The Source Book On Sikhism

Chapter Fifty-Four

Pathology of pseudo-Sikh researchers with linear,

myopic, left brain, and mystified Western realities.

Dr. S. S. Sodhi

Dr. .J.S. Mann

“There is no odour so bad as that which arises from Goodness Tainted. If I know for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life,” says Thoreau, famous American philosopher.

In this article, I would attempt to provide a psychosocial analysis of the pathological functioning of some Western/Eastern Sikh scholars who have made a habit of trampling over the subjective faith of the Sikhs with narcissistic arrogance and “scholarly” ignorance.

These historians are: A.L. Basham; Ernest Trumpp; Huston Smith; Archer; C.H. Loehlin; J.S, Grewal; S.S. Hans; M. Juergensmeyrer; W.H. McLeod; Pashaura Singh; Piar Singh; Harjot Oberoi; O’Connell, and his associates at the University of Toronto. Some of these researchers feel that just as Jesus of History is different from Jesus of Faith, similarly Nanak of History has to be separated from Nanak of Faith to bring respectability to the Sikh religion. Furthermore, they feel that the Sikh community’s permission is not needed for doing such “scholarly” research in secular universities.

It is also believed that bringing “correctness” to Sikh history and tradition is the secular right of these self-appointed scholars, indulging in “objective” research. Whether such research destroys the faith, and causes pain to the believers, is not the concern of these scholars. They forget that legendary and mythological elements are a psychological necessity for the believers for building faith with which to encounter the modern world.

Most of these historians are either non-believers or are running away from their own religions. But there is one element which they seem to share. Most of them start as missionaries, and hence, do not hesitate to use religion to become mobile in their lives. The examples of Pashaura Singh who came to Canada as granthi and Dr. McLeod who went to Kharar, Punjab, India, as a missionary, are cases in point.

McLeod used the missionary money of New Zealand to stay in India. He came to India with the motivation of producing from the poverty-stricken untouchables of Kharar and Batala, some “Rice Christians”, Punjabi-speaking Sikhs of Kharar, taught him Punjabi and identified with him, as one minority community identifies with another minority community.

When Gyani Jaimal Singh of Kharar saw McLeod’s growing interest in the Janam Sakhis, he felt that there was a Cunningham or Macauliffe in the making. Little could he fathom that this Christian student of his will attempt to “Summarize the Nanak of History in one page”!

Dr. Noel Q. King writing for “Advanced Studies in Sikhism” (1989, p.8) published by the Sikh Community of North American, P.O. Box 16635, Irving; CA, U.S.A. summarized the psyche of the likes of McLeod and Pashaura Singh as follows:

“For them, Scriptures and Traditions are specimens in their own estimation, they approach them with impartial objectivity, they are not concerned with what effect their work has on public ethics or on religious bodies, no more than scientists hold themselves responsible for military or commercial use of their research.”

The Western Scholars, with a few exceptions, have been arrogantly unkind to Sikhism. They consider that Sikh studies in Punjab are of a traditional type, whereas Western Scholars using social science methods have produced objective and unprejudiced research. To challenge this assertion let us examine the statements about Sikhs and their Scripture, as produced by these “instant” Sikh Scholars.

1. Adi Granth is perhaps the most shallow and empty book that exists, in proportion to its size (Ernest Trumpp, 1877).

2. Sikh religion appears to bear the kind of relation to Hindu religion which the Protestant does to Romish (Major James Browne, 1788).

3. Sikhism is a hybrid of two old religions, Islam and Hinduism (Ninian Smart, 1976).

4. Nanak was closer to Hinduism (R.W. Morgan, 1933).

5. Nanak leaned rather more to Islam than to Hinduism (Ninian Smart, 1976).

6. There is no doubt that Muslim sources predominate in Sikhism (John A. Hutchism, 1969).

7. Sikhism, because of its syncretic character, is not in any absolute sense new (John B, Noss and David S. Nose, 1984)

Dr. James Lewis, Professor of Philosophy and Religion, Appalachian State University, Boome, North Carolina, feels that Christian authors, and their role dancing disciples, or those who use religion in the instrumental sense to make a living or to get a Ph.D. and a job, might be projecting their guilt unto Sikh religion. He comments:

“To the extent that the author is Christian, or at best from a Christian background, it might be possible to postulate that kind of guilt projection is at work here. In other words, if one is uncomfortable with the tension and contradiction in Christian religion, then one is likely to project those contradictions - whether or not such tensions actually exist in other traditions.”

In other words, the Sikh scholars with Western realities, including McLeod, are using covert-value judgement, when it comes to Sikhism because of their unresolved tensions and contradictions about their own faiths.

What else can be said about the arrogance of these self-appointed scholars of subjective faiths of others? They are still attempting to carry the white man’s burden by bringing “civilized” white culture’s mystification to the faiths of others that are declared rustic (Oberoi) or syncretic (Kushwant Singh).

Most of them in their zeal to become “Scholars” have jumped on McLeod’s bandwagon. The names of S.S, Hans, Pashaura Singh, J.S. Grewal, Gurinder Singh Mann and yet another scholar in the making, Dr. Fenech (University of Toronto). Ph.D. 1994 comes to mind.

As a social scientist working in Canada, I know that this is a very common phenomenon in social sciences. Somebody invents a paradigm. Historians in a hurry jump on it, do the damaging research, and then disappear leaving others to clean the mess.

It also appears that these scholars are mostly left brain thinkers, affective domain of their personality is usually retarded. No wonder they can call Guru Arjun, the greatest poet of the 16th century India, as a politically motivated person and hence murdered by Jahangir (Pashaura Singh).

Many seem to lead a life which is instrumentally motivated. They can violate all codes of social science, or humanities research of any country, to get a Ph.D. or land a job (Pashaura Singh & McLeod who were funded by Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada, violated all the codes, and can be legal sued for these human rights violations).

These scholars, so as to reinforce themselves from a collective group mind, call conferences, publish books, develop chairs, and appoint their own students for in-breeding to take place. Incidentally, the research done by these scholars who sit on these chairs, is against the same community that provides funds from their hard-earned money. The Sikh chair, as controlled by Dr. Oberoi at the University of British Columbia, was a case in point. These scholars are so linear, myopic, convergent, and neurotically narcissistic, that the “other kind of seeing” does not touch them with a ten foot pole.

If they internalized the faith by listening to the faith music, do the Zen of Sewa they may, “come to their senses by losing their linear minds”!

Christianity has been a violent religion. Ask any community that was colonized. First nation Canadians are a case in point. To expect from Christian missionaries kindness to other religions is just like expecting, "milk from a house that keeps only bulls”!

We know that “objective” research on Sikhism is done mostly by the non-believers, or those who went to India as missionaries, but later became non-believers, or those who came to Canada as granthis, but later under the influence of Christian scholars got mystified. A historian with faith will never indulge in divergent speculations about the Sikhs’ Gurus who were producing God’s work under very trying conditions. Such persons will never speculate about who corrected whose bani, but rather get amazed at the beauty and originality of the poetry that was produced under the altered states of consciousness.

I must say that Dr. McLeod’s perception is selective. He skips over periods of the Sikh history where the white colonial power did the most damage. The rape of the Sikh empire which was carefully planned in Ludhiana in 1820, and then executed in cold-blooded fashion between 1839-1849, does not interest him. The torture of Kukas or Namdharis, the execution go Bhagat Singh and hundreds of other Sikh young men, hanged by the “secular” British masters, does not even get a line in his writings. Discussion of Christianity as a cultural and colonial imperialism, that destroyed a budding Sikh nation, is intentionally ignored by these historians. I will challenge Dr. McLeod and his associations to develop the role of the Sikh Gurus under the Moghal rule, as also to attempt to write the glorious history of the Sikhs between Banda’s death and the emergence of Maharaja Ranjit Singh.

I am very upset with the activities of Dr. McLeod and Loehlin who, as missionaries of minority communities living in Punjab, have done a great disservice to the religion of another minority community.

This brings one to the concept of responsibility in Sikh research or the research that affects the life chances of the minority community. Those days are gone, when one could hide behind secular university research. The guide lines of SSHRC have declared any research which produces a negative image of a community, as unethical.

The universities and centres doing such research should be tried in the courts of North America and India. Clause 15 of the Canadian constitution and amendment 14 of the U.S.A. Constitution should be tested to see if the “McLeod gang” can be brought to their senses. When all measures of convincing the scholars fail, we should try what non-violent philosophers call “embarrassing the enemy” using verbal and non-verbal measures.

In the end, let me sum up the “researched” speculations of these “Historians in a hurry”. I have concentrated mainly on the research produced by “Sikh Scholars” (McLeod, Pashaura Singh, J.S. Oberoi, M. Juergensmeyer, J.S, Grewel, S.S. Hans and S.S. Dhillon).

1. Guru Nanak was the founder of the Sikh religion in the organizational sense, and not in the religious sense.

2. Nath tradition was worked by Kabir, Guru Nanak provided the extension.

3. Guru Nanak in a way is Saint Nanak.

4. Guru Nanak never went abroad.

5. Regression from Sikhism to Hindu religion took place at the time of Guru Amardas.

6. Jat influence got Guruship to Guru Arjun Dev Ji.

7. Guru Arjun corrected the bani written by Guru Nanak.

8. Compilation of Adi Granth was a process. It was not Dhur Ki Bani (Revealed).

9. Bhagat Bani was included in Guru Granth Sahib to please the minorities.

10. Singh Sabha imposed a single correct interpretation to Guru Granth Sahib.

11. A rare undated manuscript, G.N.D.U #1245 should be studied very carefully. This is the first draft of Guru Granth Sahib on which Guru Arjun Dev Ji worked and produced Kartarpur Wali Bir.

12. Exclusion of Mira Bai’s shabads from Guru Granth Sahib was done in an attempt to develop Sikh identity. Also her shabads were extremely erotic.

13. Khalsa was not given the 5 Ks by Guru Gobind Singh on Baisakhi day, 1699.

14. Hair, turban and sword entered Sikhism through the Jat influence, “Jats did not enter Sikhism empty-handed”.

15. Guru Granth Sahib became the Sikh Guru, because Guru Gobind Singh had no surviving children.

16. Guru Arjun was murdered and not martyred in 1606 A.D.

“Sikh Scholars” at St. Michael’s College, University of Toronto, and J.S. Oberoi at the University of B.C., Vancouver, Canada, are still busy producing research which is very hurtful and damaging to Sikhism. In Canada, Dr. Carole A. Murphy, Director Fellowship Division, Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada, 255 Albert Street, P.O. Box 610, Ottawa, Canada, K1P 6G4, funds such research. If the readers agree with the sentiments expressed in this article, I would urge them to drop Dr. Murphy a line. We would see that SSHRC grant to the University of Toronto be stopped, unless they agree to mend their ways.