHIP
About mythical writings and Devi and Avtar worship Guru Granth Sahib records:
i) “O brother, fools worship gods and goddesses. They do not know that these imaginary deities can give nothing.”[26]
ii) “The Vedas, Brahma, gods and goddesses know not His secrets, and have no knowledge of the Creator.”[27]
iii) “The fools, the ignorant and the bund forget the Master Lord, and instead, worship His slaves, the goddesses and Maya.”[28]

GURU GOBIND SINGH ON DEVI WORSHIP
Hereunder we give the bani of the Tenth Master as hi the Akal Ustat:-
i) “There are millions of Indras and incarnations of Brahma, Vishnu and Krishna. But, without worship of God none are accepted hi His Court.” (stanza 38).
ii) “Millions of Indras are servants at His door. Countless are the insignificant Shivas, Ramas and Krishnas.” (stanza 40).
iii) “Some worship Shiva (Mahadev); some say Vishnu is Master of the Universe, and that by devotion to him, all calamities disappear. O, fool, think over a thousand tunes and understand that at the last moment every one will leave you in the lurch to die alone. Remember only the One Lord who will never forsake you.” (ibid).
iv) “There was a Shiva; he was gone, and there appeared another and he was gone too. There are innumerable Avtars like Rama or Krishna.” “Countless are Brahmas, Vishnu, Vedas, Puranas and Simritis that have come and gone”, (stanza 77).

These being the categoric hymns of Guru Granth Sahib and the clear statements of the Tenth Master himself, does it make any sense that he approved of or could ever have accepted any of the writings mentioned earlier, which so clearly involve worship of Devis and Devtas, and some of which faithfully reflect and reproduce Puranic writings and myths in praise of Avtars and the Devis, suggesting faith in the efficacy of the mantar system discarded by Guru Granth Sahib?

CHANGING NAME OF THE GRANTH
There is another important factor suggesting that major part of the Dasam Granth is actually taken from some other sources, and has been mistakenly or deliberately combined with the bani of the Tenth Guru. For example, the writings were originally all separate and unconnected pothis, or compilations. For that reason these were first called ‘Dasam Patshah Ka Granth’. This name does not suggest any authorship of the Guru, but only seeks to link his name by way of reference to his period or quarters. Later, the granth was called Dasam Granth and still later Sri Dasam Granth, and so on. The frequent changes in name only reflect the interests of the writers or the publishers.

That this is a deliberate mix-up, is evident from the fact that originally most parts of the granth were called Bachittar Natak Granth. This name appears 151 times in the Puranic parts of the compilation. It is repeated at the end of each composition, story, chapter or poem. This name appears 19 times in Rama Avtar, 67 times in Krishna Avtar, 33 times at the end of the stories of other Avtars, etc.

The probability is that the mix-up has been done deliberately. For, Puranic Verses, and Chhands in praise of Devi are interpolated in the midst of what is clearly the bani of the Tenth Guru, as seen in the light of Guru Granth Sahib. Similarly, some couplets, which are the bani of the Tenth Guru, as seen in the context of Guru Granth Sahib, stand introduced in the midst of Puranic stories.

The bani in Guru Granth Sahib is the Sole Guru and Guide of every Sikh. It is the Light that alone shows us the way to truth, especially when one may be wavering or in doubt. May we ask if there is any objection to accepting what is clearly in consonance with it and avoiding what is admittedly, theologically and logically, opposed to it?

CONCLUSION
Our discussion makes it plain that such contents of the Dasam Granth as suggest worship of gods, goddesses and Avtars, are opposed to the doctrines of Sri Guru Granth Sahib and the Gurus. These are also opposed to the unanimously accepted bani of Guru Gobind Singh, quoted above. By no stretch of reason can it be suggested that those writings are consonant with the bani and doctrines of Guru Granth Sahib. On the other hand, they clearly support the theory of Avtaarhood which the Gurus have emphatically rejected. Further, we find that there is not a shred of historical evidence to suggest that the Guru at any time approved of it. In fact, he had thrown away or permitted to be scattered, whatever was not worth presentation. On the other hand, Guru Granth Sahib was declared the Guru. Gurbani has been given to us to test what is valid or true and what is unacceptable or spurious. That test is final and unalterable.

It is also evident that none of the Devi or Avtar -worship writings are the collection of a Sikh or indicate the authorship of a Sikh as the original scribe or compiler. On the other hand, the manner in which this mix-up has been done, and the method of writing granth laid down by the Gurus, grossly violated in the old birs, show that the author could not be a Sikh. Further, already the SGPC has accepted the position that 923 pages of Charitropakhyan are Puranic myths, unconnected with the Guru.

Many outside scholars have clearly stated that in the absence of clarification of the position about the Dasam Granth, the stand and history of the Tenth Master cannot be clear. The oblique suggestion is that the Tenth Master brought the Panth into the Hindu fold, and drew inspiration from the Puranic past and the Shakti cult, even though it is a historical fact that the hill princes, the staunch worshippers of the Shakti or Devi cult, not only opposed the Guru, but also voluntarily accepted the supremacy of the Mighty Mughal instead of confronting him. Another scholar, Ram ji Lal, writes that Sikhs are Hindus, saying, “The Khalsa was constituted to emancipate the Hindu society from the contemporary evils including idolatry, caste system, superstition and ritualism.”

“Again at that time among the disciples of the Great Guru Gobind Singh – Bhai Nand Lal, Bhai Kanahya and Mohkam Chand, all were Hindus. Bhai Mati Das and Bhai Dayala who sacrificed their lives along with Guru Tegh Bahadur, were also Hindus.” “Not only this, but Guru Gobind Singh himself revered Hindu Goddesses – Chandi and Durga and the Hindu Avtars including – Sri Ram Chander and Lord Krishna.”[29]

While it is well known that views of many scholars like Bhai Ardaman Singh of Bagrian, Dr Jaggi, Shamsher Singh Ashok, Prof. Jagjit Singh, Principal Harbhajan Singh, Principal Jagjit Singh, Dr Rann Singh, S. Harnam Singh, Maj. Gen. Narinder Singh, S. M.S. Marco, Bhai Ashok Singh and others are the same as ours. Open attempts at ideological erosion, as quoted above, are being made. Hence the need of academic clarification. For, no Sikh can accept that anything opposed to the categoric rejection of the doctrine of Avtarhood in Guru Granth Sahib, could ever be from an authentic Sikh source, much less from the Tenth Master. It is undeniable that Guru Granth Sahib is our Living Guru, and its principles and doctrines are our Sole Guide to test the veracity or acceptability of any idea, concept, writing, suggestion or activity.

REFERENCES
1. Chhibber, Kesar Singh: ‘Bansavalinama’, p. 1
2. Guru Granth Sahib: p. 1136
3. Chhibber, Kesar Singh: op. cit., p. 135
4. Ibid, p. 136
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Gian Singh: ‘Panth Prakash’, p. 320
8. Ibid, pp. 688-689
9. Ibid, p. 321
10. Bhalla, Sarupdas: ‘Mehma Parkash’, p. 794
11. Jaggi, Rattan Singh: ‘Dasam Granth da Karitartav’, pp. 38-45
12. Ibid, pp. 92-93
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid, pp. 93-95
15. Ibid, pp. 95-97
16. Ibid, pp. 97-98
17. Gupta, H.R.:’The Sikh Gurus’, p. 245
18. Jaggi, Rattan Singh: op. cit., pp. 152 -154
19. Ibid, p. 152
20. Ibid, p. 153
21. Guru Granth Sahib: p. 1
22. Ibid, p. 1136
23. Ibid, p. 473
24. Ibid, p. 547
25. Ibid, pp. 464,1156
26. Ibid, p. 637
27. Ibid,,p. 894
28. Ibid, p. 1138
29. Geholt, N.S.: ‘Politics of Communalism and Secularism’, Deep and Deep Publications, New
Delhi, 1993, p. 67

International Students Brochure

The above information brochure was prepared by South Asian Liaison Officer for Counties Manukau Police — Gurpreet Arora. The turbaned officer is Amaninder Singh Sandhu and Officer Gurpreet Arora is standing on Officer Sandhu’s immediate left. The brochure was launched by District Commander for Counties Manukau, Superintendent Mike Bush on September 14, 2009.

The brochure contains information under headings like — Driving in New Zealand; Social Behaviour, Liquor Consumption and Drug Abuse; and General (which gives tips about keeping ATM and Credit cards safe, travelling safely with laptops and mobile phones, etc.).

[The following response, to some of the statements made about Dr McLeod in tributes paid to him after his death, has been made using Dr McLeod's own methodology of a "skeptic" — that we believe the statements in question are hagiographical in nature rather than objective. I am sure those who worship Dr McLeod would not begrudge us this step — as we believe using his own methodology to dissect his own life's account may be the biggest tribute to him. If what we write does not read like a tribute and makes you angry, please do keep in mind that all the arguments applied to those Sikhs who felt angered by Dr McLeod's methodology and the statements stemming from it, are applicable to you too. Peace & love — Sikh Centre.]

ISSUES OF SIKH STUDIES

By DALJEET SINGH

It is a welcome sign that in the last few decades interest in the study of Sikh religion, its institutions and history has grown both in India and abroad, both among Sikh and non-Sikh scholars. It is indeed a healthy development. But, partly because of the variant background from which scholars are drawn and partly because of the methodologies of study followed by them, a few problems have to be faced and solved. In this brief article we shall consider a few of them.

The first problem that has arisen concerns the methodology adopted in the study of Sikhism. This issue relates not only to the study of Sikhism, but also to the study of other religions, or of religion as such. In fact, the problem is ontological in nature. It is basic to almost every religion that there is a Spiritual Reality that is different from the empirical reality we perceive with our senses. Irrespective of the fact whether or not the phenomenal reality is considered to be real or not, the Spiritual Reality is regarded as more real or true. It is the description and definition of this Reality by a religion that form the very basis of the study of that religion. Answers to questions whether that Reality is creative, attributive or otherwise, determine the structure of a religion and furnish valid clues to its study and classification. For example, no student of the Guru Granth Sahib can fail to understand that for the Gurus, God is not only Creative and Attributive but He is also Immanent, reveals Himself to man, and operates in history with His Will. The Gurus have repeatedly emphasized these aspects of God. Guru Nanak says, “O Lalo, I say what the Lord commands me to convey.”[1]

Similarly, the scriptures and the basic doctrines of every religion define Reality in their own way and no study of any religion would be true or even valid unless that definition is kept in view. It is, therefore, axiomatic to say that the study of the ontology or the spiritual base of a religion is essential to the proper understanding of it and its development. Yet it is this very issue that raises the first problem.

Since the advent of science and more particularly since the last century, materialistic philosophies have gained considerable relevance. In fact, in the fields of sociology, economics, political science, psychology and history, it is the materialistic interpretations that are by and large accepted as valid. Each of these social sciences has developed its own particular discipline and methodology of study. As all these studies relate to the phenomena of the empirical world, either taking little account of or denying the transcendent world, their worldviews are from the point of view of religion, partial or lopsided. Seen from the angle of social sciences, there is substance in the argument of these scholars of phenomenology that the acceptance of the existence of transcendence is an uncalled for assumption that would knock off what they consider to be their scientific basis. The argument has validity in the field from which it emanates. But, the confusion and the fallacy arise when this argument is carried to the field of religion. For, by its very definition, the study of religion involves the study of the transcendent or the spiritual. Therefore, in the study of religion it would be an equally uncalled for assumption to accept that there is no transcendent element. For many a religion believes that the transcendent is also immanent and operates in history. Accordingly, religion has developed its own methodology and principles of study leading to a world-view which is holistic and comprehensive instead of being limited and narrow. In fact, the denial of the spiritual element would not only vitiate the study of religion, but would also rule out the very meaning or need of such a study. It is in this context that we quote Dr. Hannad Arenett who after invoking the age old view of Parmenides and Plato about the existence of the supra-sensual world writes, “Meanwhile, in increasingly strident voices, the few defenders of metaphysics have warned us of the danger of nihilism inherent in the development; and although they themselves seldom invoke it, they have an important argument in their favour; it is indeed true that once the super sensual realm is discarded, its opposite the world of appearances as understood for so many centuries, is also annihilated.

The sensual, as still understood by positivists, cannot survive the death of the super sensual. No one knew this better than Nietzsche who, with his poetic and metaphoric description of the assassination of God in Zarathustra, has caused so much confusion in these matters. In a significant passage in The Twilight of Idols, he clarifies what the word God meant in Zarathustra. It was merely a symbol for the super sensual realm as understood by metaphysics; he now uses instead of God the word true world and says: “We have abolished the true world. What has remained? The apparent one perhaps? Oh no! with the true world we have also abolished the apparent one.”[2] It is obvious that the study of religion, its institutions and history cannot be kept limited to the study of its phenomena because such a study in order to be complete must essentially embrace the study both of its spiritual and empirical aspects. In this context Dr. Huston Smith writes, “Ninian (Smart) approaches religion from the angle of phenomenology and the social sciences, whereas, a philosopher, find phenomenology confining. Ontology is too central to be bracketed.”[3]

This observation is particularly valid in the case of the study of a religion like Sikhism in which the Gurus establish an inalienable link between the spiritual life and the empirical life of man. In fact, transcendence is fundamental. Every couplet in the over fourteen hundred pages in the Guru Granth Sahib stresses that there is a higher level of Reality than the physical reality we perceive with our senses, and, unless we work in tune with that Reality, our problems of conflict, disharmony and war will not be solved. The Guru clearly envisages three stages of the progress of life, after God had expressed Himself. “First, He manifested Himself; second, He created the individuality; third, He created multifarious entities; and fourth is the highest level of the God-conscious being who always lives truthfully.”[4] And, it is this destiny of man, the Guru exhorts him to fulfil. “O man, you are supreme in God’s creation, now is your opportunity, you may fulfil or not fulfil your destiny.”[5] This is Guru’s thesis in the Guru Granth According to it, real knowledge comes from the area of the transcendent. He is the Teacher who enlivens man’s spiritual dimension and gives him a universal consciousness and a discriminatory vision. This realm is noetic. It was the knowledge thus gained that made Guru Nanak change radically almost every religious doctrine that stood accepted in the earlier three thousand years of Indian history. Against the world being illusory, delusive (Mithya, Maya) or a place of suffering or misery, he called it real and meaningful; against asceticism, monasticism and Sanyasa, he accepted the householder’s life and full social participation and responsibility; against celibacy and woman being sin-born, he gave religious sanctity to marriage and equality to women; against the rigidity of Varn Ashram Dhanna and the institution of caste and pollution, he stated that yoga lies not in one-point meditation but in treating all men as one’s equal; against withdrawal from life and taking to renunciation and Sanyasa, he stressed that he knows the way who works and shares his earnings with others. There was nothing new in the social milieu to warrant this radical thesis. And, yet, scholars employing the methodology and tools of social sciences say: Guru Nanak contributed no new religious thought; Sikhism is hardly a religion; it is a combination of Vaisnavism and Nathism, two cults recommending celibacy and withdrawal from life, and accepting caste discrimination or that it is a peasant faith. For the Guru, God is the source of truth, knowledge and energy; that way alone we can explain the revolutionary activities of Muhammad and Guru Nanak. That is why in Christianity, Islam, and Sikhism God is given the symbol of Light and in Islam and Sikhism he is called “Truth”. For the man of faith the door to truth is through the spiritual dimension of man. For the social sciences the only reality is the physical world and science constitutes the exclusive door to its secrets, the mystic world being just unexplored area of darkness. But, for Guru Nanak, unless man wakens his spiritual dimension, he cannot know reality nor live a truthful and harmonious life in this world; for, spirituality forms the base of all moral life. Schweitzer, while surveying the entire field of western thought, comes to the dismal conclusion that there is no trace of the ethical in the reflective thought of man. That is why for the social sciences morality is just a defense mechanism or a reaction formation in response to environmental impacts, religion too being a similar behavioural phenomenon without any separate or independent roots.

It is in this context that William Nicholls feels that the culture and consciousness of the modem secular universities are unsuitable to interpret the culture and consciousness of the authors of scriptures, “In so far as we adopt the culture of the secular university, we are systematically in opposition to the texts we are studying. In so far as we take our texts seriously, and are successful in interpreting the intention of their writers, we are in opposition to the university and its culture.”[6] Nicholls cites the following typical case of distortion by Morton Smith who is blind to the colossal spiritual energies generated by Christ and the phenomenal response he had over the centuries in shaping history and men. “A striking example of this limitation may be observed in the work of one of the most brilliant and respected present-day scholars, Morton Smith. His recent book, The Secret Gospel, begins as a piece of literary detection which compels admiration, but it takes a startling nose dive at the point that it comes to the historical substance of the matter. On the basis of a second century source of doubtful provenance, which he prefers to more central sources on no other apparent ground than that it was secret, Smith believes he has unmasked the truth about Jesus-he was really a magician, and perhaps one who used homosexual practices in his rites of initiation. The fact that this theory is shocking to the susceptibilities of the believer is not an argument against its truth. After all, many simple Christians will be almost as disturbed by the growing consensus of scholarship that Jesus was thoroughly Jewish and had no thought of founding a new religion. What is more to the point is the total inability of such a theory to explain how such a person could also have been the originator of the lofty spiritual teachings to which both the Gnostic and ecclesiastical traditions bear witness.”[7]

What needs to be emphasized is that religious phenomena or history is intimately related to, if not the product and expression of, its spiritual base. Both components have to be studied together one cannot be fruitfully studied in isolation of the other. No wonder Nicholls writes, “Thus, it can seem somewhat ludicrous to watch scholars in religious studies abdicating a function they alone can perform and bowing down to the latest theories in anthropology, which seem unable to recognize in religion anything beyond a highly abstract code for ordering data and uniting and separating bits of information. Even if it has to be acknowledged that religions may perform such functions, to suppose that this exhausts their role is to betray a crass failure to enter the outlook of other human beings, for whom religion was and perhaps still is a living reality, opening doors on to the spiritual dimension and raising their existence to a higher level.”[8]

We do not say that an anthropologist or sociologist should not study religion, but it would only be an anthropologist’s or sociologist’s view of religion by the use of his own methodology. Whereas the anthropologist is entitled to express his point of view about a religion, the reader is also equally entitled to know that the study is by an anthropologist by the use of an anthropologist’s methodology. Because, from the point of view of the man of religion, such studies would be limited in their scope, partial in their vision and inadequate as a study of man in the totality of his being and functioning, i.e., of his spiritual and empirical life.

There is also another related point. In the study of religion it is not only necessary to know the methodology the author is using, but it is important to know who the writer is and what is his own faith or training. Unlike as in science, religion is also the study of the inner life of man. It is, therefore, relevant and necessary to know about the religious belief and background of the writer, i.e., whether or not he accepts the existence of the transcendent or the supra-sensual elements. It is in this context that Dr. Noel Q. King writes, “One general conclusion which I draw from a long study of the critics, of which the above is a sketch, is that it is most important to remember the personality and circumstance of the critic. In a Natural Science like chemistry it may not be necessary to know anything about the human being who is writing. In any subject which entails human subjects, the work must be put into a personal context. Accordingly, one feels every work of critical scholarship should have a government statutory warning that its consumption may be deleterious to the soul’s health. If it is to do with religion, it should also have a statement of ingredients, including the religious standing of the writer. If he or she is a believer, it is necessary to know this, so that the critical reader can allow for bias. If he or she is not a believer, we should have some indication of that too, lest the disillusionment or enlightenment of a post-Christian, a post-Jew or a post-whatever should give the critic rosy-coloured spectacles or a jaundiced outlook.”[9] Let us quote C.G. Jung about objectivity of Sigmund Freud, “There was no mistaking the fact that Freud was emotionally involved in his sexual theory to an extraordinary degree. When he spoke of it, his tone became urgent, almost anxious, and all signs of his normally critical and skeptical manner vanished. A strange, deeply moved expression came over his face, the cause of which I was at a loss to understand. I had a strong intuition that for him sexuality was a sort of numinosum. This was confirmed by a conversation, which took place some three years later (in 1910), again in Vienna. I can still recall vividly how Freud said to me, ‘My dear Jung, promise me never to abandon the sexual theory. That is the most essential thing of all. You see, we must make a dogma of it, an unshakable bulwark.’ He said that to me with great emotion, in the tone of a father saying, ‘And promise me this one thing, my dear son, that you will go to church every Sunday.’ ”[10] It is strange that Freud, who was basing his theories on and interpreting the dreams of others, including those of Jung, was curiously enough anxious to conceal his own and his private life. The motive for such concealment could hardly be academic or scientific. Jung writes, “Freud had a dream-I would not think it right to air the problem it involved. I interpreted it as best I could but added that a great deal more could be said about it if he would supply me with some additional details from his private life. Freud’s response to these words was a curious look – a look of the utmost suspicion. Then he said, ‘But I cannot risk my authority.’ At that moment he lost it altogether. That sentence burned itself into my memory; and in it the end of our relationship was already foreshadowed. Freud was placing personal authority above truth.”[11]

We quote the instance of another great man. It is well known that the followers of Ramanuja, a philosopher of Bhakti, are very particular that the food they eat is undefiled. Therefore, the rule had been that if while cooking or eating the food another person cast a glance on it, the entire food was thrown away and the food cooked and eaten again. This being the Vaisnava culture, let us record what Mahatma Gandhi, a protagonist of the Hindu tradition, writes, “………..but for years I have taken nothing but fruit in Mohammedan or Christian household……In my opinion the idea that interdining and intermarrying is necessary for national growth is a superstition borrowed from the West. Eating is a process just as vital as the other sanitary necessities of life. And if mankind had not, much to its harm, made of eating a fetish and an indulgence, we would have performed the operation of eating in private even as we perform other necessary functions of life in private. Indeed the highest culture in Hinduism regards eating in that light and there are thousands of Hindus still living who will not eat their food in the presence of anybody.”[12] It is not our object to deride anyone, but we wish only to show that cultural or personal prejudices die hard, and these consciously or unconsciously colour one’s vision. It cannot, thus, be denied that in the study of religion objectivity of vision can, at best, be only limited. It is, therefore, essential to know of the background, beliefs and predilections of the author in order to enable the reader to assess and appreciate the value of his views and the slant of his vision. In scientific studies the data and facts are mechanical, quantitative and special that are generally measurable by fixed and accepted yardsticks. Even in that field we have come to a stage where the observer’s relative position in space and time affects his measurement and inferences. In the matter of religion the difficulties of unbiased assessment are far too great because here the field of study is primarily the emotional, the moral and the spiritual life of an individual or his society. An illustration would be relevant. Two ideas are intimately connected with the martyrdom of Christ, namely, that of the act of redemption and of the resurrection of Christ. Howsoever one may view these ideas, it would, indeed, be impossible to understand and interpret the moral base and development of Christianity without accepting their validity, the deep faith and response they inspired and the abiding influence they exercised on the early Christian society. In the same way, it is fundamental to the Sikh religion, as stated by Guru Nanak and the other Gurus in their hymns, that God had revealed Himself to them and that their hymns embody the commands of God. Therefore, in spiritual matters the genuineness of an idea is indicated by the spiritual and moral faith it evokes in the hearts of the people concerned. We do not urge that a sociologist or an anthropologist is debarred from evaluating religious matters and developments. But, the man of faith has also the right to know the writer’s belief, i.e., whether he is an atheist, a materialist, an evolutionist, a Marxist or a sociologist. We shall specify our point still further. W.H. McLeod, while evaluating the originality of the religious thesis of Guru Nanak, writes that it is misleading to suggest that he originated a school of thought or a set of teachings.[13] As against it Dr. Muhammad Iqbal, the Muslim philosopher and scholar, finds in the entire panorama of Indian religious history only two tall persons, namely, Lord Buddha and Guru Nanak.[14] These contrasted assessments might be explained by the fact that whereas McLeod has for many years been a part of a local Christian missionary organization in the Punjab, for Muhammad Iqbal, Guru Nanak is the only man of God in India, who like Prophet Muhammad combined the spiritual life and the empirical life of man and started a religion of the ‘deed’, proclaiming and preaching the Oneness of God and the brotherhood of man. Another student of cultural history, H.S. Oberoi, views Islam and Sikhism in altogether a different light. “Sikh religion is first and foremost a peasant faith. Sociologists have often spoken of how Islam is an urban religion, Sikhism may be spoken of as rural religion. When dealing with the beliefs, rituals and practices of the Sikhs – be they religious or political it is always worthwhile to constantly remind ourselves that we are fundamentally dealing with the peasantry and the world-view of this social class has historically always been very different from other social classes. A lot of knotty issues to do with Sikh studies would become easier to solve if we stop applying paradigms that have developed out of the study of urban social groups -merchants, middle-class or city workers-and deploy concepts that relate to the day-to-day life of the peasantry.”[15]

In the above context, two points can hardly be overemphasized, namely, what is the methodology of study a scholar is using and what are his personal belief and background, i.e., whether the study, examination or interpretation is under the discipline of sociology, anthropology or religion.

Next is the issue of breaking the dichotomy between the spiritual life and the empirical life of man. In most religions for one reason or the other, this dichotomy exists; and it is more so in the Indian religions in which asceticism, monasticism, celibacy and ahimsa are almost the essential features of the religious life. In India, Guru Nanak was the first person to break this dichotomy, and proclaim a religion of life-affirmation, with emphasis on moral life of man. Monasticism, asceticism and celibacy had become such essential symbols of the religious life that the Naths questioned Guru Nanak how he was claiming to follow the religious path while living the life of a householder. Similar doubt was expressed by Sant Ram Dass of Maharashtra when he found the Sixth Guru riding a horse armed like a Warrior. The Guru’s reply was clear and categoric. He said that Guru Nanak had given up mammon but had not withdrawn from the world, and that his sword was for the defence of the weak and the destruction of the tyrant. In short, it is the Sikh doctrine of Miri and Piri which looks odd to votaries of pacifist religions. Outside India Moses and Prophet Muhammad broke this dichotomy and each created a religious society that not only sought to tackle the socio-political problems of man but also sanctioned the use of force for a moral purpose. On account of this difference between the pacifist and non-pacifist religions and the consequent differences in conditioning by the respective traditions, persons like Toynbee are critical of the sociopolitical activities of Prophet Muhammad and Indians like Mahatma Gandhi, Rabindra Nath Tagore and Jadunath Sircar are critical of the militancy of Guru Gobind Singh. In contrast we have already quoted the eulogy of Muhammad Iqbal in admiration of the lofty religious proclamation Guru Nanak made in India. Similarly, it was Pir Buddhu Shah, a Muslim Sufi saint, who was so inspired by Guru Gobind Singh that he not only sent his followers and sons to fight for the cause of the Guru, but two of his sons actually sacrificed their lives while fighting in the army of the Guru. The annals of man hardly record another instance of this kind where a saint of a living religion should sacrifice his sons for the cause of a man of God of a different religious faith, especially while his co-religionist should be the ruling emperor of the day. We, therefore, wish to emphasize that scholars drawn from the pacifist cultural background so often fail to understand the Guru Nanak-Guru Gobind Singh combination, or the doctrine of Miri and Piri and the saint-soldier, logically following from the ideology of Guru Nanak that combines the spiritual life and the empirical life of man. This is exactly the reason that despite the ideological basis explained by the sixth Guru himself, scholars with the pacifist background try to find extraneous but fantastic reasons for militancy on the part of the Sikh Gurus while pursuing a righteous cause. This is what some western scholars write. “The indigenous elements in Sikhism are largely those customs of the tribes of Jats, who made Sikhism their own, and the marginal elements are those of the Nath Yogi tradition, which with Vaisnava Bhakti was primarily responsible for the Sant synthesis.”[16] “The teachings of Nanak do not have a direct causal connection with the later growth…… which should be understood largely in terms of the historical events of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.”[17] Little do these scholars realize that tribal traits of character have never given rise to new religious ideologies. It is a significant fact of modern scholarship that whereas not a single Muslim scholar finds the least discontinuity between the ideology of first Gurus and the later Gurus, it is only some scholars drawn from the pacifist traditions that discern any discordance between the ideology of Guru Nanak and that of Guru Gobind Singh. And, since both in India and the West most of the scholars are drawn from the pacifist background and traditions, this is the second problem concerning Sikh studies.

Partly related to the first two problems is the third issue arising from the increasing secularization of modem life. For the last over two centuries religion has been virtually excluded from the sociopolitical life of the Western countries. The position in the Communist countries is also the same. Keeping the danger of secularism in view the representatives of North American Churches suggested: “The American view was that there are three realities: Christianity, other religions, and secularism, and that these three realities can be either allies or enemies. It was argued that Christians had to choose whether they were to ally themselves with the other religions against secularism. The Americans, especially the Boston Personalists who were leading the debate at that time, took the view that secularism is a common danger for all religions and, therefore, there must be an alliance of all religions to fight secularism. European theologians, particularly Barth, Brunner, and Kramer took a totally different view. They maintained that secularization, not secularism, is the primary process. It is a process in which some of the values of Christian faith have been put into a secular framework, bringing about a powerful force which is destroying all old ideas.”[18]

The rise of modem national state is something which Toynbee laments: “This transfer of allegiance from the Western Christian Church to parochial Western secular states was given a positive form-borrowed from the Graeco-Roman Civilisation-by the Renaissance……On this political plane the Renaissance revived the Graeco-Roman worship of parochial states as goddesses……This unavowed worship of parochial states was by far the most prevalent religion in the Western World in A.D. 1956.”[19] This has led to a contradiction. For, where there is a war between two national states, the churches of the opposing states pray to God for the victory of their own state, thereby bringing into ridicule the very institution of religion and the Church. We have already stated that in Sikhism the integral combination of the spiritual life and the empirical life of man has led to the doctrine of Miri and Piri. But, an outsider while reading a paper at an academic conference on Hindu and Sikh religions, views the issue quite differently. He says, “Sikh scholars see the miri-piri concept as an inseparable whole in the religious order. Non-Sikhs have come to see a religion-politics linkage in Sikhism and deduct the root cause of the current crisis in Punjab to this.”[20] Another scholar is critical of the Sikhs for their anxiety to maintain a separate religious identity. He writes: “But when it comes to the Indians belonging to religions which originated within India, such as Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs, many a Hindu regard them as downright unpatriotic or unspiritual or both, if they wish to maintain their distinct identity from the Hindus.”[21] In a similar strain another scholar questions the relevance and role of religion in the field of social reform or justice. He writes, “Untouchability has been abolished by political legislation.

Government steps are persistently being taken to uplift the castes considered backward so far. As such, the very point against which original Sikhism had reacted no longer remains a point of contention. Moreover, the problem of social inequality and the consequent demand for justice no longer remains a province of religious organization. It is the government agencies who have to look into the problem in order to eradicate social inequality and provide social justice. As such, the problem has shifted its locale from the religious to the political.”[22]

We have given the above examples to indicate that men of religion feel that in view of the growing secularization of modem life and a consequent tendency to encroach on the religious field, it is not only necessary that religion should be studied with the tools of its own discipline, but that the funding and functioning of such academic studies should be kept free from the influences of the modem state and its secular life.

REFERENCES
[1] Guru Granth Sahib, p. 722.
[2] Smith, Huston, Paper entitled “Another World to Live in”, published in Religious Studies & Theology, Vol. 7, Number 1, January 87, p. 54.
[3] Smith, Huston, Beyond the Past Modem Mind, pp. 77-79.
[4] Guru Granth Sahib, p. 113.
[5] Ibid., p. 913
[6] Nicholls, William, paper entitled “Spirituality and Criticism in the Hermeneutics of Religion” presented at Annual Meeting of Canadian Society for the study of Religion, Guelph, Ont., May 84, p. 4.
[7] Ibid., p. 32
[8] Ibid., p. 22
[9] King, N.Q. paper contributed to Perspectives on Sikh Tradition, edited by Gurdev Singh, pp. 46-47
[10] Jung, C.G., Memories, Dreams and Reflections, p. 150.
[11] Ibid., p. 158.
[12] Baig, M.R.A., The Muslim Dilemma in India, p. 60.
[13] McLeod, W.H., Evolution of Sikh Community, p. 5.
[14] Muhammad Iqbal, Bang-i-Dara, p. 270.
[15] Oberoi, H.S., “Popular Saints, godesses, village sacred sites: Re-reading Sikh experience in the nineteenth century’’, p. 28. Paper read at Conference at Berkeley in Feb. 87.
[16] McLeod, W.H., Evolution of Sikh Community, p. 67.
[17] Juergensmeyer and Barrier, Sikh Studies, Berkeley, p. 19.
[18] Paulos Marbregorios, Dialogue and Alliance, International Religious ‘Foundation, Vol. I & Il, 1987, p. 95.
[19] Toynbee, A., An Historian’s Approach to Religion, p.210.
[20] Theological and Social Issues in Hindu & Sikh Traditions, Council of World’s Religions-Seminar held at Srinagar in July 88, paper by V.N. Narayanan, p. 5.
[21] Ibid., paper by Ravi Ravinder, p. 7.
[22] Ibid., paper by Basant Kumar Lal, p. 8.

Orientalism, Critical Scholarship and the Sikh Religion

[Excerpted from Perspectives on the Sikh Tradition, Ed. Justice Gurdev Singh, 1996, Amritsar, ISBN 81-7205-178-6]

(From pages 70 to 73)

…..Whatever Dr. McLeod intended many readers will ask his books the wrong questions and get the wrong answers. The books to an uninitiated reader seem to reiterate the notion that a great amount of Sikh belief appears to be based on uncritical religiosity. The reader seeking the well-springs of what Sikhism is will not be assisted. The only successful opponent to thousands of years of passing conquerors must have something that “makes him tick”. Nowhere in these books is there an attempt to tell us what it is. The reader wishing to know about the heart of Sikhism will turn to these books and be offered meticulously and exhaustively carried out drills in certain methods of western criticism. Such reader’s desires and the purpose of the books differ. The reader will hardly be able to understand the true import of what is being said unless he or she possesses a background knowledge of the history of criticism. Thus the statements that Guru Nanak was not the founder of Sikhism and that the Janam-Sakhis are not biography but hagiology, if understood against Dr. McLeod’s background in the quest of the Historical Jesus and other such pursuits, is trying to enunciate the basic tenet of critical scholarship. “If you ask an ancient source a question and it gives a nonsense reply, re-think your question.” It is an elementary critical statement to say a Gospel is a Gospel not a biography. Technically, it is Heilsgeschichte (Salvation-happening) not History. (English is poverty stricken here, it has only one word for History). But to say this is not to lessen its historicity, its part in the whole historical future. Now, baldly to re-apply these instruments of study without any explanation to a totally different subject is demanding nonsense replies. A Janam-Sakhi is a genre of literature which is sui generis and it must be treated as such, according to its own Sitz im Leben (Situation in life). Again, when Dr. McLeod says that the Tenth Nanak could not have said and done what Sikh tradition says he said and did at the founding of the Khalsa in 1699 he is using critical techniques developed originally by critics of the speeches in Thucydides and in the book of Acts. He is trying to get down to the type of “historical bedrock” which American historians are supposed to enjoy with, for instance, what it is alleged Abraham Lincolin said at Gettysburg (anyone knowing American democracy will tell you what historically “government by the people of the people” etc. really means). At one side Dr. McLeod ignores the whole religion-history context. History of this kind can only be asked its own kind of questions but even in his own field of “Secular” history (if there can be such a thing) he ignores the whole findings of the Scandanavian school concerning narratives connected with Holy places and the findings of the Oral Historians in Africa and Papua-New Guinea. There is a living unbroken reliable tradition of the sayings and doings of 1699 quite apart from writing, still alive in the Punjab, which was even more alive five generations ago when western observers came on the scene.

I had intended to leave detailed examples to indigenous scholars. Perhaps they will allow me to treat of one specimen. On pages 92 and 93 of Early Sikh Tradition in passing Dr. McLeod dismisses the tradition of the Panja Sahib at Hasan Abdal as an “aetiological legend”. That is, a story which has grown up to answer the “what is the cause of” (Greek aitios) question, like, “Why has the elephant a long nose”, Dr. McLeod has industriously gathered the scraps of information given by European travellers in the last century and on the basis of one written in 1866 he takes it that the narrative of Guru’s hand on the rock was invented by a faqir to save himself from being beaten up by Ranjit Singh’s troops. He makes much of the varying remarks by observers as to whether the hand-mark was etched upon or into the rock. A few chance-written remarks by passers-by and the reports of later visitors is enough to produce the label “invention by tradition.” The story of 1866 on which Dr. McLeod depends, rather than being an “aetiological legend” , should be classified as a “Sirdarjee Joke.” This is a genus of story invented by people wishing to show “Sikhs-are-as-stupid-or-obstinate-as-their-own-water-buffaloes”. It is a type of narrative greatly cherished by Anglo-Indian, and “Sophisticated Sikhs”. We may compare “Jew-boy”, “Pole-ak” and “Paddy” jokes in the U.S.A. It is patently not to be seriously considered as a statement of what was actually said and done. Dr. McLeod who is so outstanding for his exhaustive fieldwork does not seem to have tried to collect oral evidence from the many living Sikhs who have visited Punja-Sahib and indeed possess detailed photographs. In addition, Pakistan welcomes New Zealanders and though Sikh shrines are carefully sealed off to prevent fanatics damaging them, scholars with persistence and adroit use of resources can get access to most things. It has to be admitted that critical scholarship has here performed less than its best with regard to one of the sacred things for which Sikhs are willing to lay down their lives.

This and other examples lead one to the conclusion that Dr. McLeod’s attitude is not confined to Sikhs or any feature of Sikhism but is for religion and religious phenomena as a whole. Applying his own method of judging by the internal evidence only, it has to be objectively noted and allowed for in any appreciation of his work, that he has absolute faith in the intellectual critical method as he understands it and has passed beyond treating religious criteria on any wider or larger basis. This is not to imply on my side that reason and religion are opposed or that one takes over from another. For me they go hand in hand, but finally the intellect and its methods, as we presently know them, are not perfect nor absolute nor infallible nor do they see things in focus or whole.

In conclusion, I would like to point out that I am not calling for a moratorium on critical scholarship. I have merely tried to point out the bluntness of the critical bludgeon, the need to be humble, considerate and courteous. I have asked that it be put in a context of the wholeness of the study and of the group being studied. As part of this I would ask that due place be given to the desi home-grown production of critical scholarship. Imports should not prevent the development of the natural product. I must equally emphasize on the other hand that Sikhism like all the great religions needs critical scholarship if it is to meet the intellectual needs of its increasingly highly educated followers. Perhaps, Dr. McLeod’s works stand out so much in this respect because the leading Sikh Scholars writing in English in the Punjab need to keep in the good books of the Establishment and therefore studiously avoid “sticking their necks out”. They, as much as Dr. McLeod, have produced the present situation. The young Sikh critical scholar is in no enviable position and he must be helped and encouraged soon at all costs. For the rest, if I have been unfair personally or have hurt anybody’s feelings, I beg pardon and apologize in advance. To quote Dr. Hew McLeod, I ask for “sympathetic understanding” .

[The following write-up dates back to at least 2003, when a friend had emailed it to me.]

Veer Harbans Lal  — A Chronic Sahajdharee
by Kirpal Singh, USA

Sikhism is a great school of learning. Therefore, like any other school it also has its Admirers (Sahajdharees), Cheerleaders (Keshadharees), actual Students (Amritdharees), and Dropouts (Durpokes).

Admirers of any School of Learning are those who privately and secretly always talk about the good qualities of the school curriculum, its standards and success stories. Occasionally they arrange seminars and fundraisers for the school. They try to associate themselves with the name of the school when the news from the school is good, and disassociate when it is not. They are generally timid about wearing anything on their person, which mistakenly could recognize them as the school Admirers.

Cheerleaders, are those who as admirers, always express a desire to enter the school, but never quite make it. They normally stay afraid of the tough school curriculum. Sometimes they think of venturing into it and at other times they chicken out. Mostly, they end up satisfying their fantasies by gathering enough courage to just wear the school T-shirts or other paraphernalia on their person. They always pose that they have something to do with the school, even though they never cross the school gate to walk in.

Actual Students are those, who, first being the admirers and then the cheerleaders actually happen to gather enough courage to face the tough curriculum. They are the ones who, actually walk into the school, get their names registered, and put on the school uniform to recognize themselves with the school. They are the ones who, are mentally prepared to stick with the school, through thick or thin.

Dropouts are generally the Ex-Cheerleaders or Ex-Students. Ex-Cheerleader-Dropouts are those, who, seeing the school curriculum as an impossibility, get scared pale, and stop even dreaming about it. They quit their Cheerleading activities, stop wearing the School T-shirts and go into hiding. Normally, they do keep clinging to the old sweet memories. Therefore they do resurface from time to time, when there is a school re-union, or a party. The Ex-Student-Dropouts are those who happen to enter the school half-heartily, and do not quite make it.

In this process only those Admirers (Sehajdharees) are the lucky ones, who through their admiration happen to progress to become Cheerleaders (Keshadharees), and then successful students (Amritdharees). However, those Sehajdharees who keep on sitting on the sidelines end up becoming Chronic Sahajdharees.

It seems that our Veer Harbans Lal Jee has allowed himself to become that Chronic Sahajdharee. Is it not amazing that even in very very long Fifty years of Sehajdhareeship he has not been able to gather enough courage & understanding to wear even the Sikh School T-shirt???… let alone becoming a student???!!!!

Kirpal Singh, USA.

THE KHALSA DURING 18TH CENTURY

Dr Kirpal Singh

[Then editor of Abstracts of Sikh Studies, Jan-Mar 2003]

The 18th century history of the Sikhs is seen as historically significant and religiously so glorious and inspiring that it is repeated in every Gurdwara in the daily Ardas in the morning and evening.

“Hail those Sikhs who meditated on the name of God; shared their food with others; continued to run the free communal kitchen and fought against injustice and tyranny; did not waver even when cut joint by joint, suffering every torture for the sake of their faith and religion.”

The Sikhs during 18th century had shown an exemplary character of service and sacrifice by suffering state tyranny without resorting to tyranny themselves. It is, therefore, very important to study various phases of 18th century history of Sikhs. It is, however, an uphill task to discuss the Sikh relations with Marathas, Ruhelas, Afghans, Jaats of Bharatpur, and the British during 18th century in a single paper. We shall therefore try to highlight some of the important phases of Sikh history during this period.

The Mughal Policy of repression and suppression
The 18th century opened with the policy of suppression of the Sikhs by the Mughal Government. In the first decade, Anandpur Sahib was besieged by the huge Mughal army which came to the aid of the Pahari Hindu Rajas’ (Rajas of the hill kingdoms) ongoing effort to subjugate the Sikhs. They wanted to dislodge Guru Gobind Singh from Anandpur Sahib. These aggressive campaigns resulted in the martyrdom of the four sons of Guru Gobind Singh along with the Guru’s mother. Guru Gobind Singh had to go to Damdama Sahib (Bathinda). Ultimately he went to the south where he died in 1708 due to complications arising from an unsuccessful assassination attempt.[1]

Senapat in his Gursobha (as also the official record of the Mughal emperor, Akhbarat-i-Darbar-i-Mualla) gives in detail the circumstances in which Guru Gobind Singh died. All indications are that he was attacked by a hired assassin.[2]

Sometimes a single event changes the course of history. The martyrdom of the young sons of Guru Gobind Singh proved to be the most significant event in the annals of Khalsa. Khalsa made up its mind to attack the Nawab of Sirhind where the young sons of the Guru had been killed. City of Sirhind was the capital of the Nawab’s domain. Conquest of Sirhind, as has been significantly remarked by Griffin, led to the establishment of Khalsa Raj. Sirhind was first conquered by Banda Singh Bahadur in 1710 CE. He had been appointed by Guru Gobind Singh to take over the command of the Khalsa and continue the fight against state tyranny. After conquering Kaithal, Samana and then Shahabad, Banda Singh Bahadur took circuitous route and moved towards the hills north of Ambala and established himself at Mukhlispur. The topographical study of Mukhlispur would reveal the military strategy of Banda Singh Bahadur. He built Lohgarh over hillock surrounded by a ditch and thick forest for miles which made it difficult for the enemy forces to take them by surprise. During Banda’s period, Bahadur Shah issued edict that no Sikh should be allowed to move about in the town and villages. Despite all this Banda Singh Bahadur was able to establish a Sikh state and issued coins in the name of Guru Nanak and Guru Gobind Singh.[3] He gave the shattering blow to the Mansabdari system of land holding which was prevalent in those days. Banda Singh freed the peasants from giving land revenue to their overlords and made the tiller the owner of the land. In this way he initiated a system that was to be gradually followed everywhere.[4] Banda Singh Bahadur followed the policy of emancipating the downtrodden. Irvine writes, “In all the parganas occupied by the Sikhs, the reversal of the previous customs was striking and complete. A low scavenger or leather dresser, the lowest of the low in [Hindu] estimation had only to leave home and join the Guru (Khalsa) when in a short time he would return to his birth place as its ruler with his order of appointment in his hand.”[5] Farrukh Syar, the Mughal Emperor sent a huge contingent in 1715 CE to capture Banda Singh Bahadur. He was besieged in the Haveli of Gurdas Nangal. Banda Singh Bahadur valiantly withstood the siege for many months but ultimately had to submit. In order to terrorise the Sikhs, a long procession of about 700 Sikhs was taken out from Lahore to Delhi. Captured Sikhs were publicly executed in Delhi. Khafi Khan, a contemporary writer, has given a graphic account of the heroic deeds of those Sikhs whom he called “accursed”. He has no soft words for the Sikh Gurus or Khalsa. He has narrated the account of a young Sikh which will ever remain a source of inspiration for the Sikhs. He writes that “he was giving an eye witness account” of an old lady coming to the Emperor requesting that his son was not a Sikh and he had been wrongly arrested as Sikh and was going to be executed. The Mughal Emperor took pity on the lady and ordered that her son should be released. The woman came to the executioner, wanted her son to be released forthwith but Khafi Khan writes that her son refused to be released and he declared that he was a staunch follower of Guru Gobind Singh and his mother was telling a lie that he was not a Sikh. He was executed along with his companions.[6]

Mirza Mohammad Harisi the author of Ibrat Namah who was present at Delhi describes it as tamasha: “Such a crowd in the bazar and lanes had rarely been seen. The Mussalmans could hardly contain themselves with joy. But the unfortunate Sikhs who had been reduced to this condition faced their lot with visible equanimity. Not the slightest sign of dejection or humiliation was visible on their faces, in fact most of them as they passed along on their camels seemed to be happy and cheerful, merrily singing their sacred hymns.”[7]

After Banda Singh Bahadur there was a problem in keeping the Sikhs who had been scattered to various places, under a unified command. This was a direct result of state’s active pursuit of a policy aimed at annihilating the Sikhs. Some Sikhs went into jungles, some to the deserts of Bikaner and some lay low in different places because of state persecution. Mata Sundari, revered spouse of Guru Gobind Singh, sent Bhai Mani Singh to Amritsar to organise the Sikhs. He revived the old custom of bi-annual gathering of the community on Vaisakhi (first day of the month of Vaisakh in the Sikh calendar) and Diwali (moonless night of the Sikh calendar month of Katak, associated with the sixth Nanak, Guru Hargobind). He wanted that Sikhs should periodically assemble at Amritsar to chalk out their plan of action and take all the measures for their safety. However, the state, realising the danger of such gatherings arrested Bhai Mani Singh and martyred him.

It will not be out of place to give here in brief the circumstances leading to the martyrdom of Bhai Mani Singh, the most revered learned Sikh of his times. Bhai Mani Singh successfully showed the way to Khalsa that Akal Takht and Darbar Sahib Amritsar were the rallying points in their hour of crisis. The Mughal government also knew that Sikhs would be assembling at Amritsar, hence it took strong measures to prevent them from coming to Amritsar.

The rule of Abdul Samad Khan (1716-1726 CE) and rule of his son Zakaria Khan (1726-1745 CE) is considered to be the period of persecution of the Sikhs. Hundreds of Sikhs were killed during this period.[8] The most prominent is Bhai Mani Singh who did a lot of work to preserve the divine verses and tradition of the Gurus. He had taken baptism from Guru Gobind Singh. As priest of Golden Temple, Amritsar he applied to the Mughal governor of Punjab for permission to hold Diwali fair. Permission was granted on the condition that he would pay to the government a stipulated amount. On the day of festival army was sent there. Fair could not be held. The Sikhs could not visit Darbar Sahib. Bhai Mani Singh was arrested. He was given the usual choice — either accept Islam or be killed. Bhai Mani Singh was tortured to death by the order of the government.[9]

In the first half of 18th century, the rule of Mir Mannu (1748-1753 CE) is known to be the most tyrannical for the Sikhs. Tamas Khan who was the page of Mir Mannu has described how the Sikhs were arrested and how they were killed for none of their fault except that they were Sikhs. Sikhs still remember the tyranny of Mir Mannu and they used to say Mannu Saadi Datri, Asin Mannu De Soye, Jiun Jiun Mannu Wadhda Asin Doone Chaune Hoye. How the Sikhs were chased and killed has been described by Tamas Khan, servant of Mir Mannu in his diary entitled Tamas Namah:

“After some time, Muin-ul-mulk himself marched out of Lahore to a distance of seven kos and encamped near village Tikapur situated on the bank of the Ravi. He halted there for a long time and sent out Mughalia troops under Khwajah Mir in every direction to suppress the Sikhs, whenever he heard of their risings. Khwajah Mira at the head of his troops rode out twenty or some times thirty kos. Wherever he got a clue of the whereabouts of the Sikhs, he would try to take them by surprise and slay them. The person who brought Sikhs alive or their heads or their horse, received prizes. Every Mughal who lost his own horse in the battle was provided with another of a better quality at the expense of the government. The Sikhs who were captured alive were beaten with wooden mallets and killed. At times Adina Beg Khan sent forty to fifty captured Sikhs from the Doab District (Jalandhar). They were as a rule killed with the strokes of wooden hammers.”[10]

At another place Tamas Khan writes:

“Muin-ul-Mulk was at Batala, news was received that the Sikhs were creating trouble. Muin-ul-Mulk sent Syed Jamaluddin Khan and Bakhshi Gazibeg Khan against them. They were dispersed. Nine hundred of them, however, had gathered in the fort of Ram Rauni (Amritsar) close to Chak Guru (around 1752 CE). They were besieged in the fort.

Ultimately in desperation, the Sikhs issued out of the fort and fell upon the besiegers, sword in hand. A hand to hand fight took place. Syed Jamaluddin Khan and his cavalry got down from their horses and fought on foot. After a desperate fight the Sikhs were killed.”[11]

During persecution of the Sikhs, the Mughal government under Mir Mannu (and his wife Mughlai Begum) did not spare even Sikh women and children. An eye witness account has been so vividly described:

“Next day Qasim Khan left the road to Patti and moving towards a village twelve kos away, camped there. On the plea that people had sided with the Sikhs, he imprisoned them. He camped there for a month. He did not release women and children who were taken captive. The Sikhs used to fight his soldiers every day and depart.”[12]

Sikh Afghan Struggle
In 1739 CE Ahmed Shah Abdali who had visited India in the train of Nadir Shah became the ruler of Afghanistan. Keeping in view the weakness of the Mughal government, he cherished the dream to conquer the entire Punjab and annex it to the Kabul Kingdom. For this purpose he made repeated invasions from 1747 – 1767 CE. Sensing the spirit of times, Nawab Kapur Singh in 1748 CE organised Dal Khalsa by uniting various jathas (contingents) of the Sikhs. The organisation of Dal Khalsa created a force to be reckoned with.[13] In the middle of 18th century, Punjab witnessed the quadruple struggle between Mughals, Marathas, Afghans and the Sikhs for the rule of Punjab. Mughals were defeated by Ahmed Shah Abdali who ransacked Delhi and collected huge wealth in 1756 CE. Marathas occupied Punjab in 1757 CE. Abdali was not to tolerate this, he brought a huge army and defeated the Marathas in the combat which is known as 3rd Battle of Panipat in 1761 CE. Marathas had superiority of number and superiority of ammunition but they could not defeat Abdali who employed superior strategy and provided better leadership in the war over the Marathas.[14] Having vanquished the Mughals and the Marathas, now he turned his attention to Sikhs. Sikhs had to face the wrath of Ahmad Shah Abdali who wanted to vanquish the Sikhs as well.

Ghallughara
The Sikhs had gone towards Sirhind and encamped at village Kup when Abdali reached Lahore. With rapid marches of light cavalry he covered the whole distance from Lahore to Kup within two days and reached Kup on February 5, 1762. Though Sikhs had been warned of Abdali’s approach by messangers of Missal Nakai, they were surprise by the speed of attack. The strategy was to overwhelm the Sikhs and to wipe them out. But the Sikhs stubbornly frustrated his designs. They would stand their ground, engage the enemy and then retreat to new ground. The enemy was in hot pursuit. The pursuer and pursued fought on for twelve kos and they were anxious to find water to quench their thirst. After half a day’s severe fighting they saw a big pond of water at village Qutab Bahmini. The clash and clang of swords stopped for a while and they had their fill of water. Abdali pursued the Sikhs upto Barnala where he called halt because his army was enervated and exhausted. The commonly cited estimate of the loss of men on the side of Sikhs is 15000 to 30000 men and this battle is known as vadda ghallugharaa [the major holocaust] in the history of the Sikhs.[15] On his way back Abdali destroyed Darbar Sahib, Amritsar and filled the tank with animal blood and garbage so that Sikhs might not be able to claim this place as sacred. But he was soon disappointed. Hardly had he reached Kabul, Khalsa again gathered at Amritsar on Vaisakhi day and rebuilt the Temple.

Martyrdom of Baba Gurbaksh Singh
Qazi Noor Muhammad who accompanied Ahmed Shah Abdali during his 7th invasion and used the term ‘dogs’ for Sikhs has given a vivid account of martyrdom of Baba Gurbaksh Singh whose memorial is situated behind the Akal Takht in Amritsar. The author of Jang Namah writes about the seventh invasion of Ahmad Shah Abdali :

“When the Shah arrived at the Chak there was not a single Kafir to be seen there. But a few of them had remained in an enclosure so that they might spill their own blood. And they sacrificed their lives for the Guru. When they saw the renowned king and the army of Islam, they came out of the enclosure. They were only thirty in number. But they had not a grain of fear about them. They had neither the fear of slaughter nor the dread of death. Thus they grappled with the Ghazis and in this grappling they spilt their own blood. All the accursed Sikhs were killed and went to hell. The Muslims ran to the right and to the left in search of them but they did not find even one of the impertinent dogs. The Shah had, therefore, to return to Lahore helplessly.”[16]

Ahmed Shah Abdali made several invasions to occupy Punjab and annex it to Kabul Kingdom. On every invasion he was frustrated by the Sikh jathas. The Sikhs warrior bands which were called jathas (and a collection of jathas, misal)- began to occupy territory at various places. They conquered Lahore for the first time in 1765 and struck coins in the name of the Guru. Soon most of the Punjab was occupied by the Sikh Misldars. Abdali, the best horseman of Asia of his time, conquerer of Delhi, victor of the battle of Panipat, felt hapless before the unrelenting Khalsa. He left Punjab without fulfilling his desire to annex it to his kingdom and died in 1769.

Establishment of Sikh Misls
Nadir Shah’s invasion of 1738-39 CE and Ahmad Shah Abdali’s repeated invasions from 1747-1767 CE created confusion and chaos in the whole northwestern India. The Punjab suffered the most. There was no sense of security. The people in Punjab were always in a fix as to whom to pay land revenue and whom not to. The Mughal government had been destroyed by the Afghans and Marathas. The Marathas were subsequently defeated by Afghans.[17] Almost every alternate year Ahmad Shah Abdali would invade and devastate the land and loot the population irrespective of their religion. The only opposition standing were the Sikh moving bands who resisted the invader and helped the peasantry. Gradually different villages began to seek protection from various Sikh chiefs and they started paying tribute to the Sikh chiefs. This led to the development of Rakhy (protection) system. Owing to the continuous political insecurity and chaos the prominent Sikh chiefs began to possess big patches of land and there developed Misaldari system. In 1748 twelve misals were constituted. The most prominent amongst these were Faizalpuria, Bhangian, Kanhyia, Ahluwalia, Ramgarhia, Sukarchakia, Phulkian and Karorasinghia. All these misls were independent in their internal administration. But they were religiously bound to obey Gurmatta passed by Sarbat Khalsa on the occasion of Bandi Chhorh or Vaisakhi.

The Central Government of the Sikhs[18]
Sikhs introduced the Gurmatta system. On every Vaisakhi (first day of the month of Vaisakh in Sikh calendar) and Bandi Chhorh (moonless night of the month of Katak) they used to meet at Amritsar and pass resolutions regarding their religious and political matters. This Gurmatta system had been rightly called as Central Government of the Sikhs, because Misldars used to rule at distant places and they were only under the rule of Akal Takht where Gurmatta was passed. George Forester has beautifully described the Gurmatta system in his travels when he visited Punjab in 1783 in the following words:

“The grand convention called in their language Goormatta was that in which the army met to transact the more important affairs of the nation, as the declaration of wars or peace forming alliance and detaching of parties on the service of the year. The amount of the contribution levied on the public account was reported to the assembly, and divided among the chiefs proportionately to the number of their troops. They were at the same time obliged to their soldiers who on any cause of dissatisfaction, made no hesitation in quitting their service and following the more popular leader.”[19]

Sikh domination of Delhi, 1783
The Sikhs under Jassa Singh Ahluwalia entered Delhi unopposed. They entered Red Fort and occupied Diwan-i-Aam. The Emperor and their courtiers hid themselves in the private apartments. Jassa Singh Ramgarhia also joined coming from Hissar. They siezed whatever they could. Small cannons were taken possession of by many of the Sikh. Jassa Singh Ramgarhia captured four cannon guns and a large variegated slab of stone which is still preserved in Bunga Ramgarhia Darbar Sahib, Amritsar. Gradually all Sikhs retired from Delhi leaving it in the hands of the incumbent emperor Shah Alam II but at the mercy of the Sikhs.[20]

On account of Sikh’s conquest of Delhi, Shah Alam II, the Mughal Emperor called Begum Samru[21] to assist him. She entered into negotiations with S. Baghel Singh, the leader of Karorasinghia Misl. Following terms were settled and signed by the Emperor:

1. The major portion of Sikh army would immediately retire to their homes in the Punjab.
2. Baghel Singh would remain in capital with 4000 troops.
3. Sikhs were allowed to build seven Gurdwaras at places historically important to them in the city of Delhi.
4. Baghel Singh’s headquarter would be established at Sabzi Mandi.
5. To meet the expenses of his troops and construction of Gurdwara he was permitted to charge six annas in the rupee of all the income from octroi duties in the capital.
6. The Sikhs would not flout emperor’s law in any way during their stay in the capital.
7. The construction of the Gurdwaras must be finished as early as possible, but not beyond current year in any case.

The most remarkable thing during the political turmoil of 18th century is that the Sikhs showed an ideal character. Even Qazi Nur Mohammad who had accompanied Ahmed Shah Abdali in his Jihad against the Sikhs had paid a glowing tribute to the Sikhs. Even in war against Afghans, Sikhs did not attack any women. This is testified by Qazi Nur Muhhamad. Sikh character shines like a beacon of light compared to their contemporary chiefs who had a number of women in their harems and used to carry away women of the enemy at first chance. It is significant to note that Qazi Nur Muhhamad who accompanied Ahmad Shah Abdali during his seventh invasion had intense hatred for the Sikhs. He called Sikhs ‘sag’ which in persian means ‘dog’. But he paid glowing tributes to the character and bravery of the Sikh and vividly depicted their fighting tactics in his Jangnamah. We reproduce here a few extracts which give an account of the 18th century Sikhs:

“Do not call the dogs (the Sikhs) ‘dogs’ because they are lions and are courageous like lions in the field of battle. How can a hero, who roars like a lion in the field of battle, be called a dog. If you wish to learn the art of war, come face to face with them in the field. They will demonstrate it to you in such a way that one and all will praise them for it. If you wish to learn the science of war, O swordman, learn from them how to face an enemy like a hero and to come out safe from a battle. Singh is a title ‘ a form of address for them’. It is not justice to call them dogs. If you do not know the Hindustani language (I tell you that) the word Singh means a Lion. Truly they are like lions in battle and at the time of peace they surpass Hatim”.[22]

“When they take the Kirpan in their hands, they overrun the country from Hind (-ostan, meaning Northern India) to Sind. Nobody then stands in opposition to them, however strong he may be. When they manipulate the spear they shatter the ranks of the enemy, and when they raise the heads of their spears in the sky, they would pierce even through the caucus. When they adjust the strings of their Chachi bows and place in them the enemy-killing arrows and pull the strings to their ears, the body of the enemy begins to shiver with fear. When their battle axe falls upon the armour of their opponents, that armour becomes their coffin”.[23]

“The body of every one of them is like the piece of a rock and in physical grandeur, every one of them is more than fifty persons. It is said that Bahram Gore killed wild asses and set the lions shrieking. But if Bahram were to come face to face with them, even he would bow before them.

“During a battle when they take their guns in their hands, they come jumping into the field of action, roaring like lions. They tear the chests of many and shed the blood of several (of their enemy) in the dust. It is said that the musket is a weapon of ancient days. It, however, appears to be the creation of these dogs rather than of the great Socrates. Although there are so many of the tufangchis (musketeers), but nobody can excel them in its use. To the right and to the left, and in front and towards the back, they go on firing regularly. If you do not believe in what I say, you may enquire of the brave swordmen who would tell you more than myself and would praise them for their fighting. The fact that they grappled with thirty thousand heroes bears witness to my statement.”[24]

“If their armies take to flight, do not take it as an actual flight. It is a war tactic of theirs. Beware, beware of them for second time. The object of this trick is that when the furious enemy runs after them, he is separated from his main army and from his reinforcements. Then they turn back to face their pursuers and set fire even to water. Did you not see how, during the fight, they took to a deceptive flight from before the Khan, and how, then they turned back on him and surrounded him on all sides. The Khan then came down from his horse and flung arrows and bullets at them and with bravery extricated himself from their midst.”[25]

“You may yourself judge, O brave man, how a single battalion of theirs rushed upon Multan, entered the city and devastated it and carried away an immense booty. I am not sufficiently strong in mind to be able to express what the dogs did there. Since the creation of the world nobody remembers to have seen Multan devastated in this way at the hands of anybody. But because God so willed it, everyone of us has to submit to His will.

“Leaving aside their mode of fighting, hear you another point in which they excel all other fighting people. In no case would they slay a coward, nor would they put an obstacle in the way of a fugitive. They do not plunder the wealth and ornaments of women, be she a well-to-do lady or a maidservant. There is no adultery amongst these dogs nor are these mischievous people given to thieving. Whether a woman is young or old they call her a Mai and ask her to get out of the way. The word Mai in Indian language means ‘a lady elder’. There is no thief at all amongst these dogs, nor is there any house-breaker born amongst these dogs, nor is there any house-breaker born amongst these miscreants. They do not make friends with adulterous and house breakers, though their behaviour on the whole is not commendable.”[26]

“If you are not conversant with their religion, I tell you that the Sikhs are the disciples of the Guru. The ways and manners of these people received their impetus from Nanak who showed these Sikhs a separate path (taught them a distinct religion). He was succeeded by Gobind Singh. From him they received the title of Singh. They were not from amongst the Hindus. These miscreants have a separate religion of their own”.[27]

FOOTNOTES

1. For details see the chapter ‘Guru Gobind Singh’s Relations with Bahadur Shah in my book Perspective on Sikh Gurus, Delhi, 2000.
2. Ibid.
3. A Short History of Sikhs, Teja Singh & Ganda Singh, Orient Longman 1950, p. 82-86
4. Ibid. p. 107
5. Later Mughals, Irvine, Delhi 1995m p. 98
6. Khafi Khan, Muntkhab-ul-Lubab, Vol. VII, p. 766
7. Quoted in the Short History of the Sikhs, Teja Singh Ganda Singh, Orient Longman,. 1950, p. 124
8. Tahmas Namah, Tahmas Khan, translated: P. Setu Madhava Rao, Bombay, 1967, p. 19.
9. A Short History of Sikhs, Teja Singh Ganda Singh, Orient Longman, 1950, p.124.
10. Tahman Namah Tahmas Khan, translated: P.Setu Madhava Rao, Bombay, 1967, p.19.
11. Ibid. P.18.
12. Ibid. P.23.
13. For details see History of Sikhs, Hari Ram Gupta, vol. II P.73-97 (and edition 1978)
14. See Maratha-Sikh Relations by Kirpal Singh in the Third Battle of Panipat, edited by Dr Hari Ram Gupta.
15. Life of Maharaja Ala Singh of Patiala and His Time, Kirpal Singh, Amritsar, 1954, P.103-108.
16. Jang-Namah, Qazi Nur Muhammad edited Ganda Singh,Amritsar, 1939, P.35.
17. A Short History of Sikhs, Teja Singh, Ganda Singh, op. Cit., p. 159.
18. This term won first used by Dr G L Chopra in his book Punjab As Sovereign State.
19. A Journey from the Bengal to England, Vol. 1, Patiala, 1970, p. 330.
20. For details see History of Sikhs, Hari Ram Gupta Vol. III, Delhi 1981, p. 164-170.
21. Her real name was Zehrul Nissa daughter of Asad Khan. Married to a German adventurer known as Samru. She got converted to Roman Catholicism and after the death of her husband managed the Jagir at Sardana; she was favourite of Shah Alam II, Mughal Emperor.
22. Jang Namah, Qazi Nur Mohammad, ed. Ganda Singh, cit. Op., p. 55.
23. Ibid., p. 56
24. Ibid., p. 57
25. Ibid., p. 57
26. Ibid., p. 57-58
27. Ibid., p. 58-59

¤