From the Book History of the Sikhs and Their Religion Volume I The Guru Period (1469 1708

8 CE) Edited by Kirpal Singh & Kharak Singh Available at University Academic Libraries Book is Contributed by all of the scholars including, Dr. Balwant Singh Dhillon (BSD), Dr. Dalbir Singh Dhillon (D.S.D), Dr. Dharam Singh (D.S.), Dr. Gurmukh Singh (G.S.), Dr. Harnam Singh Shan (H.S.S.), Dr. Jodh Singh (J.S), Dr. Kharak Singh (Kh.S), Dr. Kirpal Singh (K.S.), Principal Surjit Singh G (S.S.G) Response to McLeod, Rebuttal of history versus tradition argument , xxxii xxxiv; lack of knowledge of Punjabi, xxxiii Dr. Kirpal Singh INTRODUCTION In Cries of Outrage W.H. McLeod writes, If one is a historian (and this is what I have tried to be) one is required to apply certain range of techniques which will qualify for description of scholarly analysis. It is here a crucial difference opens up between two kinds of historians, the two kinds we find ranged against each other in this battle of understanding of the true nature of Sikh Panth. On one side we find arrayed the historians who put their trust in tradition. These defend the traditions of the Panth, as historians who put their trust in tradition. These defend the traditions of the Panth, as a result have a large and well integrated version of the Panths history set out before them. Opposed to the traditionalists are the skeptics, historians who maintain that every fact requires a believable evidence to support it and who in consequence find the every fact requires a believable evidence to support it and who in consequence find the established history of the Panth much more restricted. For study and research, the history of the Sikhs has to be divided in the following periods: 1. The Guru Periods (1469 1708 CE) 2. Period of Struggle (1708 1799 CE) 3. The Sikh Rule (1799 1849 CE) 4. The British Period (1849 1947 CE) 5. After 1947 CE For every period different ranges of research techniques have to be followed. We start with British period of Sikh history. For every important event we have to search first state level record, then national archives and then records at different levels in English, viz., Old India Office and Public Record Office and Private Papers preserved at different places. For the Ranjit Singh period, historians have to go through Khalsa Darbar records and other Persian records and compare them with British records of the East India Company. One has also to study foreign travellers accounts, etc. For Sikh history of the eighteenth century, Panth Parkash of Ratan Singh Bhangu, a Punjabi source; for Sikh-Maratha

relations, the Marathi records; for Sikh-Afghan relations, Sikh-Rohilla relations and SikhMughal history various Persian sources have to be consulted and analysed. But the most important is the history of Sikh Gurus, which can be reconstructed largely on the basis of tradition, recorded or oral. Where written evidence is available and it is at variance with tradition, the former should be preferred but keeping in mind the biases of the writer and an explanation of why traditional accounts differ. For example, if Mughal records give an account at total variance with the Sikh tradition, then we have to see whether the Mughal account glosses over or twists those facts which show the Mughal court in bad light. Similarly, at places tradition has to be verified and analysed in order to find out the truth. It has been rightly stated by Alfred Lyall that however exaggerated or complicated tradition might be it has kernel of truth in it. That kernel has to be discovered. For instance, Sikh tradition about Guru Arjuns martyrdom is at variance with Jehangirs account of Gurus martyrdom recorded in Tuzak-i-Jehangiri. Besides these accounts there is another account by Jesuit fathers who were present at Lahore. All these accounts when analyzed take one to truth. Though not explicitly stated McLeods only concern appears to be the life of Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism, the topic of his Ph.D thesis in the School of Oriental and African Studies, London University. I had the opportunity to meet late Prof. A.L. Basham and discuss with him certain problems of Sikh history in 1964 CE. A few days later, McLeod came to see me with Janamsakhi of Guru Nanak by Meharban, which I had edited and got published. He informed me that he had been instructed by Prof A.L. Basham who was his supervisor to see me. We discussed certain problems of Janamsakhi Meharban. I particularly noticed that McLeod could at that time read Gurmukhi with difficulty. In order to understand the life of Guru Nanak, it is essential to understand his verses. In-depth study of his verses would reveal that a particular verse had been composed in a certain situation which has to be understood, and which needs explanation and elucidation. That situation with critical mind can be better understood from the original verse rather than its translation. This language barrier has been a great hindrance for McLeod. In Puratan Janamsakhi, there is mention of Raja Samunder whom he has read as Sham Sunder. In a hymn of Guru Nanak there is mention of Bhai Lallo, the carpenter of Eminabad, whom he has translated as My Beloved God. He has read it as Lall. In order to over the language barrier to understand the verses of Guru Nanak which was essential for writing the life of the Guru he adopted the method of skeptic approach which he calls certain range of technique for scholarly analysis. In this process the traditions of Guru Nanak recorded in the Janamsakhis, which McLeod calls traditions of the Panth, have been totally ignored. In modern methodology of history research as evolved by Jan Vasina and Paul Thomsons, study of tradition plays a significant part. In this way application of wrong techniques has led to wrong conclusions, like the ones that Guru Nanak did not go beyond Punjab, that Janamsakhis are not reliable sources of information, etc. etc. Skeptic method of McLeod cannot work for writing the life of Guru Nanak. Historians having some faith in religion and spirituality can have better understanding of the mind of the Gurus and his verses. Just as the women can understand women better, and people in same craft can better comprehend the mind or the work of their fellow craftsmen, similarly, followers of the Gurus can understand their lives better than the non-followers or

agnostics. Here there is no question of fundamentalism or secularism. For comprehending the Gurus life and work one has to delve deep in the idiom of the verses of the Guru. Use of tradition in historiography does not make one a tradionalist o fundamentalist. McLeods statement that the Janamsakhi contained the Panthic tradition is not correct, because Janamsakhi writers in most cases were dissenters. For instance, Janamsakhi Meharban has been written by Minas and Janamsakhi Bala was written by the Niranjania sect opposed to mainstream of Sikhs. Moreover, his title, viz., History versus Tradition is a misstatement revealing his pre-conditioned mind. According to wellestablished theories of historiography, tradition is one of the basic sources of history. It is not opposed to history. In order to comprehend the history of Sikh Gurus one must understand the verses of the Gurus as well as traditions of the times of the Gurus. It will be futile to search for record for the lives of Prophets. In record alone McLeod finds a believable evidence, as for him tradition is not believable evidence. No prophet has left any record whatsoever of their lives. Their record id in tradition which his passed on from one generation to another and which has been preserved in the minds of the people. March 20, 2002 Chandigarh Kirpal Singh Editor Notes and References 26. McLeod, W.H: Cries of Outrage, oringally published in South Asia Research Vol 14, no. 2, 1994 27. Lyall, Alfred: op, cit., Vol VI, pp. 50-51 28. Vasina, Jan: op. Cit., p. XI 29. Thomsons, Paul: Voice of Past, Oxford University Press, 1978, p. 20 30. Janamsakhi contains the recorded traditions about Guru Nanaks life. For Janamsakhi development, see Kirpal Singhs Perspectives on Sikh Gurus.