Discovering W.H. McLeod and His Work on Sikhism

Baldev Singh












Go to any major library and you will find shelved Dr. McLeod’s books on Sikhs and Sikhism. In all likelihood the new readers on Sikh religion are influenced by these writings. To many educated Sikhs, he is an enigma, and they are baffled all the more when he is portrayed to the world as an authority on the Sikh religion. 

To date, McLeod has published extensively on Sikhism and his major works are referenced unhesitatingly.1 He has influenced a handful of Sikh scholars with his views. Nevertheless, a significant number of Sikh scholars have cast serious doubts on McLeod’s scholarship, particularly on the questions he has raised and the radical conclusions he has drawn, which alter the established Sikh traditions.2

Last year McLeod published his latest masterpiece titled, Discovering the Sikhs: Autobiography of a Historian.3

This book has opened the door for me to take another close look at him; his history; how he came to be regarded as “Sikh scholar,” and above all to critically examine his credentials.

We know that research in any field is the determination of facts. Obtaining facts and their further analysis to drive home the truth through careful investigation is no easy skill to acquire. The integrity of a scholar is fundamental to objective research. Research done with a bias or motive leads to erroneous and unsustainable results. In other words, a research scholar is the disseminator of truth, and not a propagandist. The words of Guru Nanak are timely:

O Priest (pandey)! Do not tell lies, speak the truth; cure your self-conceit by imbibing the Word.4

One loses credibility by one’s own actions and no one trusts him/her again.5 Nanak, ultimately falsehood is defeated and truth triumphs.6

To understand the nature of this ongoing controversy, let me take you to a recent Internet discussion on McLeod’s “Sikhs of Khalsa” on “Sikh Diaspora Discussion Group”. When someone upset Prof. Cole by quoting the works of Trilochan Singh and Gurdev Singh, he remarked on June 9, 2003 “I wouldn’t recommend the books by Trilochan Singh or Gurdev Singh. They are vitriolic rather than academic. But the main point I wish to make is read McLeod for yourself. Don’t accept the judgement of others¾such is the proper approach.” And earlier on June 8 Prof. Barrier cautioned them to wait until “Hew McLeod deals very specifically with these and other allegations in his autobiography, Discovering the Sikhs. South Asia Books will have the non-India distribution to the book¾an orderly review of facts, misinformation, specific networks of Sikhs who published conference proceedings and individual papers, primarily in the 1980s and early 1990s. I will circulate information on the volume when it appears in September. Those who want to follow the charges, and more than adequate rebuttals by McLeod, probably should wait until a definitive and systematic work is out and then compare the various items referred on the Sikh Diaspora Yahoo Forum that allegedly undermine his research and question his motives.” Prof. Devinder Singh Chahal, editor-in-chief of Understanding Sikhism Research Journal disseminated this same advice to the wider Sikh audience.7, 8  

Now that I have read the book, may I say that those who have taken Prof. Cole and Prof. Barrier’s advice seriously would be greatly disappointed because Discovering the Sikhs: Autobiography of a Historian, like all of McLeod’s earlier works, is no exception! This book is misleading as well as confusing. It consists of two parts: Part 1 is biographical and, part 2 is on Sikhism: explanation of his methodology of historical research, discussion of controversial issues, responses to critics, regrets, and accomplishments. Recently Ishwinder Singh pointed out poignantly that McLeod has retracted or modified most of his earlier controversial views, though reluctantly, and is still holding on to others without providing new evidence or sound reasoning.9

As I read the book, I couldn’t help but notice that the most interesting feature is his disclosure of how he got his Ph.D. degree and got himself declared as “being among the foremost scholars of Sikh studies in the world”. This information seems to be crucial in understanding the genesis of his perspectives on Sikhism. Before proceeding further, let me mention some insight as to what transpires inside the academic world where I was awarded a Ph.D. in medicinal chemistry. My research supervisor had a research program in the area of my thesis topic before I joined his group, and he was teaching a graduate course in that field. One of my thesis examiners was a leading authority in medicinal chemistry, and he was responsible for evaluating the biological aspects of my work. The other individual was from the chemistry department, an organic chemist who appraised the chemistry aspects of my thesis. I defended my thesis before the thesis committee and the entire department¾both faculty and graduate students. The thesis was transferred to the public domain as soon as the university accepted it.

Given that background, let’s take a closer appraisal of McLeod’s Ph.D. thesis: Guru Nanak and the Sikh Religion at the University of London. Prof. A.L. Basham, his supervisor, knew hardly anything about Guru Nanak and very little about the Punjabi language. Apparently, and as expected he made only three minor changes to the thesis; one of which was his insistence on the use of the plural form “appendices” instead of “appendixes.”10 McLeod couldn’t have expressed the situation better:

Once a month I was required to appear before him and report progress and difficulties. I would outline the difficulties and at each of them he would nod his head wisely and make some such comment as “Yes, that is a problem”, or “That is a difficulty we all have.” After the interview was over I would ask myself what have I gained from it and the answer would be that I had derived nothing. Professor Basham was, however, an experienced supervisor and even if I received no direct guidance concerning my thesis topic I did at least get the understanding noises which at that time I needed.10

Amazingly, McLeod had very little interaction with the two examiners who did not even read the complete thesis before approving it.11 Again in the words of McLeod:

When I presented myself for the viva on July 13th Dr. Allchin, one of the examiners whom I had not previously met, opened the questioning by frowning very severely at me. “Mr. McLeod,” he said, “We have a serious criticism to make of this thesis.” This, needless to say, is just what the nervous candidate does not want to hear. Dr. Allchin paused and then went on: “You did not allow us sufficient time to read it.” It was a joke and he and the other examiner Professor Parrinder, together with Professor Basham, joined in the jolly laughter. It soon became clear, however, that neither examiner had in fact managed to read the complete thesis, and after a single question from each I was dismissed. Fortunately they both agreed to sustain the thesis.11

It should be no greater surprise to us that Prof. Parrinder knew nothing of Guru Nanak and the Sikh religion except what he learned from McLeod’s thesis.12 In other words, McLeod himself was the supervisor as well as the examiner of his thesis. Then who determined the veracity of the contents of the thesis? And who ascertained its adequacy for the award of a Ph.D. degree? After all, the thesis was not about English literature; it was about Guru Nanak’s authentic teachings enshrined in Aad Guru Granth Sahib (AGGS) as pointed out by McLeod himself:

The Adi Granth contains a substantial number of works by Guru Nanak. These can all be accepted as authentic. It is clear that Guru Arjan compiled the Adi Granth with considerable care and the principal source, which he used, was a collection, which had been recorded at the instance of the third Guru, Amar Das, who was only ten years younger than Guru Nanak.13

One may ask McLeod why he didn’t choose a thesis supervisor or examiners with expertise in Sikhism. One may even question the University of London for falling short on the standards. Was Fauja Singh, “an honest and honorable historian of Punjab”14 or Ganda Singh, “certainly an eminent Sikh historian”15 or any other Indian scholar not good enough to be his thesis examiner? Besides, why were the contents of the thesis kept out of view until November 196816,17 while the University of London conferred the degree after accepting the thesis in July 1965?18 Why were even his friends, Ganda Singh and Harbans Singh, who had offered assistance in his work, kept in the dark until 1968 when “Guru Nanak and the Sikh Religion” was released¾upon which McLeod was hailed as being “widely known as being among the foremost scholars of Sikh studies in the world?”17

Generally, scholars spend many years and sometimes their entire research career before being recognized as “being among the foremost scholars in their field” by their peers. But here McLeod was awarded this distinction by R.C. Zaehner (1913-74), Professor of Eastern Religion and Ethics at the University of Oxford,17,19 who reviewed Guru Nanak and the Sikh Religion in the Times Literary Supplement in 1968.20 In other words, McLeod became “one of the foremost scholars of Sikhism” simply through the publication of his Ph.D. thesis which bypassed all the rigors of academic reviews.20 Did Zaehner who was an alcoholic19 know anything about Guru Nanak’s teachings? After the publication of Zaehner’s review, McLeod rightly expressed his jubilation: “Professor Zaehner could never have known what joy he created!”17 From thereon, our McLeod has never missed an opportunity to self-promote himself. Given this historical background, one wouldn’t be wrong to question his academic credentials¾his While at the same time one would not be wide off the mark to understand why McLeod manipulated himself into position with the mantra: “one of the foremost scholars of Sikhism.” This in all probability led him to believe that whatever he would write about Sikhism would be considered unique and a profound form of scholarship. In the years that followed since 1968, many Sikh scholars have attacked his works and oddly enough, McLeod in response used a five-pronged strategy to defend himself and deflect the criticism. 

First: He insists that his critics are traditionalists or conservative or fundamentalists who do not appreciate and understand his methodology of historical research.

Second: He neglects to respond to criticism of his work as far as long as possible and when he does he uses surrogates to attack his critics.21

Third: He singles out non-academic critics for vehement attack, while keeping silent about academic critics.

Fourth: He points out that it is not only him, but even the Sikh scholars of repute have been harassed and vilified.

Fifth: He claims that younger Sikhs especially those living in the Diaspora understand and appreciate his works. Here are two quotes of his:

The pattern that I have devised was never to represent the teachings of Guru Nanak in the form in which they had been delivered in the early decades of the sixteenth century. It was, however, a pattern that could be understandable to readers educated in the Western manner.22

I am a Western historian, trained in the Western methods of historical research and adhering to Western notions of historiography. No attempt has ever been made to conceal this fact. I have always maintained that I am a Western historian and if that status deprives me of reasonable understanding of Sikhism then so be it. … My primary objective has been to communicate an understanding of the Sikh people and their religion to educated Western readers and that consequently it is important that I speak to their mode of understanding. At least as far as the religion of Sikhs is concerned the object of my research has certainly not been to tell Sikhs what they should believe. It is to tell inquisitive Westerners what Sikhism apparently means in terms they can understand. This, it should be noted, does not apply to this book, which is primarily for Sikhs. My previous works have, however, been directed at Westerners or at others who have been educated by Western methods and who think in a Western mode.23

Does the Western education system or Western methodology of historical research permit the teaching of a distorted version of Sikhism to “inquisitive educated Western readers?” The objective of research in any field is to find the truth for the benefit of all! Only commercial, political and biased writings are targeted to a particular segment of the population. Moreover, where did McLeod learn the rigors required for implementing “Western methodology of historical research”, for his training was in the field of Christian theology as a Christian missionary¾a profession riddled with blind faith, which carries barely a hint of “Western methodology of historical research.” McLeod makes it clear that Discovering the Sikhs: Autobiography of a Historian is primarily for the Sikhs:

This means that the book is primarily for the Sikhs. To them can be added the small number of Western scholars who regard Sikh history and religions their chief concern. …It should be remembered, however, that basically this book is a work in which I seek to explain my method to the Sikhs. I endeavor to spell it out clearly and to define for them what features lie behind the various books and articles I have published.24

This is in contrast to his earlier claims that his writings are for “the inquisitive Western readers” or others who have been “educated by Western methods and who think in a Western mode”.23 What amazes me is that all along he expected Sikhs to support him financially to propagate his version of Sikhism. Some examples should suffice: (1) He complained that in September 1969 an invitation by the Punjabi University for the international seminar in honor of Guru Nanak’s five hundredth birthday celebration did not include travel expenses, which made it impossible for him to attend. Besides, he was very much disappointed to find out that the book display section at the seminar included a wide selection of manuscripts and seemingly every book published on Guru Nanak except for Guru Nanak and the Sikh Religion and Archer’s The Sikhs, and for two days there was absolutely no reference made to his work.25

He did not reflect for a momemt why was his book missing in the book display and why was there no reference to it at the symposium? He was fully aware that his friends Prof. Ganda Singh and Prof. Harbans Singh arranged the seminar and it was about academic appraisal of Guru Nanak. It does not cross his mind that his book is unacademic, as its main agenda is to undermine the originality and uniqueness of Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat). Another person would have taken a hint and tried to find out the flaws of his work, but not McLeod, he kept producing more absurd publications on Sikhism based on spurious literature.

(2) He also complained about the cancellation of his lecture at the University of Hull to mark the 500th anniversary of Guru Nanak’s birthday because Sikh sources refused to donate the funds.26 (3) He talks bitterly about the withdrawal of financial support by the Sikhs for his teaching position at the University of Toronto:

“Pressured by a small but vocal minority the local Sikhs had ceased to give money for a Sikh Studies position, leaving me without an invitation to return after 1992.”27

“The ambiguous attitude of some members of the University’s administration coupled with the determination of certain Sikhs wrecked the program.”28

(4) Moreover, he laments that the universities in Punjab have never invited him to give lectures or that he was not invited to participate in festschrifts (collection of essays in honor of someone) especially the one Sikhism and Secularism, a volume of essays issued in honor of Professor Harbans Singh.29 (5) He is also disappointed that Sikhs do not read his works as their minds are poisoned by the vigorous propaganda against his work.30 He blames the conservatives, who he thinks emerged as defenders of Sikhism after the tragic events of 1984 for attacks on his work.31 This line of defense is exemplified by the comments of Prof. Barrier who wrote the foreword to Discovering the Sikhs: Autobiography of a Historian.

“The themes that were to appear again and again in Sikh reviews of Hew’s work—missionary bias, cultural insensitivity, political motives, and the like—became commonplace as academics and politicians characterized his research as a threat to the community and Sikh understanding of tradition and practice.”32

To impress this point further to the readers he goes on to say:

Sikh scholars themselves experienced even more serious attacks that threatened their teaching positions and sometimes lives—good men and good scholars such as Fauja Singh and J.S. Grewal, among others, and in a later generation Piar Singh and those associated with Hew, such as Harjot Oberoi and Pashaura Singh. But Hew remained the designated lightning rod for attack.33

Prof. Barrier seems to be giving us the impression that the Sikhs treated Fauja Singh, Grewal, and Piar Singh similar to what the Christian Church did to Bruno and Galileo, the famous astronomers. To set the record straight, let me say that Fauja Singh retired as Head of the history department from Punjabi University Patiala; Grewal retired as Vice-Chancellor of Guru Nanak Dev University; and Piar Singh retired as Head of Sikh studies at Guru Nanak Dev University. Moreover, I believe Barrier couldn’t understand the very nature of scholarship in the making: critical appraisal of someone’s research work is by no means to be equated with personal attacks or persecution or life threats. Research work often generates controversies, more so in the humanities than in the hard sciences. Scholars generally do not regard criticism of their work as personal attack or persecution; rather, they regard it as an honor when someone pays attention to their work! It was the fraudulent research of Harjot Oberoi and Pashaura Singh on Sikhism that was criticized, not their personal characters, as both of them are teaching in Western universities.

Continuing with his campaign of misinformation against the Sikhs, Barrier says:

Just as American politics, metaphor, and public discourse were altered by attacks on September 11, 2001, so the growing militancy and turmoil that culminated in the attack on Golden Temple and the Delhi riots in 1984 reshaped the relationship between religion and politics among Sikhs. Academic research and authors quickly became enmeshed in the ensuing debate over controversial elements in Sikh public life. No individual, Sikh or Westerner has been more pivotal in the resulting wars over scholarship and Sikhism than Professor W.H. (‘Hew’) McLeod.34

It is difficult to understand why Barrier who is actively involved in Sikh studies characterizes the government sponsored murder of thousands of innocent Sikhs all over India after the assassination of Indira Gandhi as “riots.”35 Perhaps Politics of Genocide and Reduced to Ashes: The Insurgency and Human Rights in Punjab escaped his notice!

McLeod carries Barrier’s argument much further by claiming that he himself is the victim of the Khalistan movement.

One must remember that behind this personal experience lies the traumatic period in the history of the Sikhs. This is marked, above all, by the campaign waged by Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale and by Operation Blue Star, that wholly mistaken and disastrous attack launched by the Government of India on the Golden Temple in June 1984. Since that time many Sikhs have been involved in the bitter struggle for Khalistan. … After 1984 these conferences and publications that accompany them became much larger and more frequent, particularly in North America.36

It is ironic that McLeod expresses no opinion about the Khalistan movement, which he claims intensified the attacks on his scholarship. Wouldn’t a “skeptic historian” who has spent most of his life studying Sikhism be curious about Khalistanis? Why didn’t he investigate the “bitter struggle” for Khalistan or advance any theory about it, since at the drop of a hat, he comes up with an opinion to explain every facet of Sikhism? Besides, he does not mention the name of any Khalistani who criticized his work! Why is he silent on the “bitter struggle” for Khalistan?37 Today the leaders of the “bitter struggle” for Khalistan like Jagjit Singh Chauhan, Sohan Singh Boparai, and others are back in India living on a government pension. Boparai was given a special award for a job well done. His son, Swararn Singh Boparai has been appointed Vice-Chancellor of Punjabi University. The appointment of Boaprai, an IAS officer with no academic experience as the top administrator of a university lends credence to Sangat Singh’s assertion: RAW--the Indian intelligence agency--had a hand in the appointment of two vice chancellors at Guru Nanak Dev University.38 One of the Vice Chancellors was J.S. Grewal, a man whom McLeod regards as an elder brother and has dedicated to him his Exploring Sikhism and The B-40 Janam-sakhi. Grewal was instrumental in getting the Punjabi translation of Guru Nanak’s Teachings39 and The B-40 Janam-sakhi 40 published by Guru Nanak Dev University. In 1994, McLeod spent his last sabbatical leave at the Indian Institute of Advanced Studies in Simla where Grewal was its director.41

It seems that Sangat Singh’s statement touched a sensitive nerve and McLeod protested loudly: “I could point out that I certainly was not a tool of the Government of India.42 However, the dead silence of the “skeptic historian” raises many eyebrows. Here are a number of questions which are crying for answers from him: Why was Maharaja Dalip Singh, a ten year old boy was snatched from his mother, put in the custody of missionaries, and converted to Christianity? Why did the British authorities immediately after the annexation of Punjab take control of gurdwaras (Sikh places of worship) whereas not a single Hindu temple or mosque was touched in the entire British Indian Empire? Why did the British rulers and Christian missionaries distort Sikhism? Why were the Sikhs declared Hindus in the Constitution of India and the Hindu Code Bill imposed on them? What was he speaking about when he traveled around India visiting universities on a grant from the Government of India in 198543 when Sikhs were facing one of the darkest periods in their modern history: The Punjab was turned into a “Gulag Archipelago” by the military, paramilitary, and police forces. Sikhs were left with no venue of justice under black laws: National Security Act Ordinance, Terrorist Affected Areas Ordinance, and the draconian Terrorist and Disaffected Area Act (TADA). These “Black Laws” gave free hand to the police to exterminate Sikhs in the name of “law and order” and to deny them justice in the judicial system. Wouldn’t a scholar like McLeod who spent most of his life doing research on Sikhs and Sikhism be curious or concerned about what was happening to the Sikhs?

Barrier, who never misses the opportunity to align himself with McLeod, blames the Sikhs for involving politics with religion in academic affairs and showing a lack of appreciation for scholarship and intolerance for scholars. He goes on to protect McLeod’s integrity.

Hew is very direct in terms of his presentation of facts, quick to give others the benefit of doubt, and careful in reaching broad conclusions. Underlying the narrative is concern with academic honesty combined with amazement at the degree of ferocity in many of the seminar papers, books and articles launched to protect Sikhism from its perceived mortal enemy. … Reviews, essays in cyber chat-rooms or organized forums (i.e. Sikh Diaspora and, and debate over identity, historical facts and interpretation, woman, ritual¾any number of problems daily confronting Sikhs¾all use Hew’s work either to support arguments or to serve as pawn which can be denounced and shown to be illegitimate (along with any who might side with his opinion).… More and more Sikhs have begun to read Hew’s articles and books, and, while disagreeing with points or theses, appreciate what he has done, and take his word, namely, that his method is a historical approach to tradition and that he respects Sikhism and would do nothing to injure the sensitivities of Sikhs or cause discomfort.44

What Barrier refuses to understand is that there are serious ethical problems here. From McLeod’s autobiography it is clear he had doubts about Christianity when he was a student. But he opted for not informing the Overseas Mission Committee of the Presbyterian Church at the time of his hiring of him being a non-believer?45 At no time during his tenure with the mission did he tell the faculty colleagues or Sikh friends that he and his wife are non-believers?46 Apparently, he started having doubts about Christianity when he was a student.

     At the beginning of 1955 I began my theological course and at once doubts began to trouble me, threatening to create a situation of some difficulty. Two reasons held these doubt in check. One was the argument I silently had with myself that I could not and should not give up now that I had been admitted to the Theological Hall and had publicly committed to joining the ranks of the clergy. One other Hall student was clearly having similar doubts, but he was secure enough to let him express these openly, I certainly was not secure and so I preferred to keep quiet.47

And he elaborates about his shaky faith in Christianity further. 

But I must be honest. Even to Margaret [McLeod’s wife] I did not completely disclose my doubts, which ever attended my three years in the Theological Hall. She certainly knew that I was not entirely happy with the way things were turning out, yet because I was less than honest in revealing myself she believed that my position was still basically firm.48

 McLeod likes to nourish his ego by blaming others, in this case the teachers for not prodding him to bring his doubts into the open:      “The staff should not have assumed, as they commonly did, that students would unaided bring their problems into the open where they could be discussed.”49      Let it not be supposed that the staff were uncaring or anything but good men. I can in retrospect appreciate that any attempt to bring my difficulties out into the open would almost certainly have provoked a decision to leave the Theological Hall before the three-year course was finished. Such are life’s mysteries. Had this happened I might never have gone to India? And the Sikhs might never have heard the name of McLeod. Many Sikhs, it is true, might fervently wish that the hall staff had been more forthright, with the result that I could well have ended up as a schoolteacher in New Zealand. Other Sikhs, I should hope, are glad that that things turned as they did.50

He disclosed the secret of being a non-believer to the public only when he felt irritated by the dated references to him as a missionary or Reverend by his critics.

I now realize that I may owe these Sikhs an apology, at least those Sikhs who until 1990 assumed that I should be properly identified as a Christian missionary. My status may have been appreciated by those who knew me personally, but I have never made it known publicly until Inderjit Singh persuaded me to write an article “Where it all started” for the Sikh Review.51

May I ask: Does McLeod feel any regret or guilt for what he did? Of course not! He justifies everything he did.

Did we ever feel regret? Certainly there has been none. What about guilt? No one ever asked us whether we felt any guilt leaving the Christian faith, but it is a question, which has occasionally drifted past me. In a sense there has been absolutely no guilt. … Should I not have repaid some thing of the cost of my training and employment? This I have been able to discard because we spent, after all, a total of eleven years in the Church’s service. What, then, about the three years of concealment at Baring College? The answer, which has satisfied us, was that I was performing a job to which I had been appointed and that I was doing so without making our change in allegiance public except to a few close friends. Moreover, a sudden change of direction in 1966 would, we feared, have had an unsettling effect on the children.52

McLeod’s defense of his actions reminds me of a story of a woman who worked for some period as a prostitute before her marriage. When her husband found out about her past and confronted her, she asserted, “Haven’t I performed all the duties of a housewife and given you two sons.” “That is not the point my dear, had you told me about your past, I would not have married you,” quipped her husband. This story is relevant to McLeod: Had McLeod told his interviewers that he is a non-believer, he would not have been hired and if he had made his secret public while employed, he would have been fired. From his student days he never disclosed his doubts about Christianity because he didn’t want to jeopardize his education (degree). He accepted a missionary position in India to escape parish life in New Zealand. In other words, he has no qualms when he pursues his agenda to achieve his goal and the evidence shows McLeod kept hiding his secrets for a long time. Should we entertain the question: Could his declaration of being a non-believer be a ploy to deflect criticism against his work? For example, he defended the Biblical God by distorting the meaning of Katebi.53 Guru Nanak proclaimed:

Neither the Vedas nor the Semitic texts know the mystery of the Creator.

AGGS, M 1, p. 1021.

After an immense and tiring search the authors of the Vedas concluded that there are hundreds of thousands of netherworlds under nether worlds and skies above skies. The Semitic texts say there are eighteen thousand worlds, but their creator is One. However, the universe is so vast that it is beyond the scope of counting¾one would run out of numbers if one were to undertake the counting. Nanak salutes the Great One, Who alone knows the vastness of the universe.

AGGS M 1, p. 3.

Here Guru Nanak talks about the four Vedas and the four Semitic texts: Torah, Zabur (Psalms), Inzil (Gospel) and Quran.

For a specific reference to Quran the word Quran is used in AGGS.

Commenting about the time of creation of the cosmos Guru Nanak says:

The Pandits did know the time otherwise they would have recorded it in the Puranas. Neither did the Qaziz know it otherwise they would have written in the Quran.

AGGS, M 1, p 4.

The Merciful One is the only Emancipator (maula), not the holy men (pir and Sheikh), or Prophets. The Master of every heart, Who delivers justice, is beyond the description of the Quran and other Semitic texts.

AGGS, M 5, p 897.

In spite of being an alleged non-believer in the Bible in 1955, he goes out of his way in 1968 to defend the Biblical God and the Bible by saying that Katebi only means Quran. It must be noted that Guru Nanak used Katebi and Kateba, which are the plural of Kateb. This calls into question how much we can rely on McLeod’s word: According to his autobiography (2004), he had doubts about Christianity in 1955 and then in 1968 Guru Nanak and the Sikh Religion was published in which he distorted Guru Nanak’s composition simply for the sake of defending the Biblical God! In other words, by intentionally changing the meaning of Guru Nanak’s hymn, McLeod protected the Biblical God by plucking him out of the incisive insight of Guru Nanak. By this action alone one can cast doubt on whether McLeod was a non-believer as he now alleges.

It makes no difference to me whether he is a Christian or not, but could someone, who concealed this pivotal fact for so long while accepting a position as missionary, be trusted? This raises doubts about his credibility and integrity as a scholar. My extensive study of his works has persuaded me to raise serious doubts underlying his “methodology of historical research” and his academic ethics. His research is flawed because he ignores facts and strong evidence that goes against his thesis but accepts flimsy evidence and discredited sources to support his argument as demonstrated by the examples that you will read shortly. To help the reader in understanding this long complicated paper, I have organized the rest of this paper in the following seven chapters:

1.  Discrediting the Evidence that Guru Nanak Visited Baghdad

2. Questioning the Authenticity of Kartarpuri Bir (Adi Granth)

3.  Caste in the Sikh Panth

4. Attempts to Malign the Institute of Sikh Studies

  a.  Guru Gobind Singh did not appoint the Granth Sahib as Guru of Sikhs

  b.  Jats changed the course of Sikh movement

  c.  Gurus did not preach one religious doctrine

  d.  Guru Nanak and the Sant Tradition

5.  Unwilling to Face the Truth

6.  Manipulation and deception

7.  Guru Nanak and the Sikh Religion



Discrediting the Evidence that Guru Nanak Visited Baghdad

Two older janam-sakhis and Bhai Gurdas mention Guru Nanak’s visit to Baghdad. It is said that two inscriptions were found recording a visit of Guru Nanak to Baghdad.54 In 1919 Swami Anad Acharya published a book of English poems entitled Snow Birds, and one of the poems is about Guru Nanak’s visit to Baghdad based on one of the inscriptions. This poem is the only information about this inscription.55 In 1916 some Sikh soldiers, who were deployed in Iraq during the First World War, discovered the second inscription in a tomb, which it is claimed, makes explicit mention of Guru Nanak’s visit.56 The language of the inscription is Ottoman Turkish and efforts to translate have produced several different versions, but all of them have the words “Baba Nanak.”57 So to satisfy his “skeptic historian” curiosity, McLeod consulted Dr. V.L. Menage, Reader in Turkish at the School of Oriental and African Studies, London, who provided him the following information.58

The part of line 2 which I cannot understand is the passage where earlier translators have read Baba Nanak fakir or, more grammatically, Baba Nanak-i fakir (either six or seven syllables); and in the photograph the first letter certainly appears to be babananak and the next word, though not clear, might indeed be fakir. But the metre indicates clearly that this section contains only five syllables and that they scan - È È - -. The word baba being Turkish, both its vowels are by nature short, but since it is legitimate in poetry to lengthen a short vowel if necessary, the word could be scanned baba. It would however, be a grave fault of prosody to shorten the long vowel of Nanak in order to satisfy the demands of metre. Hence Baba Nanak fakir does not fit the metre¾and even if the reading is accepted the complete line does not make sense. I regret that I am unable to suggest the correct meaning, but Baba Nanak seems to be excluded.”59

With this information in hand McLeod concludes:

“The janam-sakhi traditions offer insufficient evidence and the support hitherto claimed on the basis of the inscription must be withdrawn. Although, there remains a possibility that Guru Nanak visited Baghdad, we are now compelled to regard it as an unsubstantiated possibility.”60

This conclusion about Guru Nanak’s visit to Baghdad drew the following response from Sangat Singh:

Dr. V.L. Menage, Reader in Turkish at [the] School of Oriental and African Studies, London, who was commissioned by McLeod, admits his lack of knowledge of the Turkman language used in the inscription. Nonetheless he proceeds to translate the same. He concedes that [the] first six or seven syllables in the second line read Baba Nanak Fakir or Baba Nanak-i-Fakir but says that this does not fit into the meter and should be ignored. That suited very well McLeod’s thesis that Guru Nanak did not travel outside his surroundings. To ignore the inscription because it does not fit into one’s contrived thesis, amounts to intellectual dishonesty.61

Stung by Sangat Singh’s valid criticism, McLeod defends himself by claiming that Ganda Singh who died many years ago, informed him in a private conversation that Sikh soldiers who discovered the inscription doctored it in order to make it clear that it referred to Baba Nanak.62

First of all, Ganda Singh makes no mention of this information in the editorial cited (read the above reference) by McLeod, but McLeod has no compunction in making Ganda Singh a partner in his fraudulent enterprise? Since Ganda Singh didn’t mention to anybody else of what McLeod attributes to him, I believe McLeod concocted an alibi.

Second, could any reasonable person believe that semiliterate Sikh soldiers with no knowledge of Arabic or Turkish doctored an inscription in Ottoman Turkish, which Dr. Menage, an expert in the Turkish language, could not decipher?

Third, during Guru Nanak’s time Ottoman Turkish was the official language of Baghdad, but not the language of the populace, as Persian was the official language in the Punjab but not the language of the populace.

Fourth, Guru Nanak’s travels to Baghdad were not an official visit. He traveled to the Arabian Peninsula to visit Muslim religious centers and to meet religious leaders and common people. So the inscription in his memory must be in Arabic spoken by the people at that time. The Sikh soldiers who were in Baghdad (1916-1918) must have learned from local people about the inscription describing Guru Nanak’s visit, otherwise how could the soldiers find the inscription on their own?

If Prof. Barrier has his way, we are told “Hew is very direct in terms of his presentation of fact, quick to give others the benefit of doubt, and careful in reaching broad conclusions.”44 The evidence suggests Barrier’s depiction of McLeod is different from the real McLeod. When McLeod runs out of absurd ideas and lame arguments to defend himself, he uses his favorite trick: “So and so told me in a private conversation.” He has no consideration for the reputation of others. In pursuit of his own agenda, he used his own student, Pashaura Singh, a brilliant but naïve and overly ambitious young man, as a sacrificial lamb. He did grave harm to his academic credibility.21





Questioning the Authenticity of Kartarpuri Bir (Adi Granth)

McLeod questioned the authenticity of Kartarpuri Bir (Adi Granth 1604 AD) and asserted that it is a copy of Banno Bir (1642 AD) without even looking at both of them, and without studying the related literature on the subject.63 To reach this conclusion, he relied heavily on the writings of a discredited and unskilled researcher, G.B. Singh (Gurbakhash Singh, 1877-1950), who himself had not examined the Kartarpuri Bir,64 but ignored the works of Bhai Jodh Singh who had meticulously examined both the manuscripts.65 And that of Mahan Singh, Gurdit Singh, Harbhajan Singh, and Pritam Singh who had examined the Banno Bir.66 

Rightly so, Daljit Singh exposed not only McLeod’s phony “research methodology” but also his academic ethics.67 In 1984 McLeod prepared a textual source book on Sikh religion for the University of Manchester. It is unbelievable that he completely omitted standard or scholarly works of H.R. Gupta, A.C. Bannerji, Sher Singh, Avtar Singh, I.B. Bannerji, J.D. Cunningham, Duncan Greenlese, Dorothy Field, and Jagjit Singh. An objective and fair-minded person would have selected a wide range of texts including the texts commonly used in Sikh studies and accepted by the Sikhs. How could McLeod recommend such texts, as they do not support his absurd and odious interpretation of Sikhism?

He claims that Daljit Singh’s criticism is unfair because he [McLeod] had already renounced explicitly his earlier opinion about Kartarpuri Bir,68 and he accuses Daljit Singh of “selective reading”.

“In 1968 I had come upon Jodh Singh’s Sri Kartarpuri Bir De Darshan and this had led me to halt my earlier speculation. I concluded that the issue is still open, and later still I was persuaded by my student Pashaura Singh that my original theory was wrong.”69

In Essays on the Authenticity of Kartarpuri Bir Daljit Singh quotes verbatim that portion of The Evolution of the Sikh Community in which I recount the mistaken views on the Adi Granth text I had tentatively held until 1968. Daljit Singh then sets about condemning me vigorously for holding these views, although in the paragraph that follows (paragraph that Daljit Singh does not cite) I say explicitly that I had renounced them.70

His assertion is patently false, as examination of the relevant pages: 75-79 of The Evolution of the Sikh Community as pointed out by Ishwinder Singh9 reveal that McLeod did not explicitly renounce his earlier mistaken views about Kartarpuri Bir.71

“The problem, which confronts us, arises from a comparison of the Kartarpur and Banno versions. We note, in the first place, that the claim to the originality made on behalf of the Kartarpur manuscript appears to be sound. Dr. Jodh Singh has argued this in a manner, which seems to be entirely convincing.” Having said that he raises four questions regarding the extra material included in the Banno version, which is absent in the Kartarpur manuscript and proposes solutions to reconcile the difference between the two manuscripts. Then he goes on to say, “There was ample evidence that others had already formed the same suspicion concerning the Kartarpur manuscript and were seeking alternative explanations.” After this, he tries to explain why the extra material, which is present in the Banno manuscript, was deleted from the Kartarpur manuscript. Finally, he says Jodh Singh’s Sri Kartarpuri Bir De Darshan raises more problems and “hence the issue should still be regarded as open.”72

The bottom line is: McLeod does not say anywhere on pages 75-79 of The Evolution of the Sikh Community that his earlier views about Kartarpuri Bir were mistaken, and that he had explicitly renounced them. Moreover, Daljit Singh did not condemn him, he simply responded in a scholarly manner to the questions McLeod raised about the Kartarpuri Bir and solutions he proposed to reconcile the difference between Kartarpur and Banno versions. McLeod keeps harping on the fact that being a Western historian he relies only on rigorous proof, but he questioned the authenticity of Kartarpuri Bir and asserted that it is a copy of Banno Bir, without even looking at both of them, on the basis of unreliable evidence: The writings of G.B. Singh64 and Sant Inder Singh Chakarvarti,73 and a conversation he had with C.H. Loehlin.73

“In fact every literate person would be ashamed of the manner, in which G.B. Singh has abused the word research,” remarked Jodh Singh known for his cool and level-headedness.74

Sant Inder Singh Chakarvarti was a preacher of the heretic Namdhari sect. Namdharis never miss the opportunity to subvert Sikhism as they believe in a line of living physically fleshy Gurus after Guru Gobind Singh and do not believe that Guru Gobind Singh invested Guruship on Aad Guru Granth Sahib. Moreover, according to Jodh Singh, Sant Inder Singh Chakarvarti had no firsthand knowledge of the Kartarpuri Bir and had nowhere stated that he saw or studied that manuscript.75 C.H. Loehlin was an American missionary, who was Vice-Principal of Baring Union Christian College at Batala, Punjab. He had been trying to undermine the faith of Sikhs in Aad Guru Granth Sahib by creating doubts about its authenticity through his writings: The Sikhs and their book (1946), The Sikhs and their Scriptures (1958) and Granth of Guru Gobind Singh and the Khalsa Brotherhood (1971).76




Caste in the Sikh Panth

McLeod is a master of manufacturing controversial issues and then extracts mileage from the issue. Case in point is the “caste” identification of Sikh Gurus and their marriages.

The ten Gurus were all Khatris by caste. This is widely regarded as a great pity, even within Sikh society where the numerically preponderant Jats commonly bewail the fact that there was never a single Jat Guru. It is not, however the point and substance of the impertinent suggestion. The suggestion concerns the marriage practices observed by the Gurus. All, without exception, arranged the marriages of their children in strict accordance with traditional caste prescription. There is no instance of a Guru having contracted on behalf of his children marriages with boys or girls from lower castes (nor indeed from a higher rank, although in view of the elevated Khatri status this is less significant). All the Gurus, themselves Khatris, married Khatri wives and this, declare their critics, is the true measure of their sincerity. How can one respect a commandment when its promulgators ignore it?77

Instead of retracting the above scurrilous and absurd statements he offers the following explanation for the caste dilemmas on page 162 of Discovering the Sikhs: Autobiography of a Historian.

There are two answers, which can be offered to this unpublished and unnecessarily embarrassing dilemma. The first is that the Gurus were not concerned with the institution of caste as such, merely with the belief that it possesses soteriological significance. Caste can remain, but not the doctrine that one’s access to salvation depends upon one’s caste ranking. The way of salvation is open to all regardless of caste. Stripped of its religious contents it can retain the status of a harmless social convention.

This deprives caste of some of its meaning, but by no means all. Was this what the Gurus meant? Although their utterances (notably their stress upon there being no caste in the hereafter) might suggest this, their institutions (commensality in the langar, distribution of krah parshad in the gurdwara, and baptism from a common bowl) indicate that they intended their denunciation of caste to be carried significantly further. A reasonable conclusion appears to be that whereas they were vigorously opposed to the vertical distinction of caste they were content to accept it in terms of its horizontal linkage. This constitutes our second answer to the suggestion of inconsistency on the part of the Gurus.

Who are these critics that McLeod mentions without citing them? Aren’t these critics none other than Christian missionaries who have prejudiced weaker minds?

First of all: Only the first four Gurus, Nanak, Angad, Amar Das and Ram Das were born in Hindu Khatri families but latter six Gurus were the descendents of Guru Ram Das, so they were neither Hindus nor Khatris as claimed by McLeod.

According to Sikh tradition, Brahman priests tried to kill Guru Nanak during the marriage ceremony when he rejected the Vedic marriage ceremony. Guru Angad and Guru Amar Das became Sikhs when they were already married and had grown up children. According to Sikh tradition, Guru Amar Das’s daughter Bibi Bhani expressed interest through her mother in marrying Bhai Jetha, who succeeded her father. Both Guru Arjan and Guru Teg Bahadur had one child, a son, respectively and both of them were killed by the Muslim rulers before the marriage of their sons. Guru Harkrishan died at the age of eight and all of Guru Gobind Singh’s sons died unmarried before him. So we are talking only about the children of the fourth and sixth Guru. So for McLeod to assert that “All the Gurus, themselves Khatris, married Khatri wives and all, without exception, arranging the marriages of their children in strict accordance with traditional caste prescription” is preposterous.

The fact is that the Sikh Gurus not only didn’t believe in caste and the Caste System, but also rejected Hinduism in its entirety. To say that, “The ten Gurus were all Khatris by caste” is nothing less than reintroducing caste and imposing the label on them. McLeod says, “All, [Gurus] without exception, arranged the marriages of their children in strict accordance with traditional caste prescription.” Did Guru Gobind Singh do that? Did Guru Teg Bahadur do that? Did Guru Harkrishan do that? Did Guru Nanak do that? Which Sikh Guru followed the traditional caste prescription in marrying his child? Is McLeod familiar with Dharmashastras that detail the marriage ceremonies based on caste? Can anyone link these requirements of shastras to the Sikh Gurus? I think by now the reader can sense how wrong McLeod has been all along. And he still keeps churning out these stories to distort the Sikh message. My feeling is that McLeod has a poor knowledge of Hinduism including its caste system.

Today even in the twenty-first century, we are seeing many more elements of the caste system than just the mere marriage stratum of the subcaste (jati) among those who adhere to the caste system practices. During the Sikh Guru’s historical times, the adherents practiced the caste system in full swing and to say (or imply) that some people (for example Sikh Gurus) would pluck out only “marriage” caste by-laws and not the rest of the caste package is nothing less than manipulation of history and evidence. Where is the evidence that Sikh Gurus’s in-laws practiced the caste system? Where is the evidence that Sikh Gurus married off their children to homes where the caste system was in practice? Has McLeod ever given a thought to the fact that like-minded people and their families can have nuptial arrangements irrespective of caste, even in the Gurus’ times?

In the example of the Gurus and their family one needs to weigh-in that these marriages were in accord with people of like-mindedness, and not in tune with the caste system. If McLeod had his way, he might even cast doubt on Thomas Paine, a great leader of the American Revolutionary War, who was opposed to the Bible and talked about freedom of the black slaves. Just because Thomas Paine didn’t marry a black person doesn’t mean by any stretch of the imagination that he harbored negative views toward Blacks and went along with the racial norms of the society.    

McLeod, trained as a missionary, who spent several years as a missionary in Punjab may not have raised these questions had he asked, “Why were Jesus Christ, his apostles and Biblical Prophets were all Jews?” Why did the “Christian God” never send any prophet to Europe? Do European Christians bewail the fact that their Savior was a Jew, and not a European? It is intriguing that McLeod does not mention the names of Jats who bewail that no Guru was a Jat or critics who question the sincerity of the Gurus! Moreover, it is difficult to understand why a white man with a Christian background would make such outrageous statements. He is fully aware that even after two thousand years white Christians practice segregation/apartheid against non-white Christians not to speak of resisting interracial marriages.

A genuine scholar would have thoroughly studied the impact of the caste system on Indian society, particularly inter-caste marriages in Hindu, Muslim, and Christian communities, especially the latter two, which are much older than Sikhism.78 Christianity was introduced in South India in the first century AD. Later on in the sixteenth century, European Christians who came to India as traders established their own colonies, culminating in the British rule over most of India for about three centuries, and this resulted in the spread of Christianity all over India. Although Muslim traders brought Islam to South India, it was the Muslim conquest from the North that began in the early eighth century, which established Muslim rule over a large territory of India for almost seven centuries. On the other hand, Sikhs ruled over the Punjab for less than a hundred years, long after the time of Gurus when Sikhism was subverted and transformed into a “warrior sect of Hinduism” due to historical circumstances.

The caste ideology is deeply embedded in the psyche of Indian people irrespective of their religions. Muslims in India were regarded as Malechas (uncivilized, unclean) by Hindus. They were considered so much outside the pale of Hindu society that Hindus once converted to Islam could on no account be taken back in the parent fold even though converted forcibly. Yet Muslims hold on to Hindu customs and practices, which their faith does not permit.

Indian Muslims have two familiar social divisions: Ashraf (or noble) that includes descendents of foreigners and converts from higher Hindu castes and Ajlaf, or common people. Intermarriage between Ashraf and Ajlaf is not approved, as it is seldom that a man of higher class will give his daughter to one of the lower. Though Muslims decry the caste system, they follow it very rigidly when it comes to marriage.79  

There is no evidence that Christians who are converts from higher Hindu castes marry Christians who are converts from lower castes. The average Indian Christian is a staunch observer of the caste system. There are large numbers of Christians in South India who even boast of their being firmer and truer adherents of the caste system than their counterpart Hindus. In Tamilnadu, there were churches with separate outlets going on to a common channel of water to accommodate hostile castes.79

Another important point to bear in mind is that caste restrictions on marriages between exclusive groups are not the only restrictions. Individual and group prejudices against marriages based on considerations of various factors: health, beauty, talent, color, race, class, occupation, wealth, etc. exist in societies where there are no castes. In other words, in caste ridden Indian society, endogamy is superimposed on prejudices about marriages between mutually exclusive groups common to non-caste societies as well. This means that the problem of restrictions on marriages between exclusive groups or classes is not solved by simply undoing the caste endogamy. Second, the problem of removing prejudices regarding marriages, as in non-caste societies, is very complicated. In the case of Indian society, the caste-based endogamy is reinforced by race (color), occupation and wealth, which divide the higher castes from lower castes and the untouchables (Dalits) from the rest. So arranging inter-caste marriages would have been impossible during the period of the Sikh Gurus.80

During the time of Sikh Gurus, Hinduism was practiced in strict observance of caste rules and rituals. Transgressors were severely dealt with¾excommunicated from the community. Such people were the real outcasts as they were shunned by the entire Hindu society. Even bhagats like Kabir, Namdev and Ravidas were refused entry in temples, not to speak of ordinary untouchables. Even in the twentieth century “Mahatma” Gandhi and Hindu reformers were unable to secure the entry of untouchables into Hindu temples. “With regard to the matter of the right to enter Hindu temples, the exterior castes were advised by Gandhi not to attempt to gain entry, as God resides in their breasts.”81 Even today, contrary to the laws of the land, Dalits are forbidden entry into the Hindu temples in rural areas.

One can imagine the uphill task the Gurus faced in breaking the caste barriers among their followers. The caste system was the greatest obstacle in the way of developing an egalitarian Sikh society. The Gurus took a cautious but bold approach to tackling this problem. Guru Nanak started the institution of sangat (congregation) and pangat (eating together sitting in a row). Sangat was made up of people without regard to religion, caste and gender. Food prepared in the langar (public kitchen) by volunteers was served to the sangat sitting in a row without regard to religion and caste. Guru Nanak also advised his followers to address each other as bhai (brother) and mai (mother) and touch each other’s feet during greeting rituals. These were daring and effective attacks on the pillars on which the superstructure of the caste system rested. These practices were condemned by Brahmins and Khatris and became intolerable for them when the third Guru Amar Das made eating in the langar mandatory for those who wanted to meet him. They appealed to Emperor Akbar to stop this practice.

Your Majesty is the protector of our customs and the redresser of our wrongs. Every man’s religion is dear to him. Guru Amar Das of Goindwal has abandoned the religion and social customs of Hindus and abolished the distinction of four castes. … He does not revere Hindu scriptures or deities or Yogis, Jatis and Brahmins. … He makes his followers sit in a line and eat food from his kitchen irrespective of caste, religion and gender.82

The Emperor found no merit in their complaint and dismissed it. This embittered the Brahmins and Khatris further and they intensified their campaign against the Gurus and harassment of Sikhs. They conspired with the upper caste (Rajput, Brahman and Khatri) government officials against Guru Arjan. It was Emperor Jehangir whose mother was a Rajput princess and maternal uncle, Raja Man Singh, the most prominent commander of the Mughal army, who ordered the execution of Guru Arjan.83 Thenceforth the Gurus were engaged in a battle on two fronts, against the forces of caste ideology and the Mughal rulers.

It must be pointed out that up to the time of the fourth Guru, Ram Das, there was no Muslim opposition, either religious or political, to the Sikh movement. On the other hand, the proponents of caste ideology started their opposition during Guru Nanak’s time. They tried to subvert Guru Nanak’s teaching through apocryphal composition under the name of Nanak and creating sakhis (stories) about Guru Nanak that contradicted his teachings. They infiltrated the Sikh movement to cause schism and to undermine its institutions and practices. After the death of the sixth Guru, Hargobind, some masands (in-charge of a religious district) started separate langar for higher castes. That is why Guru Gobind Singh abolished the Masand system.84 When Guru Gobind Singh created the Khalsa order, Brahmins, Khatris and Rajputs derided the initiation ceremony, which required taking a sip of Amrit (holy water) from a common steel bowl. Sikhs from high caste background deserted the Sikh movement in large numbers. And the Rajput chiefs as protector of Hindu Dharma declared war on Guru Gobind Singh for his challenge to the age-old caste system.85 The hostility of the higher caste Hindus and the Mughal authorities to the Sikh movement and internal feuds within the movement posed a grave danger to the survival of the movement.

Inter-caste marriages were an anathema to Hindu society, which was the main reservoir for new recruits to the Sikh movement. Inter-caste marriages would have resulted in excommunication of Sikhs from their “parent” communities. Even today one can see the consequences of violations of even sub-caste (goat) rules for marriages within the Jat community of Haryana. The caste panchayats (committee of village elders) excommunicate not only the couple but their families also.

The abolition of the caste was not the only goal of the Sikh movement. “Suffering due to alienation from God, grinding poverty and tyranny of the ruler” were the major problems facing the masses.86 Religious and political oppression of the Muslim rulers became the major challenge to the movement.87 In fact, the pursuit of this objective became more urgent, especially when the Mughal rulers launched a frontal attack to covert the Hindus to Islam. The Sikh movement depended for almost all of its recruitment on the Hindu society. The Gurus were not idle dreamers interested only in the postulation and declaration of a utopian ideology. Their aim was to create an egalitarian plebian movement outside the caste structure for the sake of capturing political power for the masses. The Gurus never swerved for a moment from this objective, and even paid with their lives to achieve this objective. They weighed beforehand the feasibility of each and every step they took in the light of the likely consequences on the course of the movement as a whole. It could not afford to cut itself off completely from the base of its recruitment by insisting on inter-caste marriages. By doing so, none of the three social objectives of the movement would have been advanced and strengthened. Neither would it have succeeded in building a society outside the caste order, nor could it have successfully challenged the religious and political domination or captured political power for the masses.88

The vast majority (95%) of today’s Sikhs are descendants of lower caste Hindus. Most of the Sikh leaders after Guru Gobind Singh were Jats, Labanas/Vanjaras, Mazhbis, Klalas, Carpenters, and Sansis. In recent times, Sikhs with Mazhbi and Carpenter backgrounds have been appointed as Jathedar of Akal Takhat¾the seat of highest spiritual authority. On the other hand, in the 2,000-year history of Christianity, in India, no one of untouchable background was ever appointed a Bishop not to speak of a Cardinal. Similarly, no Muslim of untouchable background was ever appointed as an Imam of a prestigious mosque like Jama Masjid.

The issue of inter-caste marriages in the past and present contemporary Sikh community should be looked at in light of the above discussion, not the scurrilous propaganda of McLeod. By saying “ten Gurus were all Khatris by caste,” McLeod is implying that caste was the determining factor in the selection of Gurus. The evidence suggests otherwise. The sole criteria for the selection of a successor to the house of Nanak was the total commitment to Guru Nanak’s teachings and the objectives of his movement and the ability to carry them forward under the most difficult circumstances, even at the cost of many lives including their own. The path of spirituality laid down by Guru Nanak is an arduous one. Spirituality means seeing God in all and respecting all as equal. In other words, love for God and God’s creation is the essence of spiritual life. It is this “love” that demands the highest sacrifice.

If you want to play the game of love (with God) then follow my path and be prepared to make a supreme sacrifice. Once you step on this path, do not hesitate to offer your head.

AGGS, M, 1, p. 1412.

This proclamation is central to the Sikh Movement¾the selection of a successor to the house of Nanak, the foundation of Miri Piri (temporal and spiritual sovereignty) and the noble Khalsa order. Only a moral person (gurmukh) can be a mir pir or Khalsa.

Nanak established his spiritual kingdom on the firm foundation of Truth. Nanak bowed before his disciple Lehna and installed him on the spiritual throne. Due to the greatness of Nanak, Lehna’s fame spread far and wide. They were one and the same in spirit, only different bodily.

AGGS, Balwand and Satta, p. 966.


It was declared with the beat of a drum that with the seal of approval of Guru Nanak, Guru Angad ascended the true throne with the same spiritual and temporal authority.

Varan Bhai Gurdas, p. 19.

J.S. Grewal has explained this process very lucidly. Before his death at Kartarpur in 1539, Guru Nanak chose his successor from amongst his followers, setting aside the claims of his sons. Nomination of a successor from amongst one’s own disciples was not a new thing; it was known to many an ascetical order of the times. But the nomination of Lehna by Guru Nanak was regarded as unique because Guru Nanak himself installed Lehna in his office. His name too was changed from Lehna to Angad, making him “a limb” of the founder. This nomination was important not merely because it enabled Guru Nanak to ensure the continuation of his work, but also because it served as the basis of the idea that the positions of the Guru and the disciple were interchangeable. Closely linked with this was the idea that there was no difference between the founder and the successor, they represented one and the same light.89

Bhai Gurdas says that after the fourth Guru, Ram Das, Guruship remained in his family because the burden of Guruship became unbearable due to the hostile attitude of the Mughal rulers, proponents of the caste system and schismatic sects. Attempts were made to kill Guru Arjan’s only child, Hargobind by Pirthi Chand, older brother of Guru Arjan. He collaborated with detractors of the Sikh movement and sought help from government officials to usurp Guruship, resulting in the death of Guru Arjan at the hands of government authorities.90 Guru Hargobind had armed conflicts with Mughal officials and Khatris.91 Guru Teg Bahadur sacrificed his life in opposition to the tyranny of the Mughal rulers.92 Guru Gobind Singh sacrificed his father, mother and four sons.93

Then Guruship was conferred on Arjan, whose son openly declared spiritual and political sovereignty (Miri Piri). He said now Guruship will stay within his family (Sodhi), as others may not be able to bear the burden of Guruship.

Varan Bhai Gurdas, p. 19.

The first three Gurus did not confer Guruship on their sons or relatives or people who have served the longest period. After Guru Ram Das, when Guruship remained in his family, there was no change in the criteria of selection. He chose his youngest son Arjan to be his successor; Guru Hagobind did not choose either of his sons but his grandson Har Rai, younger son of his deceased eldest son, Gurdita. Guru Har Rai rejected his older son Ram Rai because he showed a willingness to compromise truth to win favor from Emperor Aurangjeb, who granted him a large estate. Instead, he appointed his younger son Harkrishan, who was only eight years old. The young Guru who died from smallpox shortly thereafter appointed his grandfather’s youngest brother, Teg Bahadur (youngest son of Guru Hargobind Sahib). Guru Teg Bahadur opposed the forcible conversion of Kashmiri Brahmins by Aurangjeb and made a unique and unparalleled sacrifice in the annals of human history in defense of religious tolerance, freedom of worship, and freedom of conscience.



Attempts to Malign the Institute of Sikh Studies

McLeod blames the Institute of Sikh Studies, Chandigarh for launching a vigorous campaign against his writings and made Daljit Singh the main target of his attack.94 He singles out Daljit Singh because his Essays on the Authenticity of Kartarpuri Bir pulled off the mask of Western methodology of historical research from McLeod’s face. He admits that Daljit Singh was an honest man95 and a prolific writer96 who was the major contributor to books and seminars that criticized McLeod’s works. Without pointing out specific charges, he blames Daljit Singh for carrying out a vendetta against him: “Daljit Singh was the person most active in all the campaigns against me and Pashaura Singh and much more will be heard of him before this account is completed.97

He uses the testimony of a discredited scholar, Prof. Piar Singh to denigrate Daljit Singh.

The reason for the dispute (between Piar Singh and Daljit Singh) was, as Piar Singh maintains the fact that he had disagreed with Daljit Singh concerning the Kartarpur Granth, the manuscript regarded as the one which has been recorded by Bhai Gurdas at Guru Arjan’s dictation. Piar Singh had spent many years working on the manuscript and had come to the conclusion that it is not the original one. This of course, was not what Daljeet Singh had said in his “Essays on the Authenticity of Karatrpuri Bir” and would be held by him to be rank blasphemy.98

However, in essays on the Authenticity of Kartarpuri Bir, Daljit Singh makes no mention of Piar Singh. On one hand, McLeod says that he has explicitly renounced his earlier views about the authenticity of Kartarpuri Bir, but on the other hand, he has no qualms about supporting Piar Singh’s assertion that it is not the original one.

“In 1968 I had come upon Jodh Singh’s Sri Kartarpuri Bir De Darshan and this had led me to halt my earlier speculation. I concluded that the issue is still open, and later I was persuaded by my student that my original theory was wrong.”70

     In October 1992 a group that included Daljit Singh had visited the library of Guru Nanak Dev University, their purpose being to inspect manuscript 1245 which Pashaura Singh had used extensively while writing his PhD thesis. Their intention was not just to inspect it, but to have it declared it fake. Piar Singh was asked to assist the team and soon discovered that he was not speaking to experts. “Notwithstanding loud pretensions to a knowledge of manuscriptology made by Daljit Singh in his work Authenticity of the Kartarpuri Bir [sic], he could not, by himself, make out any thing of MS 1245 shown to him, I therefore, had to explain to the visitors its peculiar features.”99

From the above, McLeod concludes that an embarrassment of this kind is likely to have been at least a contributory reason for turning Daljit Singh against Piar Singh.100 Daljit Singh as pointed out by McLeod himself was a well-known and prolific author on Sikhism. His Sikhism: A Comparative Study of its Theology and Mysticism is the only work on the systematic analysis of Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat) vis-à-vis other religious systems. In my opinion, this work is a “must read” for the proper understanding of Nanakian philosophy. On the other hand, Piar Singh’s only claim to fame as a Sikh scholar is the same as that of McLeod’s famous student, Pashaura Singh. Both of them opted to prostrate before the ignorant clergyman to restore their honor¾thus making a mockery of academic research.

Since 2000, I have studied almost all of McLeod’s writings starting with Guru Nanak and the Sikh religion, in which he has indulged in gross distortion of Guru Nanak’s teachings. He has created a lot of confusion in the minds of readers by distorting Guru Nanak’s teachings, as well as Sikh history and traditions. He has drawn his conclusions and formulated his opinions and theories on various facets of Sikhism without proper investigation of Aad Guru Granth Sahib (AGGS), or Sikh history and traditions. He does not rely on AGGS, which is the only authentic source of Sikh teachings. He does not point out the weakness or flaws in Sikh traditions and historical accounts or provide relevant evidence in support of his views, thus giving the impression to his readers that Sikhism is based on unsound oral tradition. When such theories are challenged, either he remains silent or lets his surrogates including his students, attack his critics. In the meantime, others who piggyback on McLeod ply their trade as Sikh scholars by propagating his baseless theories.

Generally, scholars present their work in unambiguous, concise, and definite statements, whereas McLeod does the opposite. He uses “if and but”, “I said this but I also said that”, “yes and no” and “may be and may be not”, leaving it up to the readers to draw their own conclusions. He has used this style throughout his writings and he has replied in the same manner to the questions raised by Gurdev Singh in Perspectives on the Sikh Tradition.101 He uses clever language to blame Gurdev Singh for misunderstanding his writings. In spite of admitting his mistakes or modifying and retracting his earlier statements, he continues to insist on distorting the truth in a clever manner in his answers to Gurdev Singh’s questions. For the sake of brevity I examined the following four answers.

a. Guru Gobind Singh did not appoint the Granth Sahib as Guru of Sikhs:

McLeod says:

According to what I have written Guru Gobind Singh, we are told, did not appoint the Granth Sahib as Guru of the Sikhs. This belief was subsequently adopted by the Sikhs in order to impart cohesion to a hard-pressed people. But this is not what I wrote. What I said was that it may have been the situation, not that it was definitely the case. It was, in other words, a possible theory and it remains no more than that. As a theory I am unwilling to give up. No firm evidence exists for the belief that a pronouncement to this effect was made by Guru Gobind Singh. I do, however, accept that he may have done so and the near-contemporary evidence provided by Sainapat supports this. As a result the theory may be mistaken.102

First of all every Guru before Guru Gobind appointed his successor. Why does McLeod think that Guru Gobind Singh did not and for what reason? Secondly, when he proposed his theory, why did he ignore the contemporary evidence of Sainapat and the views of Sikh historians, for example, his own esteemed friend, J.S. Grewal?

Guru Gobind Singh did not nominate any individual as his successor. For nearly a century now the Sikhs had been nurtured in the belief that Guruship was confined to the family of Guru Ram Das. This is explicitly stated not only in the Bachittar Natak towards the end of the seventeenth century but also at the beginning in the vars of Bhai Gurdas. At the time of Guru Gobind Singh’s death, however, there was none in the three generations of the surviving Sodhis who could be considered for taking up this grave responsibility. More important than this was the process by which Guruship had been gradually impersonalized, bringing bani and sangat into parallel prominence with the personal Guru. The decision taken by Guru Gobind Singh did not abolish Guruship itself but personal Guruship. The position of the Guru was henceforth given to the Khalsa and to shabad-bani as a logical development from Guru Nanak’s decision to nominate a disciple as the Guru during his lifetime and his equation of the Shabad with the Guru. As a further logical development, the decision of Guru Gobind Singh crystallized into twin doctrine of Guru-Panth and Guru-Granth. Larger and larger number of Sikh came to believe that Guruship after Guru Gobind Singh was vested in the Khalsa Panth and the Granth.103

Furthermore, Guru Nanak and his successors have pointed out that shabad (bani) is the Guru.

When the Jogis asked Guru Nanak, “Who is your Guru or whose disciple are you?” “The shabad (Word) is my Guru and my mind which is focused on the shabad and comprehends it, is the disciple,” he replied.

Here he has made it abundantly clear that Guru is the shabad (Divine knowledge), not the Guru person. Guru person is the medium for transmitting the Divine knowledge.

AGGS, M, 1, p. 942.

Marvelous is the bani (Word) as it is the embodiment of the Formless One and nothing equals it.

AGGS, M 3, p. 515.

Word is the Guru and Guru is the Word as it contains the elixir of spiritual life. The Guru utters the Word, the Sikh who accepts it, certainly finds salvation through the Word.

AGGS, M 4, p. 982.

Adi Granth (Pothi) is the place to meet God. In other words, it is the bani enshrined in Adi Granth, which puts a Sikh on the path to realization of God.

AGGS, M5, p. 1226.

McLeod himself has said the same thing very explicitly: “The Word is the Guru and the mind (which is focused on it) continuously is the disciple.”104 So why is he unwilling to give up his theory that Guru Gobind Singh did not appoint Guru Granth Sahib as Guru? Why is he so adamant on destroying the core of the Sikh belief system that Aad Guru Granth Sahib is the eternal Guru for the Sikhs? Is it just a mere coincidence that he was invited to a Namdhari Conference in 2001? 105 Namdharis do not believe that Guru Gobind Singh appointed Guru Granth Sahib as the Guru of the Sikhs and they have their own line of Gurus after Guru Gobind Singh.

b. Jats changed the course of Sikh movement:

McLeod says:

Gurdev Singh is largely correct with regard to what I say concerning the influence of Jats. There are, however, two further points that should be added. One is that Guru Hargobind’s policy of open warfare must be traced to the hostility that the Mughal authorities in Lahore showed at this time. The presence of a strong Jat constituency in the Panth made Guru Hargobind’s policy possible, but it certainly cannot be held to have caused it. The second point is that the effect of Jat cultural patterns within the Panth is a theory, not an established fact. To this it should be added that I have yet to be persuaded that there is a better theory.106

Why does he still insist, “I have yet to be persuaded that there is a better theory” in spite of the fact that his theory has no merit, and it has been refuted point by point by Jagjit Singh?107,108 And what was he trying to accomplish by advancing this theory in the first place?

McLeod was disappointed and frustrated as Sikh scholars rejected his perspective/interpretation of Sikhism and Sikhs expressed very little interest in his writings. His Jat theory is a calculated scheme to kill two birds with one stone. He is trying to win the approval of his writings from Sikh Jats, who constitute a majority of the Panth by appealing to human weakness¾chauvinism. Also, at the same time, he is lending a helping hand to those who have been trying to undermine Sikhism by destroying the cohesiveness of the Panth since 1947.

Though McLeod admits that the effect of Jat cultural patterns within the Panth is a theory, not an established fact, others are still propagating this absurd theory as an established fact. Recently, Prof. Mark Juergenmeyer padded his resume by authoring, The Sword of Sikhism”: A study of Sikh militancy.” He states: “Members of the tribal group, the Jats, began joining the Sikh community at the end of the sixteenth century. They were great warriors and imposed their martial values and symbols onto the whole of the Sikh community.”109

Where did Juergenmeyer learn that Jats were warriors before joining the Sikh movement? He did not even bother to check the criticism of Jat theory by Jagjit

Singh107,108 and J.S. Grewal110 or McLeod’s own altered views on the subject. Moreover, the Indian history is silent about the role of Jats as warriors from 710 AD when a young Muslim commander, Mohammed Bin Qassem led an expedition to Sindh and looted town after town in the Jat heartland and carried away thousands of men and women as slaves. There is no evidence that the Jats of Sindh, Rajasthan, Punjab, Haryana, and Uttar Pardesh ever fought against Muslim invaders. How could they? Being Shudra, they were not allowed to wear arms, which was the prerogative of Rajputs and Khatris according to caste rules. Whereas Rajputs were among the celebrated commanders of the Mughal army, there is no evidence that the Mughals recruited Jats in the armed forces. Furthermore, to escape persecution from Muslim rulers, a majority of the Jat population converted to Islam.

Ishwinder Singh has aptly pointed out that Juergenmeyer has given no reference to support his statement; instead he has relied on McLeod’s The Evolution of the Sikh Community. They were great warriors and imposed their martial values and symbols onto the whole of the Sikh community” implies that it is an established fact.111 What a travesty of historical truth and disregard for academic ethics?

c. Gurus did not preach one religious doctrine:

Earlier McLeod claimed that the ten Gurus did not preach one set of religious doctrine or system and particularly the third Guru created new institutions on old Hindu lines, the very thing Guru Nanak had spurned.112 Now he has retracted most of these statements.

The ten Gurus did preach one set of doctrines. The paramount stress that Guru Nanak laid on the nam and regular practice of nam simran lay at the very heart of the system that was upheld by all the Gurus from the first to the tenth. The features that were introduced by the third Guru were additions, not changes. … The fact that Guru Amar Das introduced customs that were taken from Hindu society apparently has much to do with Gurdev Singh’s objection. There was, however, nothing wrong with doing this, provided that Guru Nanak’s emphasis on the nam was preserved. For Amar Das it was an entirely natural source. The problem lies rather in the insistent message of Kahn Singh Nabha and the Singh Sabha movement that ham hindu nahin (We are not Hindu).113

He does not explain why the assertion “We are not Hindu” is not compatible with Guru Nanak’s teachings or the practices that Guru Amar Das introduced. Did not Guru Arjan say the same thing¾we are neither Hindu nor Muslim?

Neither do we fast like Hindus, nor observe Ramadan like Muslims. We dwell only on the One, Who protects everyone. We don’t follow the Hindu or Muslim religion. We dwell on the One, Whom Hindus call Gusain* and Muslims call Allah. Neither do we go on a pilgrimage to Mecca, nor to sacred Hindu centers. We serve only the One, not anyone else. Neither do we follow the Hindu worship or the Muslim prayer. We meditate on the Formless One. We are neither Hindus nor Muslims. Our bodies and breaths belong to the Almighty, Whom people call Allah or Ram. Hey Kabir, “Say that we have found the Lord through Guru’s guidance.”

*Gusani means Lord of the Earth.

AGGS, M 5, p. 1136.

By saying “The problem lies rather in the insistent message of Kahn Singh Nabha and the Singh Sabha Movement that ham hindu nahin (we are not Hindu)” McLeod is endorsing Harjot Oberoi’s thesis, The Construction of Religious Boundaries and the views of those who claim that Sikhs are Kesadhari Hindus”. That is why in his writings he makes no mention of the Sikhs being described as Hindus in article 25 (2b) of the Indian constitution or of the imposition of the Hindu Code Bill on them.

McLeod says, “My primary objective has been to communicate an understanding of the Sikh people and their religion to educated Western readers, and that consequently, it is important that I speak to their mode of understanding.”23

There is no doubt that he has succeeded in communicating his version of Sikhism to Western readers. For example, Crispin Paine published an article “Sikh Pilgrimage: A Study in Ambiguity” in which he out did even McLeod in distorting the Gurus’ teachings about pilgrimage. He starts out by claiming that even Guru Nanak himself was ambivalent toward pilgrimages.114 There is hardly any verse of gurbani in the article that the author did not distort to support his thesis. In a befitting response to this article, Ishwinder Singh in his article “Sikh Pilgrimage: A search for Ambiguity”115 makes it very clear that he is primarily concerned with the teachings of Sikh Gurus with regard to pilgrimage, not what the Sikhs practice. And Singh concluded that there is no ambiguity in the teachings of Gurus with regard to pilgrimage: the only pilgrimage is the awareness of the Infinite within each of us.

The integrity and credibility of McLeod and Paine is vividly reflected in their terse comments on Ishwinder Singh’s rebuttal published in the SikhSpectrum.116

“It is an exploratory paper and I am absolutely delighted if in some way I have helped to prompt discussion of these matters,” remarked Paine. He does not acknowledge the mistakes in his paper, amounting to gross distortion of the Gurus’ teachings with regard to pilgrimage. He is not bothered a bit. He is happy to add one more fraudulent publication to his resume.

McLeod says, “The article is very well written, as it brings out the teachings of the Gurus clearly. If Sikhs fully accept their teachings, why then are they so attached to Darbar Sahib?” Look at the logic of McLeod! Not only has he changed the subject altogether, but has even injected the “Darbar Sahib” into the fruitless debate. He admonishes the Sikhs for not being faithful to the teachings of the Gurus. He completely ignores Paine’s distortion and offers no word of advice to Paine. Is it because Paine is simply exaggerating what McLeod himself said in The Evolution of Sikh community?

Why do articles like Paine’s “Sikh Pilgrimage: A Study in Ambiguity” get published in Western journals? “We publish only novel and high quality work,” is the answer I got from Shinder Singh Thandi, one of the editors of International Journal of Punjab Studies. Considering the names of some of the editorial advisors, it is not surprising why Shinder Singh Thandhi considers distortion of Sikhism as novel work.117

d. Guru Nanak and the Sant Tradition:

In Aad Guru Granth Sahib, the words sant, sadh and bhagat occur frequently and interchangeably. Their meaning is the same, and in English, it has been translated as a saint, though it does not convey the proper meaning. In the Adi Granth, compiled in 1604, the honorific “bhagat” is used for Namdev, Kabir, Ravidas and others, and their banis (compositions) are called “bhagat bani”. Had they been known as “sants” at that time, Guru Arjan would have used the honorific “sant” for them. Therefore, sant came to be associated with their names later on.

Under the heading Academic Statements Which Do Not Agree With Mine McLeod has responded only to an article by Shackle et al, though he has cited two more articles, one by Balwinder Bhogal and the other by Nirvikar Singh. It is not difficult to understand why he did not discuss Nirvikar Singh’s article: Guru Nanak and the ‘Sants’: A Reappraisal.

   Was Guru Nanak a Sant? What does the term Sant tradition mean in this context? This paper surveys the state of academic responses to these questions. We make the case that the concept of Sant traditionand the membership of Guru Nanak in that tradition are quite problematic. In doing so we argue that previous attempts to frame arguments on these issues in terms of historical scholarshipversus faith are flawed and sometimes ahistorical themselves. Instead, alternative answers emerge from within standard scholarly inquiry, depending on varying interpretations and combinations of fragmentary historical facts. We show how this process of interpretation and selection occurs particularly in W.H. McLeod’s writings on the subject. We also discuss the nature of the sources used by scholars, and the biases that may thereby be introduced.118

In response to this article, McLeod complained about why he was singled out as the main target in the article. But he was forced to acknowledge the fact that the “sant tradition” label applied to Northern Indian bhakats (bhagats) such as Kabir and Ravidas does not emerge until the nineteenth century. Nevertheless, he argues that the term is useful in distinguishing individuals such as these from Vaishnava sarguna bhakats.119 It is a lame argument, as he has not made any effort to distinguish Sikh Gurus from other categories of gurus. On the contrary, he has made an unsuccessful attempt to link them to Nath yogis and Vaishnava bhakats through his so-called sant tradition: “It was the influence of Nath doctrine and practice upon Vaishnava bhakti, which was primarily responsible for the emergence of the Sant synthesis. Muslim beliefs, both Sufi and orthodox, had at most a marginal effect.”120 He gives his favorite answer, “yes and no” to the question: was Guru Nanak a Sant?119



Unwilling to Face the Truth

McLeod has dismissed the criticism of his writings by Trilochan Singh, Sangat Singh, H.S. Dilgeer, S.S. Sodhi, and S.S. Kohli as absurd and well off the mark.121 On the other hand, he has devoted three pages to a friendly review of his work by Fauja Singh.122 However, he has totally avoided the discussion of Jagjit Singh’s Works,107,108,123 which completely demolished his thesis, The Evolution of the Sikh Community built on wild interpretations and speculations, and flimsy evidence. He has quoted a paragraph from J.S. Grewal’s Contesting Interpretations of Sikh Traditions that points out the names of Sikh scholars and organizations that were created to project a correct image of Sikhism and the Sikh community in India and abroad, and to watch, report and rebut any distortions or misinterpretations of Sikh religion and Sikh history.124 And he has recommended it for studying the controversies in the Sikh Panth, particularly the modern dispute involving him.

However, he makes no mention of the issues raised by Grewal about his (McLeod's) approach to the understanding of Sikhism. Moreover, he makes no mention of Grewal’s article, The Role of Ideas in Sikh History that refutes his interpretation of the institutionalization and militarization of the Sikh movement and development of the Khalsa identity.125

He has no compunction in casting aspersions on the integrity of those who disagree with him. The foreword by Khushwant Singh to Perspectives on the Sikh Tradition and the introduction by Choor Singh to Sikhism: Its Philosophy and History were too much for him to swallow. He got even with them in his own way.

     The foreword by Khushwant Singh came as an unpleasant surprise. Khushwant Singh, as we all know, is a free spirit, who has riled his fellow Sikhs with opinions that contradict some of their cherished beliefs. There was, however, nothing in his foreword that was likely to upset traditional believers who regard my works as a menace to the Panth.126

 “In fairness it should be added that at the end of 2001 Justice Choor Singh, in conversation with a friend of mine in Singapore, strongly supported my work.”127



Manipulation and deception

He has described his critics as traditionalists, conservatives, fundamentalists, who have vindictively created the impression that Sikhs in general lack appreciation and understanding of critical research on Sikhism. On the contrary, within a short span of time, the first generation of Sikh immigrants has endowed several chairs for Sikh studies in the USA, Canada, and England. And McLeod’s associates, Pashaura Singh, Gurinder Singh Mann, and Harjot Oberoi are the beneficiaries at the University of Michigan, University of California at Santa Barbra, and University of British Columbia, respectively. After seeing gross distortions of Sikhism by McLeod and his associates, Sikhs are having second thoughts about the utility of such chairs and are discouraged to set up more chairs nor is any attempt being made to strengthen the existing ones.

To deflect the criticism of his and his associates’ works, he wants the readers to believe that they have been victimized by blood thirsty Sikhs. Moreover, he wants the readers to believe that Pashaura Singh, Harjot Oberoi, and Gurinder Singh Mann are great scholars of impeccable credibility by hiding the truth about their fraudulent research. His “Western methodology of historical research” is nothing more than “deception and manipulation of facts” as the following discussion demonstrates. Let me first give you an example of his “selective” reporting of facts to suit his own agenda with total disregard for objectivity and fairness.

McLeod wrote, “Fauja Singh published in the first issue of Journal of Sikh Studies (vol. 1, no. 1, February 1974, pp. 79-89) a version of the arrest of Guru Teg Bahadur that contradicted the traditional account and was, as a result, vilified for doing so.”128 But he did not disclose the fact that Fauja Singh attempted to “give a new look¾ Marxist viewpoint” to Guru Teg Bahadur’s execution by Emperor Aurangjeb, a bigoted Suni Muslim known for his persecution of non-Muslims, based on Ghulam Hussain’s historical work, Siyar-al-Mutakhirin.129

Fauja Singh as a historian was well aware of bias of Muslim writers towards Sikhs, who called them infidels and used abusive language against them. In spite of this he went ahead to argue his proposition on the basis of a single account by a Muslim writer. His article drew criticism for his weak and contradictory arguments in support of his proposition and his disregard for other accounts that support the traditional version of Guru Teg Bahadur’s martyrdom. Shortly thereafter Fauja Singh himself published another detailed article on the execution of Guru Teg Bahadur based on Bhat Vahis corroborating the traditional account.130 The association of Bhat (Brahmans) with Sikh Gurus goes back to the time of Guru Nanak and some of them kept records of important events in the lives Gurus.

Fauja Singh’s article was criticized not only by Trilochan Singh and Kapur Singh but also by his academic peers including J.S. Grewal. One should ask McLeod: Since when criticism of someone’s research work came to be equated with vilification?

McLeod is a master of deception par excellence. Earlier on page 112 he accuses Daljit Singh of unfairly criticizing him for views on Kartarpuri Bir, which he says he had explicitly renounced.70 However, on page 172 he still raises questions about the Kartarpuri Bir.

The general question of the nature of the Kartarpuri text is still open, though not as result of anything that I have written. Many years ago I decided that questions concerning the Adi Granth were altogether too sensitive for an outsider to handle and that all research should be left to scholars who were also Sikhs. The books by Piar Singh, Pashaura Singh, Gurinder Singh Mann and Balwant Singh Dhillon show that the origin and nature of the manuscript are still being debated and there are some considerable differences of opinion.

It is deplorable and shameful that Dhillon’s work is lumped in with the works of the other three¾as Dhillon disagrees with them in no uncertain terms, “Similarly, after going through the studies of the above scholars on the Adi Granth, I also feel that they have not told the whole story, honestly and truly.”131

Perhaps that is why Pashaura Singh and Gurinder Singh Mann did not want the Sikhs to read their theses and McLeod defends their actions without showing any deference to academic ethics.

After completing his PhD, Pashaura Singh was appointed to teach Sikhism and Punjabi in the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, and it was there that disgraceful treatment was visited upon him. A few conservative Sikhs regard my supervision as a certain route to dangerous untruth and Pashaura Singh was made to pay for having me as a supervisor in a most shameful manner. His thesis was photocopied without authorization and numerous copies were circulated in North America and elsewhere.”132

It is a strange logic that McLeod finds the photocopying of the thesis for which Pashaura Singh was awarded a Ph.D. shameful. The thesis was in the public domain. Genuine scholars feel honored when their work receives public attention! Is not research for the benefit of the public? Moreover, did not Sikhs pay for Pashaura Singh’s research?

McLeod does not stop there. He continues his diatribe against the Sikhs by proclaiming that Pashaura Singh’s life was in danger, therefore, a police car of the university’s Public Safety Department accompanied him whenever he moved about the University of Michigan campus, and this protection stopped only when Pashaura Singh himself asked for it to be removed.133 Pashaura Singh too has been continuously complaining about the photocopying of his thesis and defending McLeod as a great scholar.134

Having learnt a lesson from Pashaura Singh’s example, Gurinder Singh Mann locked up his thesis until he got a secure faculty position at the University of California at Santa Barbara, endowed by Dr. Narinder Singh Kapany in the loving memory of his mother. This is exactly what McLeod did¾he kept his thesis out of reach until he was declared as being among the foremost scholars of Sikh studies by a reviewer (Prof. Zaehner) of the Times Literary Supplement, who was totally ignorant about Sikhism. We know that McLeod wants to teach his version of Sikhism to “inquisitive educated Western people.”23 May I ask: To whom do Pashaura Singh and Gurinder Singh Mann want to teach their version of Sikhism? Surely they did not want the Sikhs to read their theses! Like McLeod, they too want Sikhs to support them financially, in order to propagate their version of Sikhism! They have no qualms about holding faculty positions sponsored by the Sikhs!

McLeod uses a clever tactic to defend himself by projecting Pashaura Singh, Gurinder Singh Mann, and Harjot Oberoi, whose works have come under severe criticism, as distinguished scholars.

     It is in fact a grievous disgrace for those Sikhs who joined on the hunt against him. Pashaura Singh’s thesis has since been published by the Oxford University Press in New Delhi as The Guru Granth Sahib: Canon, Meaning and Authority and was a strong contender for the best book published in Religious Studies for 2000. … From time to time the Pashaura Singh debate is raised on the Internet (particularly by Sikh-Diaspora, a discussion group of younger Sikhs). In this case, however, Pashaura Singh appears to receive far more bouquets than brickbats.135

Were the judges of Pashaura Singh’s thesis expert in Sikhism or were they just like McLeod’s thesis supervisor? Besides, why was Pashaura Singh demoted from the rank of assistant professor to lecturer? Further, I would like Pashaura Singh or McLeod or the editor of Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses to point out the scholarly worth of Pashaura Singh’s article Recent trends and prospects in Sikh studies published in 1998.21,134 In what manner does this article advances the cause of Sikh studies or the understanding of Sikhism? Would McLeod enlighten us about the expertise of an Internet discussion group of younger Sikhs on Sikhism! Their offering of bouquets to Pashaura Singh is like a blind person applauding the marksmanship of a person with myopic vision!

McLeod has picked only certain statements from chapter 1 (Introduction) and chapter 12 (Pashaura Sibgh’s Thesis on “The Text & Meaning of Adi Granth” by Trilochan Singh) in Planned Atack on Aad Sri Guru Granth Sahib: Academics or Blasphemy to create the impression that this text is devoid of academic discussion and is full of absurd and wild accusations against him and Pashaura Singh136. He makes no mention of the contents of 37 articles by different Sikh scholars, mostly PhDs, both academics and non-academics, which discuss and challenge every aspect of Pashaura Singh’s thesis built on the basis of Goindwal Pothis, belonging to the schismatic sect of Baba Mohan and the GNDU Manuscript 1245 [GNDU stands for Guru Nanak Dev University] discovered from unknown sources in 1987.137

To my knowledge, so far, Pashaura Singh has not responded to any of these articles or the two questions Dr. Jasbir Singh Mann asked in a letter of December 4, 1992, addressed to Hew, Joseph and Pashaura.138

1.       When and how did Pashaura Singh come across GNDU Manuscript 1245 and where it was before 1987?

2.       Who published articles under the authorship of Dr. Loehlin in 1987 & 1990 suggesting, “Western friends of Sikhism and the Sikhs likewise have noted this lack of critical interest on part of the Sikhs. Fortunately, many of their scholars and research experts are doing research on textual and historical problem.”

Pahsaura Singh, on page 92 of his thesis, provides a rationale for the textual analysis of the Adi Granth by quoting Dr. Loehlin who had urged Sikhs to submit the Adi Granth to textual criticism: “The Sikhs will hold a unique position among the religions of the world if they prove through careful textual criticism the widely accepted belief that the Kartarpur Granth is the MS dictated by Guru Arjan.” And at the bottom of the page he cites the following reference for this quote.

C. Loehlin, “The Need for textual and Historical Criticism”, The Sikh Courier (Spring-Summer, 1987), p 18. Originally, this paper was read at the Punjab Historical Conference and published in its proceedings, 1966. Archer’s comments may be seen in “The Bible of Sikhs”, The Review of Religion (January 1949), pp 11-25.

Dr. Loehlin, a missionary colleague of McLeod from California, was Vice-Principal of Baring College, Batala. After his retirement he settled in California, and was admitted to an Assisted Living facility in 1983. The administrator of this facility indicated that since 1983 Loehlin was neither capable of writing nor asked anyone to write any such article until his death in August 1987. Dr. Loehlin’s daughter also confirmed the same.

And yet the article published under Loehlin’s name in 1987 was republished with additional material in 1990 in the March-April issue of The Sikh Review, Calcutta. Since Dr. Loehlin was incapacitated and died in 1987, who was the ghostwriter of the articles under his name in 1987 and 1990? Could it be someone who questioned the authenticity of Kartarpuri Bir?  In The Evolution of the Sikh Community, McLeod mentions that others including Loehlin had suspicions concerning the Kartarpur manuscript and were seeking alternative explanations.73

A genuine Ph.D. degree requires original research of high calibre, not reinterpretation of information gathered by unreliable sources. Moreover, a researcher makes a thorough search of literature relevant to the thesis and uses only impeccable references, not heresy or private conversation as evidence to support the argument. On the other hand, Gurinder Singh Mann has used the information about the extinct Guru Har Sahai Pothi (manuscript) and two extant Goindwal Pothis for his thesis, The Making of Sikh Scripture. These Pothis have been in the possession of the descendents Prithi Chand, elder brother of Guru Arjan, and Baba Mohan, elder son of Guru Amar Das, respectively. And these Pothis were solely used for pecuniary purposes.

Both Baba Mohan and Pirthi Chand were found to be unworthy for Guruship by their fathers, Guru Amar Das and Guru Ram Das, respectively. These embittered and disgruntled men set themselves up as Gurus in opposition to Guru Ram Das and Guru Arjan, respectively. Bhai Gurdas, who was the nephew of Guru Amar Das and contemporary of five Gurus (Guru Angad to Guru Hargobind) and also the amanuenses of Adi Granth under the supervision of Guru Arjan, has described Baba Mohan as mentally deranged (kmlw, kamla) and Pirthi Chand as crooked (mIxw, mina).139,140

Professor Sahib Singh spent most of his life studying the Aad Guru Granth Sahib; first he prepared its grammar and then translated it into modern Punjabi prose in ten volumes. He has explained beautifully, logically and convincingly that Guru Nanak wrote down his bani (sacred composition) and kept it safely and gave it to Guru Angad when he assumed the Guruship and in turn he gave it to Guru Amar Das along with his own and this process was repeated. So when Guru Arjan compiled the Adi Granth, he had in his possession all the bani of his predecessors and the bani of bhagats collected by them.141

The first time reference to Goindwal Pothis is found in Sarup Das Bhala’s Mahima Parkash wherein he alleges that Guru Arjan composed a hymn in praise of Baba Mohan in order to borrow Goindwal Pothis, which he needed for the compilation of Adi Granth.142 However, contemporary sources, Varan Bhai Gurdas and even later sources, namely Das Gur Katha (Kavi Kankan) and Bansalwali Nama (Kesar Singh (Chhibbar) make no mention to the above incidence. However, later Sikh sources beginning from Sikhan Di Bhagat Mala, Gurbilas Chhevin Patshi (Sohan), and Sri Gur Partap Suraj Granth (Bhai Santokh Singh) have depicted this incidence in a dramatic way.142

Professor Sahib Singh has also refuted this absurd story of “Guru Arjan borrowing Pothis from Mohan” convincingly and logically by pointing out that Guru Arjan had all the bani he needed for the compilation of Adi Granth, and that the word mohan (Delightful) in an epithet for God, not for any person.143 Guru Nanak has also used mohan in the same sense.144

As pointed out aptly by Dhillon, textual analysis of Guru Har Sahai Pothi in the absence of the Pothi is absolutely impossible and looks to be unacademic.145 I may add further that it amounts to “daylight academic fraud.”146 In spite of this Mann went ahead to build his sandcastle, The Making of Sikh Scripture, which was demolished by Dhillon and others. This is what Professor Pritam Singh, former head of Sikh studies at Guru Nanak Dev University, who was among the earliest and ardent supporters of McLeod, as J.S. Grewal and Khushwant Singh, says about Mann’s work.

The pick of Western scholars, interested in Sikh Studies, including, I am told my old friend, the venerable Dr. W.H. McLeod, has rallied round Dr. Gurinder Singh Mann, the author of The Goindwal Pothis: The earliest Extant Source of The Sikh Canon (1996).… As I look back, it becomes clear that Professor Sahib Singh had already thrown a spanner into the prevalent theory by persistently claiming that Guru Arjan Dev had compiled the Adi Granth on the basis of an inherited corpus containing the works of his predecessors and others.…

The professor also dismissed, as pure concoction, the whole story in which Guru Arjan Dev was shown as composing and singing an eulogy in honor of Baba Mohan and receiving, as reward, the Goindwal MSS, on loan. The “Mohan hymn” according to the Professor’s interpretation is a paean adoring the great Lord Himself. … I may say, in all humility, that my study of the contents of the Ahiyapur Pothi confirms, though indirectly, Professor Sahib Singh’s thesis and negates some of the major, if not all the conclusions, of Dr. Mann and Giani Gurdit Singh.

In a nutshell, my finding is that the Adi Granth and the Ahiyapur Pothi are two parallel recensions of Gurbani and Bhagat-Bani with the Adi Granth serving as the scripture of the Sikh mainstream and the Ahiyapur Pothi intended to be the official sacred book of the faction set up by Mohan and his son.147

The interpretation of a couplet from Guru Arjan’s shabad on page 15 of Pashaura Singh’s thesis is a typical example of how both Pashaura Singh and Mann use logic and interpret gurbani and historical facts to justify their formulations.148

When I opened the treasure of my father and grandfather to see it myself, then I realized the divine treasure in my man (heart-mind-soul).

AGGS, M 5, p. 186.

Pashaura Singh has given the literal translation, which may be accepted by the “inquisitive Western educated people,” but not, even by illiterate Punjabi people because paternal grandfather (dada, dwdw) is not the same as maternal grandfather (nana, nwnw). Guru Arjan did not inherit any bani (sacred writings) from his dada; he inherited bani from his nana, Guru Amar Das. Moreover, in Punjabi expression like piu dade di izzat (ipE dwdy dI iezq) or piu dada di milkh (ipEu dwdy dI imlK) do not literally mean father and paternal grandfather’s honor or riches, rather it means ancestral (vfyirAW dI, vderian di) honor or riches. So here Guru Arjan is talking about his inheritance from his spiritual ancestors¾Guru Nanak, Guru Angad, Guru Amar Das and Guru Ram Das¾collection of their sacred writings. Besides, Pahsaura Singh has quoted only two lines from a shabad of ten lines. In the other lines Guru Arjan makes abundantly clear that his inheritance is invaluable, immeasurable and inexhaustible and it is for sharing with others.

Further down on the same page Pashaura Singh elaborates on his interpretation of the couplet.

Here the reference to both his father and grandfather’s “treasure” may suggest that Guru Arjan received at least two sets of manuscripts of gurbani, one belonging to his father and the other to his grandfather. The works of Guru Nanak and Guru Angad together with Bhagats were grouped with his grandfather’s bani in the Goindwal pothis. Since his father, Guru Ram Das, was not represented in these volumes Guru Arjan presumably had access to a second manuscript.

First, he is not sure (or perhaps he is suggestive) whether Guru Arjan received at least two sets of gurbani, one belonging to his father and the other to his grandfather.

Second, he claims that the works of Guru Nanak and Guru Angad together with Bhagats were grouped with his grandfather’s bani in the Goindwal pothis without providing any proof or logical reasoning¾an example of wild and absurd speculation reflecting McLeodian mentality.

Third, what does “Since his father, Guru Ram Das, was not represented in these volumes Guru Arjan presumably had access to a second manuscript” mean? In which volumes was Guru Ram Das not represented? What was in the second manuscript presumably accessible to Guru Arjan? What was in the set of manuscripts he got from his father and maternal grandfather if Guru Arjan had to consult a second manuscript?

Instead of saying clearly that Guru Arjan borrowed Goindwal pothis in order to compile the Adi Granth, Pashaura Singh has implied the same cleverly in confusing language¾the tactic he learned from his thesis supervisor, McLeod.

Did not Guru Amar Das give all his collection of bani whether in the form of pothis or separate manuscripts to Guru Ram Das as Guru Nanak did to Guru Angad and he in turn to Guru Amar Das?

Does it make any sense that Guru Amar Das appointed Ram Das as his successor but gave his collection of bani to Baba Mohan whom he found unfit to lead the Sikhs as Guru?

Moreover, it is absurd to suggest that there was paucity of recorded bani during the time of Guru Arjan or Guru Amar Das. On the contrary, there was abundance of recorded bani during the time of Guru Amar Das and Guru Arjan. We know that Guru Nanak and Guru Angad constructed a modern, easy and efficient script, Gurmukhi from crude scripts current at that time, to record gurbani (sacred hymns) and the propagation of its message.

We can well imagine the enthusiasm among Sikhs for learning to read and write this script, as in Hindu society at that time reading and writing was the privilege only of upper castes, Brahamans, Khatris and traders, due to caste restrictions. So it was not only the Gurus and their close associates who were preparing manuscripts of gurbani, but also ordinary Sikhs making notes of gurbani for their personal use. We also know that during the time of Guru Amar Das, the population of Sikhs was so large and widespread that Guru Amar Das organized it into 22 dioceses (mangis, mMjIAW), each headed by a Sikh (mangidar, mMjIdwr) well versed in Gurmat. So it is reasonable to believe that each manjidar had a complete collection of recorded gurbani for conducting religious services and for the propagation of Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat). And many Sikhs may have a full set of gurbani records for their personal use.

People like McLeod would ask what happened to those records of gurbani? The answer is simple and logical. The manuscripts were destroyed by the enemies of Sikhs or disintegrated due to the ravage of time for lack of proper care. In recent times, we witnessed the looting and burning of the Sikh Reference Library by Indira Gandhi’s army during the attack on the Darbar Sahib (Golden Temple) complex in 1984. After the conquest of the Punjab, the British not only looted precious jewels and valuables from Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s treasury, but also stole many rare Sikh manuscripts.

According to Sikh tradition, the entire collection of literature in the possession of Guru Gobind Singh at Anandpur Sahib was lost during transportation or destroyed and looted by the enemies. After the death of Guru Gobind Singh, the enemies launched an all out assault to destroy Sikhs and Sikh philosophy. There were two major massacres (chota ghallughara and wada ghallughara) of Sikhs and then there was a systematic extermination of the Sikh population under Farrukhsiyar and Zakaria Khan and his Diwan Lakhpart Rai. A price was fixed on the heads of Sikhs, informers and bounty hunters were well rewarded, and hunting parties were organized to search for Sikhs. Their belongings were looted and their homes and lands confiscated. The utterance of the words, Guru or Granth and the keeping of Guru Granth Sahib or gurbani in any form were proscribed.

As a consequence of this campaign only a few thousand Sikhs survived by taking shelter in the desert of Rajasthan and the forests of Shivalik hills and among their ranks only a few could read and write. Among the heads of twelve Sikhs Misls (confederacies) only Jassa Singh Ahluwalia could read or write. In the meantime, Hindu mahants/udasis took control of Sikh religious places and they played havoc with Gurmat using anti–Gurmat literature that was created during this period.149 How and who could have saved Sikh literature under such circumstances? Whatever little was left was subverted through interpolation.

McLeod was well aware of the information about Piar Singh’s unethical behavior described in Dhillon’s Early Sikh Tradition: Myth and Reality. In spite of that, he showed no hesitation in using Pair Singh’s testimony to denigrate Daljit Singh and build up Pashaura Singh and defend his own work.150

It was Piar Singh who penned down two notes one in Punjabi and one in English in GNDU MS # 1245. It was Piar Singh who got it from somewhere and in collusion with manuscript dealers, Chawla Brothers sold it to GNDU at a good price in March 1987. The dealers are reluctant to divulge the actual source of acquisition,151 but why? What are they afraid of or hiding? May be it has something to do with the four events that took place in 1987. GNDU acquired MS # 1245; Pashaura Singh started his Ph.D. research on

it;152 Harjot Singh Oberoi completed his thesis: A World Reconstructed: Religion, Ritual and Community among Sikhs153 and was installed in the Chair of Sikh Studies at the University of British Columbia, Canada through the machinations of the Indian government,154 and a ghostwriter published an article under the name of Dr. Loehlin who was either incapacitated or dead, urging Sikhs to submit Adi Granth for textual analysis.

McLeod condemns the Sikhs while praising Oberoi’s academic accomplishments.

    So intense was the volume of abuse and condemnation that Oberoi resigned his Sikh Studies chair, though not from the teaching staff of the university. The University of British Columbia gave Oberoi strong support throughout his ordeal and continues to benefit from his presence as a teacher and a scholar, taking full responsibility for funding his position and continuing to do so in the future. His book The Construction of Religious Boundaries was highly acclaimed by the American Academy of Religion and was awarded the Best Book Prize for 1994.155

Did the American Academy of Religion read Invasion of Religious Boundaries,154 a compendium of rebuttals to The Construction of Religious Boundaries? Were there any experts on Sikhism in the award committee? Or were they just like McLeod’s thesis supervisor and examiners or people like Barrier and Juergensmeyer?

It is doubtful that Oberoi has understanding of Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat) or Punjabi literature and culture. For example he did not cite any reference from Aad Guru Granth Sahib which is the only authentic source of Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat) in support of his thesis: A World Reconstructed: Religion, Ritual and Community among Sikhs.

Oberoi is also ignorant of Sikh history. His understanding of Sikhism is based on the writings of the detractors and opponents of Singh Sabha Movement, who were claiming that Sikhs are Hindus while denigrating Sikhism and Sikhs.

Oberoi claims that before the Singh Sabha Movement there was no difference between Hindus and Sikhs. If there was no difference between Sikhs and Hindus before the Singh Sabha Movement then how come Mughal rulers put a price only on the heads of Sikhs? Why did Hindus support the Mughal authorities by organizing hunting parties to capture and kill Sikhs? In view of the rise of the Sikhs as a militant force in Northwestern India, the Mughal administration pursued a policy of tolerance towards Hindus and their places of worship. The upper caste Hindus emerged as the major beneficiaries of the Mughal-Sikh conflict, and rather developed a vested interest in it both for keeping their positions and carrying on their war against Sikhism.156

Oberoi’s lack of expertise in Punjabi language, culture and literature is evident from the texts he uses to teach Punjabi. Ignoring all the Punjabi literature in the world, he uses The Chaupa Singh Rahit-nama edited by McLeod in his Punjabi course as it has the Gurmukhi text as well as an English translation.157 Moreover, Oberoi supervised Doris Jakobsh’s PhD thesis “Relocating Gender in Sikh History: Transformation, Meaning and Identity,” at the University of British Columbia, 1999. In this thesis, almost all quotes from Aad Guru Granth Sahib are misinterpreted to show that Sikh Gurus were prejudiced against women. Punjabi proverbs are also misinterpreted to support her views.



Guru Nanak and the Sikh Religion

I find McLeod’s understanding of Sikhism rudimentary. His interpretation of Guru Nanak’s teachings demonstrates his lack of understanding of the basic principles of Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat). Most probably he did not study Aad Guru Granth Sahib seriously! It seems he spent most of his time on the study of janam-sakhis, as they are so similar to the Christian Bible and that is why he considers his work on janam-sakhis as the best. It is very likely that he formulated his opinion of Sikhism from janam-sakhis. However, his work on janam-sakhis does not make any contribution to the understanding (Gurmat) and success of the Sikh movement. Sikhs had already questioned the authorship and the anti-Gurmat contents of janam-sakhis. Jaman-sakhis were rather considered as the source of history, which McLeod has attempted to destroy! McLeod has compared them to Hadith, which is absurd.158

If the Gurus thought that history was that important they could have written it themselves or had it written by someone else, as they did with their bani (sacred writings). If they thought that additional manuals were needed as moral instructions for the Sikhs, they would have written those too. There is no evidence that any Guru wrote any historical document or manual of moral instructions except their bani. So the comparison of Hadith with janam-sakhis is pointless, as they are full of anti-Gurmat teachings. The janam-sakhis were written by the detractors and opponents of Gurmat or by ignorant Sikhs or by devout and learned Sikhs whose works were later interpolated.

Non-Sikhs look at Sikhism as simply a religious phenomenon. Whereas Hindus regard it as a reform movement within Hinduism as well as its military wing against the onslaught of Muslims, others regard it as a synthesis of Hinduism and Islam, an attempt to reconcile the two faiths. To my knowledge very few non-Sikhs have seriously studied Aad Guru Granth Sahib or tried to understand how and why the Sikh movement succeeded against two formidable foes: the Mughal rulers and the caste hierarchy (proponents and defenders of the caste ideology). The Sikh movement had no outside support except among low caste Hindus (peasants, artisans and untouchables). The large number of Khatris who joined the Sikh movement in the beginning, abandoned it later on due to their strong attachment to the caste system and weaker commitment to Sikh ideology, and due to persecution of Sikhs by the Mughal authorities.   

McLeod has made an ugly attempt to connect the Sikh movement to Nath yogis and Vaisnava bhakats (bhagats) while ignoring the observations of contemporary writers and Prof. Mohammed Iqbal (1877-1938), a celebrated poet, philosopher and a great Islamic thinker.

Moshin Fani, a Parsi, author of Dabistan-I-Mazhaib who came into contact with Guru Hargobind in 1640 AD made the following observation about Nanak-prasths (followers of Guru Nanak):

The Guru believes in one God. His followers do not worship idols. They never pray or practice austerities like Hindus. They do not believe in incarnation, or places of pilgrimages, or the Sanskrit language, which the Hindus deem to be the language of gods. They believe that all the Gurus are the same as Nanak.159

Ghulam Mohyiuddin who witnessed the Khande Di Pahul (baptism) ceremony on Baisakhi of 1699 and the day’s proceedings reported to Emperor Aurangzeb that Guru Gobind Singh has abolished castes and customs, old rituals, beliefs and superstitions of the Hindus, and banded his followers in one single brotherhood. No one will be superior or inferior to another. Men of all castes have been made to drink the holy water (Amrit) from the same bowl. Though orthodox men have opposed him, about twenty thousand men and women have taken Khande Di Pahul at his hand on the first day. The Guru also told the gathering that I should call myself Gobind Singh only if I can make the meek sparrows pounce upon the hawks and tear them, only if one combatant of my force faces a legion of the enemy.160

Qazi Nur Mohammed who witnessed the battle between Ahmad Shah Abdali and Sikhs in 1764 called the Sikhs infidels and dogs, but after some reflection could not help without making the following remarks:

Sikhism is distinct from Hinduism. The Sikhs never kill a coward and do not obstruct one who flees from the field. They seldom resort to cold-blooded murder even of their enemies. They respect the chastity of woman as a part of their faith and honour. Adultery does not exist among them. They do not rob a woman of her gold and ornaments, may she be a queen or a slave girl. They never resort to stealing and no thief exists among them and they do not keep company with an adulterer or a thief. When in festivities, they surpass Hatim in generosity.161

Prof. Iqbal’s observation about the success of the Sikh movement and its impact on the Indian society is remarkable in the sense that it captures the true essence of Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat).

The Indian people did not pay any attention to the message of Gautam. They did not recognize the value of their “flawless diamond”. … India is a land of sorrow and suffering for the Shudar (masses of working people). There is no compassion in this place. … Eventually, a voice rose from Punjab proclaiming the unity of mankind under “One and Only God.” A “perfect man” from Punjab awakened the conscience of the Indian people with his message of “universal love and humanism.”

   Poem: Nanak

Nanak sang his song of “unity of mankind under One and Only God” throughout the land.

Poem: Watan (country)

Iqbal saw no visible impact of Bhakti movement or Sufis or any other movement on the Indian society. Further, his analysis of the victory of Khalsa forces over Muslim rulers is very true.

       Khalsa shamsheero Quran re burd,

       Andrin Kishwar Mussakmani namurd.162

The Khalsa took away the sword and Quran from the Muslims and shattered the dreams of Muslim conquest.

In other words, it was Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat) that inspired the Sikhs to fight the oppression of Muslim rulers and the tyranny of the caste system.

On the other hand McLeod digs up obscure and unreliable references when he wants to distort Sikhism. For example, he cites John Malcolm’s Sketch of the Sikhs published in 1810 to mislead the readers about Dasam Granth: “It appears that Dasam Granth was indeed accepted by the Khalsa as a part of the Guru Garnth in the later eighteenth century as the testimony of John Malcolm makes clear.”163

There is no evidence that Dasam Granth was found in Punjab or Delhi in the eighteenth century. There is also no evidence that in the eighteenth century Aad Guru Granth Sahib was not given exclusive preference over the bani (composition) of Guru Gobind Singh. Prior to Malcolm’s mention of Dasam Granth, there is no reference to it either in Sikh or non-Sikh sources (Muslim and European).164

However, there were 32 Dasam Granths circulating in the Amritsar area by 1890. The presently published Dasam Granth (1902) was created by the Sodhak Committee made-up of British cronies (1895-1897) to bring it into closer conformity with the Granth floated by the British in the late eighteenth century prepared by Nirmalas/Mahants (Nawal Singh, Dayal Singh and Sukha Singh) at Takhat Patna. The Patna granth was implanted in the East India Company Library by Colebrook and Charles Wilkins and used by John Malcolm to write his Sketch of the Sikhs in 1810. Devanagari version of this granth was written in February 1847 after the Sikhs lost the first Anglo-Sikh War (Second treaty with Lahore, December 16, 1846 at Bhairowal when the British became virtual masters of Punjab). Treacherous Sardar Tej Singh was the chief of the regency council when this Devanagari Dasam Granth was created. In recognition of his services, the title of Raja was conferred on him on August 7, 1847.164

Takhat Patna came under the control of East India Company near the end of eighteenth century. The revenue records of Patna treasury show that Nirmalas/Mahants of Takaht Patna were provided with pension and opium from 1814 onwards by the East India Compnay.164

I have often wondered why the writer of Bachittar Natak, which is a part of Dasam Granth, portrayed relationship between the Sikh Guru and Mughal rulers as cordial in spite of the fact that the Mughal rulers executed Guru Arjan and Guru Teg Bahadur. Moreover, the Mughals committed unspeakable atrocities on the Sikhs and there was a bloody struggle between Mughal authorities and the Sikhs that lasted for almost half a century until the victory of the Sikhs. Dr. Jasbir Singh Mann’s discovery of the relationship between the East India Company and the Nirmalas/Mahants of Takhat Patna goes a long way in solving this riddle. Most probably, before the takeover over of Takhat Patna by East India Company, the Nirmalas/Mahants were on the payroll of Mughal rulers.

In chapter 13 of Bachittar Natak the writer implies that the Gurus approved of the Mughal rulers and as quid- pro-quo, the latter respected and supported the former.

God Himself created the successors of Baba Nanak and Babur. Recognize the former as spiritual and the latter as temporal sovereign. The successors of Babur punished and looted the property of those who failed to tithe the house of Nanak. When these penniless wretched ones begged Sikhs for help, the Mughals looted the Sikhs who helped them. The Guru also shunned them. The Mughals punished and killed those who turned their back on the Guru, but those who remained faithful, were saved by the Guru.

Why was the British (East India Company) involved in the subversion of Sikhism? Dr. Mann deals with this subject in detail in his forthcoming book.   

People like McLeod who interpret the Sikh movement in terms of historical factors ignore the fact that Sikhs, who were locked in a struggle of life and death against the oppression of Muslim rule, and the forces of caste ideology in the eighteenth century, were insignificant in terms of numbers in the population of Punjab. Why did not the same historical factors inspire low caste Hindus in the rest of India or even in Punjab to pick up arms against the tyranny of the caste system and Muslim rule? In order to fit Guru Nanak into his so-called “sant tradition” McLeod has distorted Guru Nanak’s teachings. Commenting on the reaction of Sikhs to Guru Nanak and the Sikh Religion, he says:

“The hostility focused exclusively on the portion which concerned the life of Guru Nanak, the section dealings with his teachings being almost completely untouched by criticism. Apparently this later part was entirely acceptable.”165

Here again McLeod is not telling the truth. Both Daljit Singh and Jagjit Singh have challenged his interpretation of Guru Nanak’s teachings in Sikhism: A Compartive Study of its Theology and Mysticism and The Sikh Revolution: A Perspective View, respectively, without naming him as they criticized his works again without naming him in Perspectives on the Sikh Tradition.166 Besides, others may have been frustrated and discouraged from questioning McLeod’s interpretation of Guru Nanak’s teachings, as I found out myself.

In April 2002, I wrote an article challenging McLeod’s assertion that Guru Nanak accepted the doctrines of karma and transmigration and submitted it for publication to Understanding Sikhism/The Research Journal. The editor, Prof. Devinder Singh Chahal liked it so much that he included it in the July-December 2002 issue167 and encouraged me to examine critically the entire section of Guru Nanak’s teachings in Guru Nanak and the Sikh Religion. So I sent him another article in September 2002 challenging McLeod’s other interpretations of Guru Nanak’s teachings. To my surprise, he didn’t even acknowledge the receipt of the article. When I asked him about the article, he said, “You should write your own article.” I could not understand what he meant, so I asked, “What do you mean, I wrote the article and I am the sole author.” With some hesitation, he remarked, “It is not proper to name the author whose work you are criticizing, rather you write your own article on that topic.” “How do you review someone’s work without naming the author?” There was no answer and I kept wondering why is he reluctant to publish the article, which he encouraged me to write? Suddenly, the cat came out of the bag and started meowing loudly.

In June 2003 Prof. Cole and Prof. Barrier advised the Internet Sikh Diaspora discussion group not to read Gurdev Singh and Trilochan Singh’s books that criticize McLeod’s works, and Prof. Chahal carried this advice to a wider Sikh audience.7,8 I asked Chahal, “Do you endorse Cole and Barrier’s advice?” “Who are you to question my intention? I am my own man, I do not take orders from anyone, I will answer and deal with such questions in later issues of my journal.” So far he has neither answered me nor dealt with my questions in his journal.

“Do not be discouraged, do not give up, try other journals,” advised my wife and friends.

The editor of The Sikh Review, Saran Singh relied, “Your articles are on file for publication in future issues. However, he has not published either of the two articles. Moreover, I knew very well that he is not going to publish my articles due to following reason. In my articles in The Sikh Bulletin168 and Spokesman169 I had mentioned that Saran Singh was occupying the stage with General Bhullar, and Professor Manjit Singh Sidhu at the World Sikh Conference held in New York in July 1984. In his comments on my article in the Spokesman, Dr. Sangat Singh remarked that maybe Saran Singh was looking for as appointment as a governor.170 Saran Singh has not responded to Dr. Sangat Singh’s observation so far and continues to publish Sangat Singh’s articles.

Dr. Kirpal Singh, the editor of Abstracts of Sikh Studies, did not bother even to acknowledge my inquiries about the receipt of my articles. However, when Dr. Kharak Singh became the editor, he immediately informed me that he would publish the articles.176,177 Shortly thereafter Preet Mohan Singh Ahluwalia the editor of published the articles in the August-November 2003 issue. Copies of the articles were sent to McLeod and he responded with the following comment.178

In reading the articles I was grateful also for the fact that I had managed to start something which was being conducted in a reasoned and logical way. So often responses to what I write have been highly emotional and lacking in all reason. My overall view was that it all hinges on one simple fact. Did Guru Nanak believe in karma or did he not believe in it? It seems to me that the answer is both yes and no. He did believe in karma as the fate of what I called unregenerate man, but he did not believe that it could triumph over the divine Name. The person who followed the divine Name was thereby freed from the power of karma.

I wrote back that Gurmat rejects the theory of karma and transmigration and hell and heaven, and urges again and again that the present life is the only chance to realize God. According to the theory of karma and transmigration there could be many chances, theoretically unlimited and this drew the following response.

I have read your message with much interest. Obviously you have been putting much study into the question of whether Guru Nanak accepted the doctrine of karma. I don't see that there is any significant difference separating us. I can still accept that Guru Nanak believed in the doctrine as it applied to unregenerate man and you will maintain that he did not accept it. We both can accept, however, that every person is confronted by the divine Name and that for him or her who responds to it the doctrine can have no effect. That, it seems to me, is the message of Guru Nanak.

Then I asked him why he calls Aad Guru Granth Sahib as Adi Granth in his works.179 The dialogue ended with no answer from him.

Finally, due to an uprising of Christians¾Nagas and Mizos in the Northeast part of India in the 1950s--the Indian government banned the entry of Western missionaries in India. Why was McLeod allowed to go to Punjab, a state that shares a border with Pakistan, which has been in a state perpetual war with India since 1947, and Kashmir, a disputed territory? After 1984, the Indian government banned the entry of foreigners going to Punjab. It seems McLeod had no problems traveling in the Punjab. Moreover, McLeod was not involved in any manner helping the lowest of the low and most destitute people like Mother Teresa; he was teaching English to high school students and Punjab history in Punjabi to college students who had problems understanding both his English and Punjabi.

Furthermore, I would like to point out the role of Western universities and academic journals in spreading misinformation about Sikhism. As pointed out earlier, neither McLeod’s thesis supervisor nor examiners knew anything about Guru Nanak and the Sikh religion, yet the University of London accepted his thesis for the award of a Ph.D. degree. Moreover, to add insult to injury a review of this thesis in the Times Literary Supplement declared him as being among the foremost scholars of Sikh Studies in the world by Prof. Zaehner from the University of Oxford, who himself had no knowledge of Sikhism. It seems that even in the days of global communication and awareness, Western universities continue to have different standards for research on non-European people.

And as for as Western academic journals are concerned, the editors regard the distortion of Sikhism, as novel work worthy of publication and correct interpretation in the category of already disclosed information not suitable for publication. The editors regard the response to articles containing misinformation on Sikhism as a personal attack on the author, an excuse for rejection. To my knowledge, among the current Western scholars of Sikhism, no one has seriously studied Aad Guru Granth Sahib, the only authentic source of Sikh philosophy. Their knowledge of Sikhism is based on unreliable secondary sources!




Research is not immune to mistakes and misinterpretations; however, intentional misinterpretation is beyond the pale of research. Scrutiny of McLeod’s works on Sikhism reveals a persistent pattern of distortion. The readers can draw their own conclusions about McLeod and his scholarship. Is he a genuine scholar or a propagandist? Is his misinterpretation of Sikhism intentional or unintentional? Did he do it on his own or was there someone else pulling the strings? I hope McLeod will someday tell us the truth and not put us through the windmill again.


I am deeply indebted to Colonel G.B. Singh of the U.S. Army for providing invaluable scholarly discussions. His insightful and thought provoking suggestions and critical review of the manuscript are appreciated. My special thanks to Mr. Mike McEvers and Dr. Timothy Watson for reading and editing this long article.

I am grateful to Dr. Jasbir Singh Mann for providing me with Early Sikh Scriptural Tradition: Myth and Reality and Planned Attack on Aad Sri Guru Granth Sahib: Academics or Blasphemy. Also I extend my sincere thanks to Ishwinder Singh for drawing my attention to Prof. Nirvikar Singh’s article and providing me with a summary of Prof. J.S. Grewal’s article, and Prof. Blaur Singh Dhillon for getting me a hard copy of Prof. J.S. Grewal’s article. Finally, I appreciate the encouragement I received from my wife Nakshatar and daughters, Amrita and Nimrta, to pursue the Sikh Studies.


This article is dedicated to all the scholars like M.A. McAuliffe and J.D. Cunningham who have tried to present Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat) and the evolution of the Sikh movement in proper perspectives from the information available to them. I am deeply indebted to Giani Dit Singh, Prof. Gurmukh Singh, Bhai Kahan Singh Nabha, Prof. Sahib Singh, Prof. Jagjit Singh and Daljit Singh whose works have been very helpful in my understanding of Gurmat and the Sikh revolution in an integral manner.





1.      a. Guru Nanak and the Sikh Religion, Clarendon  

           Press Oxford, 1968.

              b. The Evolution of the Sikh Community, Oxford    

                 University Press, Delhi, 1974.

              c. Early Sikh Tradition: A Study of Janam-sakhis,    

                  Clarendon Press Oxford, 1980.

        d. Who is a Sikh? The Problem of Sikh Identity,   

            Clarendon Press Oxford 1989.

         e. Sikhs and Sikhism, Oxford University Press,   


         f. Exploring Sikhism, Oxford University Press,    



2.       Daljit Singh, Sikhism: A Comparative Study of its   

Theology and Mysticism, Singh Brothers, Amritsar, 1979. Jagjit Singh, The Sikh Revolution: A Perspective View, Bahri Publications, Delhi, 1981.Perspectives on the Sikh Tradition, Ed., Gurdev Singh, Siddharth Publications, Chandigarh, 1986.Daljit Singh, Essays on the Authenticity of Kartarpuri Bir and the Integrated Logic and Unity of Sikhism, Punjabi University, Patiala, 1987.

          Advanced Studies in Sikhism, Ed., Jasbir Singh Mann and Harbans Singh Saraon, Institute of Sikh Studies, Chandigarh, 1989. Fundamental Issues in Sikh Studies, Ed., Kharak Singh, G.S. Mansukhani and Jasbir Singh Mann, Institute of Sikh Studies, Chandigarh, 1992. Recent Researches in Sikhism, Ed., Jasbir Singh Mann and Kharak Singh, Punjabi University, 1992. Planned Attacks on Aad Guru Granth Sahib: Academics or Blasphemy, Ed., Bachittar Singh, International Centre of Sikh Studies, 1994. Invasion of Religious Boundaries, Ed., Jabsir Singh Mann, Surinder Singh Sodhi, Gurbaksh Singh Gill, Canadian Sikh Study & Teaching Society, Vancouver, 1995. Balwant Singh Dhillon, Early Sikh Scriptural Tradition: Myth and Reality, Singh Bros. 1999. These books and other critiques of McLeod’s works are currently online at


3.       McLeod, W.H. Discovering the Sikhs: Autobiography of a Historian, Permanent Black, 2004.


4.       AGGS, M 1, p 904: JUTu n boil pwfy scu khIAY ] haumY  jwie  sbid Gru lhIAY ]

5.      AGGS, M 5, p 268: ApnI prqIiq Awp hI KovY ] bhuir aus kw   ibsvwsu n hovY ]

6.      AGGS, M 1, p 953: kUV inKuty nwnkw EVik sic rhI ]

7.             Chahal, D.S. Integrated and Comprehensive

Philosophy of Sikhism, Understanding Sikhism Res. J. 2003, 5 (2), pp. 3-6.

8.             Chahal, D.S. Integrated and Comprehensive

        Philosophy of Sikhism, Sikh Virsa, 2003, 8 (93),

pp. 56-58.

9.      Singh, I. The McLeod Controversy, Abstracts of

        Sikh Studies, 2004, 6 (1), pp. 71-82.

10.                              McLeod, W.H. Discovering the Sikhs: Autobiography

11.                              of a Historian, Permanent Black, 2004, p. 39.

11.     Ibid, p. 40.

12.     Ibid, p. 63.


13.     McLeod, W.H. Guru Nanak and the Sikh Religion,  

        Oxford India Paperbacks, 1996, p. 162.


 14.     McLeod, W.H. Discovering the Sikhs: Autobiography of a Historian, Permanent Black, 2004, p. 148.

15.     Ibid, p. 137.

16.     Ibid, pp. 46-47.

17.     Ibid, pp. 62-63.

18.     Ibid, p. 39.

19.     Ibid, p. 68.

 20.     McLeod, W.H. Guru Nanak and the Sikh Religion, Oxford India Paperbacks, 1996, cover.

 21.     Singh, B. An Unacademic Advice, Abstracts of Sikh Studies, 2004, 6 (3), pp. 50-62.

22.                              McLeod, W.H. Discovering the Sikhs: Autobiography

        of a Historian, Permanent Black, 2004, p. 38.

23.     Ibid, p. 129.

24.     Ibid, p. 1.

25.     Ibid, p. 63.

26.     Ibid, p. 73.

27.     Ibid, pp. 197-98.

28.     Ibid, p. 211.

29.     Ibid, p. 213.

30.     Ibid, p. 154.

31.     Ibid, pp. 134-35.

32.     Ibid, pp. ix-x.

33.     Ibid, p. x.

34.     Ibid, p. ix.

35.     United States of America, the most powerful nation in the world was attacked by a handful of foreign terrorists on September 11, 2001. Whereas it was the Indian Army that carried out the cold-blooded massacre of its own citizens¾thousands of innocent men and women, young and old, and children¾pilgrims who had gathered at the Golden Temple to celebrate the martyrdom of Guru Arjan on June 3, 1984. The army also attacked seventy-four other gurdwaras (places of worship) simultaneously. The excuse for this attack was to capture or kill a band of forty Sikhs, whose leader, Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwala was described as a saintly man without political ambition by Rajiv Gandhi on May 5, 1984 while the Indian army was secretly making preparation for the attack on Golden temple (Jaijee, I.S. Politics of Genocide, Ajanta Publications, 1999, p. 40). In the beginning of 1984, the government ordered the military to make preparations for the attack on the Golden Temple complex. And RAW – a unit of Indian Intelligence services gave special training to commandos at Chakrata, where they had built a large replica of the Golden Temple complex for practical exercises (Jaijee, I.S. Politics of Genocide, Ajanta Publications, 1999, p. 43). After the assassination of Indira Gandhi, there was organized massacre of Sikhs all over India under the direction of the Congress Party. In Delhi, the Capital of India, thousands of Sikhs were killed by mobs led by Congress leaders while the military and police looked the other way. Sikhs were pulled out of trains and busses and lynched. Their homes and properties were singled out for destruction. About twenty thousand Sikhs were killed in that carnage all over India (Singh, S. The Sikhs in History, Uncommon Books, 4th ed., 2001, pp. 420-30). From 1975 when Sikhs spearheaded a peaceful agitation against the emergency rule imposed by Indira Gandhi to the year 2000 may be as many 200,000 Sikhs have been killed by the police, military and mobs organized by politicians. The real figure may never be known because the efforts of human rights groups to collect the data have been frustrated by government, police and the judicial system (Jaijee, I.S. Politics of Genocide, Ajanta Publications, 1999, pp. 102-04. Kumar, R.N., Singh, A., Agarwal, A., Kaur, J. Reduced to Ashes: The Insurgency and Human Rights in Punjab, South Asia Forum for Human Rights, 2003. Singh, S. The Sikhs in History, Uncommon Books, 4th ed, 2001, pp 361-526.)

36.     McLeod, W.H. Discovering the Sikhs: Autobiography of a Historian, Permanent Black, 2004, pp. 134-35.

37.     The bogey of Khalistan was created by Indira Gandhi to destroy the vibrant Sikh community, which constitutes only 2% of India’s population. When Indira Gandhi imposed “emergency” on the country in 1975, the Congress party and communists supported her. The so-called “free press” buckled under pressure and some of the journalists called “emergency” a necessary and positive step, while others like McLeod’s friend, journalist Khushwant Singh (son of Sir Sobha Singh) started serenading Indira Gandhi and her son, Sanjay. No political party except the Shiromani Akali Dal took up the challenge to oppose the imposition of emergency; the only other exception was the Rashtriya SwymSevak Sangh (RSS). However, its chief, Balasaheb Deoras, while still in jail pleaded for a compromise, and RSS periodicals started praising Indira Gandhi and her son Sanjay, whereas the Sikhs continued their agitation against emergency. According to the Amnesty International, 140,000 persons were detained without trial during the emergency, and of them 60,000 were Sikhs. When the whole of India lay prostrate before Indira Gandhi and her son Sanjay, the Sikhs continued their anti-emergency agitation. Indira Gandhi took it as a personal affront. She made up her mind to teach the Sikhs a lesson. An obscure country preacher, Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwala with no formal education was projected as a great spiritual leader and foisted on the Sikhs through the machination of the central government. He was well financed and armed and finally installed with the help of musclemen (criminals) in the Golden Temple complex, the most important center of the Sikhs. In order to find a justification to attack the Golden Temple complex, Indira Gandhi started accusing Bhindranwala of being an extremist and separatist. Additionally, “intelligence service agencies” hired criminal and depraved elements from the Sikh community to do the dirty work for them. People like Jagjit Singh Chauhan, Sohan Singh Boparai and many others were sent overseas to mislead the Sikh community and to malign them internationally. (Singh, S. The Sikhs in History, Uncommon Books, 4th ed., 2001, pp. 361-419, 370, 375-76, 444, 452n, 493.)

38.     Singh, S. The Sikhs in History, Uncommon Books, 4th ed., 2001, pp. 593-594.

39.     McLeod, W.H. Discovering the Sikhs: Autobiography of a Historian, Permanent Black, 2004, p. 72.

40.     Ibid, p. 78.

41.     Ibid, p. 121.

42.     Ibid, pp. 201-202.

43.     Ibid, p. 92.

44.     Ibid, p. x-xii.

45.     Ibid, pp. 22-23, 27-28.

46.     Ibid, pp. 47, 65-66.

47.     Ibid, pp. 22-23.

48.     Ibid, p. 23.

49.     Ibid, p. 24.

50.     Ibid, p. 24.

51.     Ibid, p. 163.

52.     Ibid, pp. 65-66.

53.     McLeod, W.H. Guru Nanak and the Sikh Religion, Oxford India Paperbacks, 1996, p. 161.

54.     Ibid, p. 125.

55.     Ibid, p. 127.

56.     Ibid, p. 128.

57.     Ibid, pp. 128-129.

58.     Ibid, p. 130.

59.     Ibid, pp. 131-132.

60.     Ibid, p. 132.

61.     McLeod, W.H. Discovering the Sikhs: Autobiography of a Historian, Permanent Black, 2004, p. 143.

62.     Ibid, p. 143.

63.     Singh, D. Essays on the Authenticity of Kartarpuri Bir and the Integrated Logic and Unity of Sikhism, Punjabi University, Patiala, 2nd ed., 1995, p. 37.

64.     Ibid, pp. 31, 37.

65.     Ibid, pp. vii, xi, 81-87.

66.     Ibid, p. 47.

67.     Ibid, p. 73.

68.     Singh, P. PhD Thesis: The Text and Meaning of Adi Granth, University of Toronto, 1991, p. 138.

69.     McLeod, W.H. Discovering the Sikhs: Autobiography of a Historian, Permanent Black, 2004, p. 171.

70.     Ibid, p. 112.

71.     McLeod, W.H. The Evolution of the Sikh Community, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 1999, pp. 75-79.

72.     Ibid, pp. 75-78.

73.     Ibid, p. 77.

74.                              Singh, D. Essays on the Authenticity of Kartarpuri

        Bir and the Integrated Logic and Unity of Sikhism, Punjabi University Patiala, 2nd ed., 1995, p. 36.

75.     Ibid, p. 82.

76           McLeod, W.H. The Evolution of the Sikh Community,

        2nd ed., Oxford University Press 1999, p. 117.

77.     Ibid, pp. 87-88.

78.                              Singh, J. The Sikh, Revolution: A Perspective

        View, Bahri Publications, 4th reprint, 1998, pp.

        47-57, 58-79,115-35.


79.     Ibid, p. 51.

80.     Ibid, p. 130

81.     Ibid, p. 131.

82.     Singh, S. The Sikhs in History, Uncommon Books, 4th ed. 2001, p. 26.

83.     Ibid, pp. 37-39.

84.     Ibid, p. 70.

85.     Ibid, p. 73.

86.                         AGGS, M 1, p. 1256:duKu ivCoVw ieku duKu BUK ] ieku duKu skqvwr   jmdUq ]

87.     Singh, J. The Sikh Revolution: A Perspective View, Bahri Publications, 4th reprint,  

        1998, pp. 136-73.

88.     Ibid, pp. 130-133.

89.     Grewal, J.S. The Sikhs of the Punjab, Cambridge University Press, 1994, p. 41.

90.     Singh, S. The Sikhs in History, Uncommon Books, 4th ed. 2001, pp. 32-33, 37-39.

91.     Ibid, pp. 45-49.

92.     Ibid, pp. 62-63.

93.     Ibid, pp. 76-77.

94.     McLeod, W.H. Discovering the Sikhs: Autobiography 

        of a Historian, Permanent Black, 2004, p. 167.

95.     Ibid, p. 117.

96.     Ibid, p. 110, 167-74.

97.     Ibid, pp. 101-02.

98.     Ibid, p. 103.

99.     Ibid, p. 103.

100.    Ibid, p. 103.

101.    Ibid, pp. 157-164.

102.    Ibid, pp. 162-163.

103.    Grewal, J.S. The Sikhs of the Punjab, Cambridge 

        University Press, 1994, P. 80.

104.    McLeod, W.H. Guru Nanak and the Sikh  

 Religion, Oxford India Paperbacks, 1996, p. 199.

105.    McLeod, W.H. Discovering the Sikhs: Autobiography

        of a Historian, Permanent Black, 2004, p. 213.

106.    Ibid, pp. 161.

107.    Singh, J. in Perspectives on the Sikh Tradition,

        Ed., Gurdev Singh, Singh Brothers, 1996, pp. 273-


108.    Singh, J. The Sikh Revolution: A Perspective View, Bahri Publications, 4th reprint, 1998, pp. 260-281.

109.    Juergensmeyer, M. The Sword of Sikhism: A study of Sikh Militancy, part I, The Sikh Review, 2003, 51 (10), pp. 39-47, Part II, The Sikh Review, 2003, 51 (11), pp. 37-45.

110.    Grewal, J.S. The Role of Ideas in Sikh History, International Journal of Punjab Studies, 1999, 6(2), pp. 139-153.

111.                          Singh, I. Sword of Sikhism: Tribalist Origin

        Refuted, The Sikh Review, 2004, 52 (1), pp. 83-84.

112.                          McLeod, W.H. The Evolution of the Sikh Community,

        2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 1999, pp. 7-16.

113.    McLeod, W.H. Discovering the Sikhs: Autobiography of a Historian, Permanent Black, 2004, pp. 160-161.

114.    Paine, C. Sikh Pilgrimage: A study in Ambiguity, International Journal of Punjab Studies, 2003, 10 (1&2), pp. 143-162.

115.    Singh, I. Sikh Pilgrimage: A Search for Ambiguity,, 2004, May-June. Abstracts of Sikh Studies, 2004, 6 (2), pp. 61-66.

116., comments and feedback on issue no. 16, May 2004.

117.    Roger Ballarad, Gerald Barrier, Mark Juergensmeyer, Gurinder Singh Mann, Hew McLeod, Harjot Oberoi and Nikky-Gurinder Kaur Singh.

118.    Singh, N. Guru Nanak and the ‘Sants’: A Reappraisal, International Journal of Punjab Studies, 2001, 8 (1), pp. 1-34.

119.    Singh, N. Guru Nanak and ‘Sants’: A Response to Professor McLeod, International Journal of Punjab Studies, 2002, 9 (1), pp. 1-4.

120.    McLeod, W.H. The Evolution of the Sikh Community, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 1999, p 6.

121.    McLeod, W.H. Discovering the Sikhs: Autobiography of a Historian, Permanent Black, 2004, pp. 200-203.

122.    Ibid, pp. 147-150.

123.                          Singh, J. The Sikh Revolution: A Perspective View,

        Bahri Publications, 4th reprint, 1998, pp. 128-35, 260-292.

124.    McLeod, W.H. Discovering the Sikhs: Autobiography of a Historian, Permanent Black, 2004, p. 113.

125.    Grewal, J.S. The Role of Ideas in Sikh History, International, Journal of Punjab Studies, 1999, 6 (2), pp. 139-153.

126.    McLeod, W.H. Discovering the Sikhs: Autobiography of a Historian, Permanent Black, 2004, p. 155.

127.    Ibid, pp. 172-73.

128.    Ibid, pp. 134-135.

129.    Singh, F. Execution of Guru Teg Bahadur¾A New Look, The Sikh Review, January 1976, pp. 28-36.

130.    Singh, F. Bhat Vahis as Source for the Life of Guru Teg Bahadur, The Sikh Review, January 1976, pp. 75-85.

131.                          Dhillon, B.S. Early Sikh Scriptural Tradition:

        Myth and Reality, Singh Bros. 1999, p. 34.

132.                          McLeod, W.H. Discovering the Sikhs: Autobiography

        of a Historian, Permanent Black, 2004, p. 100.

133.    Ibid, p. 101.

134.                          Singh, P. Recent Trends and Prospects in Sikh

        Studies, Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses, 1998, 27 (4), pp. 407-25.


135.                         McLeod, W.H. Discovering the Sikhs: Autobiography

        of a Historian, Permanent Black, 2004, pp.102,


136.                          Ibid, pp.180-85.

137.                          Planned Attack on Aad Guru Granth Sahib: Academics or Blasphemy, Ed., Bachittar Singh Giani, 1st ed., International Centre of Sikh Studies, 1994.


138.    Ibid, pp.13-14, 46-48, 302.

138.                          Gurdas, B. Varan, Bhai Gurdas (Punjabi), Jawahar

        Singh Kirpal Singh and Co. 1976, p.214.

140.    Ibid, pp.278-80.

141.                          Singh, S. Shri Guru Granth Sahib Darpan, Pothi

        3(Punjabi), Sohan Lal Khana, pp. 812-827, 841-916.

142.                         Dhillon, B.S. Early Sikh Scriptural Tradition:

        Myth and Reality, Singh Bros. 1999, p.92.

143.                          Singh, S. Shri Guru Granth Sahib Darpan, Pothi 3

144.                          (Punjabi), Sohan Lal Khana, pp. 812-827.

144.     Aad Guru Granth Sahib, pp 112, 1187, 1197, 1233.

 145.     Dhillon, B.S. Early Sikh Scriptural Tradition: Myth and Reality, Singh Bros. 1999, p. 79.

146.     In 1994 Professor Gurinder Singh Mann and Rabinder Singh Bhamra attended religious services at Princeton Junction, New Jersey. After the religious program Rabinder Singh Bhambra talked about Mann’s academic program at the Columbia University and appealed to the congregation for financial help. Afterwards a group of Sikhs started asking Mann questions about his thesis and the meaning of mohan in Guru Arjan’s composition. To extricate himself from the unpleasant situation he was in, he replied, “I am a historian, not a theologian.” When the inquisitors were gone, I told Mann that according to Professor Sahib Singh Mohan is an epithet for God. “We disagree with Professor Sahib Singh, after all Mohan was Guru Arjan’s mama (mother’s brother),” quipped Mann.

147.    Singh, P. The Ahiyapur Pothi. Abstracts of Sikh Studies, 2003, October-December, p. 14-21.

148.                          Singh, P. Ph.D. Thesis: The Text and Meaning of Adi Granth, University of Toronto, 1991, p. 15.

149.    Singh, S. The Sikhs in History, Uncommon Books,

        4th ed. 2001, pp. 73-110.

150.           McLeod, W.H. Discovering the Sikhs: Autobiography

        of a Historian, Permanent Black, 2004, pp. 101-03.

151.           Dhillon, B.S. Early Sikh Scriptural Tradition:

Myth and Reality, Singh Bros. 1999, pp. 183-85, 187-189.

152.           McLeod, W.H. Discovering the Sikhs: Autobiography

        of a Historian, Permanent Black, 2004, p. 100.

153.    Ibid, p. 108.

154.    Invasion of Religious Boundaries, Ed., J.S. Mann,

S.S. Sodhi and G.S. Gill, Canadian Sikh Study & Teaching Society, 1995, appendices IV and V.

155.                          McLeod, W.H. Discovering the Sikhs: Autobiography

of a Historian, Permanent Black, 2004 pp. 109-110, 185.

156.                          Singh, S. The Sikhs in History, Uncommon Books,

        4th ed. 2001, pp. 96-104.

157.                          McLeod, W.H. Discovering the Sikhs: Autobiography

of a Historian, Permanent Black, 2004. pp. 152-153.

158.                          McLeod, W.H. Early Sikh Tradition, Oxford

        University Press, 1999, p. 8.

159.                          Singh, S. The Sikhs in History, Uncommon Books, 4th ed. 2001, 52.

160.                          Ibid, p 72.

161.                          Ibid, p 107.

162.                          Mehboob, H.S. Sehje Rachio Khalsa (Punjabi), Singh Bros. Amritsar, 2000, p. 1113. Also a review in Abstracts of Sikh Studies, October-December, 1996, pp. 76-79.

163.                          McLeod, W.H. Discovering the Sikhs: Autobiography

        of a Historian, Permanent Black, 2004, p 207-08.

164.                          Mann, J. S. Fresh Look at Text and History of

Daasam Granth, presented at Guru Nanak Memorial Lecture, Punjabi University, December 9, 2003.

165.     McLeod, W.H. Discovering the Sikhs: Autobiography

        of a Historian, Permanent Black, 2004, p. 137.

166.     Ibid, p. 110.

167.    Singh, B. Misinterpretation of Gurbani by W.H.

        McLeod, Understanding Sikhism, Res. J. 2002,

        July-December, pp. 32-36.

168.    Singh, B. Deep Penetration of Criminals into       

        Sikh Institutions, The Sikh Bulletin, May 2002,

        pp. 12-15.

169.    Singh, B. The Cult of Pseudo-Sikh Writers, 

        Spokesman, August 2002, pp. 30-32.

170.    Sangat Singh’s commentary, Spokesman, August

        2002, pp. 30-32.

176.     Singh, B. Misinterpretation of Gurbani by Hew McLeod, Abstracts of Sikh Studies, 2003, 5 (2), pp. 72-80.

177.     Singh, B. Misinterpretation of Gurbani by Hew McLeod, Abstracts of Sikh Studies, 2003, 5 (3), pp. 66-78.

178.     Singh, B. Karma and Transmigration, Abstracts of  

         Sikh Studies, 2003, 5 (4), pp. 108-109.

179.     Guru Arjan compiled the first Sikh Scripture by incorporating the compositions of his predecessors, his own and that of Bhagats and Sufis and the resulting codex is called Adi Granth (Awid grMQ). It is also known as Pothi (sacred text) and Kartarpuri Bir (sacred text of Kartarpur) as it in the possession of a Sodhi family of Kartarpur. Bir means Jilad¾binding of a book. Since the Adi Granth was a bound manuscript, it acquired the name Adi Bir. Later on Guru Gobind Singh added the composition of his father, Guru Tegh Bahadur, to the compositions of Adi Granth and the resulting sacred text was (is) called Damdami Bir, as according to Sikh traditions it was prepared at Damdama (rest stop). The current Sikh Scripture is a copy of Damdami Bir. The Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) which manages the historical Gurdwaras in Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pardesh, and Sikh-religious affairs, is also responsible for the printing and distribution of the current Sikh Scripture and it has named it as “Adi Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji (Awid sRI gurU grMQ swihb jI).” In literature it is referred as Guru Granth Sahib or Guru Granth or Granth or Sikh Scripture or even Sikh Bible. However, quite often people not only call it Adi Granth but also pronounce it as Adee Granth (AwdI grMQ), erroneously. From the time of Gurus, the Punjabi language has undergone evolutionary change in pronunciation. For example the vowel, i (sihari) of Awid (Adi) in modern pronunciation is de-emphasized and Awid (Adi) is pronounced as Awd (Aad). In Adi, i denotes (sihari). In my writings I use the name, Aad Guru Granth Sahib, as Aad (Awid) which means (eternal or first in preference) is very important to distinguish it from other Granths or Guru Granths. Recently, some malicious people have started calling Dasam Granth as Guru Granth. I have dropped Sri (Mr.) and Ji (yes, Sir) as the use of Sri before Guru and Ji after Sahib is redundant.