Who is writing the Sikh history or translations of its scriptures and its consequences.

 

I used to listen to Bhai Ajmer Singh a lot. I am pretty sure those who know him know him from the Sikh Siyasat YouTube channel. The man really has a way of articulating the words to make so much sense. I, of course, don’t agree with everything that he’s written/spoken, and he would definitely have no objections to that.

While listening to one of his lectures, he quoted one writer, whose name I can’t remember now, that a person who is writing history can’t be said to have no prejudices or his own thoughts in the writing/translation. That one line is very important. Many of those who rely on the English translation of the Sikh scriptures are more vulnerable than those who know Gurmukhi/Punjabi. The likes of Ernest Trumpp and W. H. McLeod are the two prime examples of how the translations of the Sikh scriptures and history can be manipulated, and those who don’t even know ੳ ਅ ੲ of the language would nod to everything they have written, because they can make some complex English sentences. ;) I have seen couple of dummies on the Internet who will quote McLeod as if he’s such a scholar. And if it’s not the worst thing then the new people in Sikhi would pick up the books of McLeod to understand Sikhi.

I am sure I would have done the same thing if I am a non-Sikh and wanted to join Sikhism. The reason being the very first thing that we look at it, from the perspective of the European and Western buddies, is the writing of those who are in the universities. Because we have convinced our minds that the men and women in the universities will do justice to the Sikh thought and religion and won’t be biased. They wouldn’t have their own conclusions or baseless arguments. But that’s not entirely true, especially for some of the people in the top universities of the US and New Zealand (McLeod being a New Zealander). The person who was on the Sikh chair established in the UBC is the adopted son of McLeod (not literally.) So, how can you rely on their incredulous books?

I remember while reading Tegh Bahadur Simriye, Pyara Singh Padam said we detest our own historical scriptures like Gurbilases, Janamsakhis, Suraj Parkash, Panth Parkash, etc., and would pick the books of the English ‘scholars’ who would base their chapters on these old scriptures. How would you call yourself a rational person if you reject the raw materials and would take the English translations? One major issue that I have with McLeod was his rejection of the stories if there are contradictions with other scriptures. The work of the scholar is to pick which one is the true based on some more analysis and other sources rather than rejecting the whole story/scripture and call it the work of merely legends.

What I am trying to say is you should first know who’s writing the history. Is he a merely writer? Or he really painstakingly dug into the past to reveal the truth? What happens these days is, not only in the Western and European universities but in the universities in Punjab as well, that the people would write their thesis for their PhD, not as a scholar but just as a person who’s read some books to quote to allege his theories. We have seen what they have done with the Janamsakhis and the writing of Guru Gobind Singh ji.

I am in no way saying that there shouldn’t be any critiques out there. No. They should be there. But the way you’re constructing your theory shouldn’t be a figment of your imagination. The criticism in a constructive way is always welcome. If you’ve taken the roads of slanderers, then you attract the backlashes from the Sikh writers, historians, and scholars. Here are some of the nonsense and out of the blue ways of seeing the Sikh history by McLeod; I have read his book on the Sikh identity but didn’t get the time to have a book-review video on our YouTube channel Sikhs and Sikhi, would make it some time soon.

1.    He rejects the historical scriptures of the Sikh religion, because according to him they’re not written at the time of the incidents’ happenings. But he loves to pick the stories from them, like the Sikh Gurus always married within the same caste. I am pretty sure he in some other books wrote the sources from the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries to prove his point. And the person who wrote that source would be attending the weddings of the Sikh Gurus. Hypocrite.

2.    He said we can’t rely on the Janamsakhis, and then:

There can, however, be no question concerning the basic facts that he was born in the Panjab almost five hundred years ago, spent a period in travel, composed the works which are attributed to him in the Adi Granth, and ensured the perpetuation of his teachings by appointing a successor. These are beyond all doubt.

Why? How can you be so sure? If you can’t wholly rely on the Janamsakhis, how can you come to that conclusion? I am pretty sure he has the writing of a man who was there in the house back in 1469 when the Parkash of the Guru happened, using that he’s saying this. Right?

3.    Here is one of the ‘finest’ ‘scholarly’ lines by the man.

Even when the incident which is located in a certain setting is manifestly unhistorical it does not necessarily follow that Guru Nanak did not pass that way. On the other hand, the fact that an incident bears the marks of probability does not necessarily mean that the location given in the janam-sakhis is the correct one.

In this way, we can accept everything, we can reject anything; we can’t accept everything, we can’t reject anything. How can you come to a conclusion if you’re basing your theories on this?

4.    There are many more lame things that he wrote, you can check out his books. Another point I would like to make is how he said the Sehajdharis are the ones who’ve attained Sehaj, not non-amritdharis. He said it based on facts, right? No. His conjectures. If I believe it’s in that sense, then why the term came into the picture when the Khalsa Panth was created, why it didn’t exist in the Janamsakhis? He had ‘extensively’ work on the life of the first Sikh Guru. Did he find the term to be present in there? Why he brought this up? Aive e.

5.    To say the Sehajdharis always cut their hair is another lame argument by this writer. Yes, it’s mentioned in one of the Rehatnamas, but in the other point it’s mentioned the Sikh shouldn’t cut his hair. So, there is a contradiction. To appropriate it, he translated Guru ka Sikh to Kesadhari. Numerous times in the Rehatnama, the word Guru ka Sikh is mentioned, but he didn’t translate it to Kesadhari but Gursikh; here he did, to prove his theory right. Those who don’t even know how to pronounce ਙ quote him to talk about Sikhi. And those who can’t read and write Gurmukhi, how would they know the translation is correct?

6.    I never said I know Hinduism, but I think the word bhadan is something that a living person does. And I am pretty sure I am right, but please correct me if you see any word in the Gurmukhi below which’s translated into ‘may have been.’ I am not saying in any way that the literal translations have to be done because it might not make sense to a native English speaker, but the verses like these, they are just plain and you don’t need to take the sense of it.

That will be all, folks. I would end it by saying first know who the person is who is writing the history and then pick his works. If you’re good in the Sikh Thought and philosophy, then you can pick any work: the books of McLeod and Kala Afghana are very entertaining and they show their shallow facts and meaningless theories.