. INTRODUCTION

. CHAPTER 1

. CHAPTER 2

. CHAPTER 3

. CHAPTER 4

. CHAPTER 5

. CHAPTER 6

. CHAPTER 7

. CONCLUSION

. REFERENCES

INTRODUCTION

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 1968^16,17 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 Ph.D.degree. 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 Sikhe.com), 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

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

. CHAPTER 1

CHAPTER 1

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

. CHAPTER 2

CHAPTER 2

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

. CHAPTER 3

CHAPTER 3

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 t