# How McLeod Became  “one Of The Foremost Scholars” Of Sikh Studies?



## Akashdeep Singh (May 24, 2007)

W. H. McLeod has been wrongly painted as the expert on Sikhism and his Ph.D.theses (later published in the form of a book) has been cited by many who choose to adulterate the philosophy of Guru Nanak and confuse the Sikhs. Ever wondered how this person survived to write a thesis full of mistakes and pass his thesis committee and thesis defense? Read the analytical article from Dr. Baldev Singh below keeping the following questions in mind: -
What should be the qualification of the thesis committee to make it capable of knowing if the research of the student is correct? Specially when the topic is that of religion?
Who were on the thesis committee of W. H. Mcleod?
What was the input given by the thesis committee to Mcleod?
Did they read the thesis?
...etc. etc.
*


How McLeod became “one of the foremost scholars” of Sikh Studies?

[/FONT]*


Dr. Baldev Singh
​ 

  While McLeod was studying at the Theological Hall, he had second thoughts about his chosen career as a clergyman[1] and he dreaded the thought of a parish life in New Zealand.[2] He became increasingly worried as the graduation date drew ever nearer.  However, after completing his studies in 1957, somehow he managed to get an assignment in Punjab (India) through the Overseas Mission Committee of the Presbyterian Church of New Zealand in 1958 at a time when the entry of Western missionaries was banned in India. At that time due to the ongoing “Cold War”, Westerners coming to India were suspected as CIA or British intelligence agents, but here was McLeod, a Presbyterian missionary in Punjab, the state which shares border with Pakistan, and the disputed territory  of Kashmir. 


  He obtained his PhD in Sikhism from the University  of London. Prof. A.L. Basham, his supervisor, knew hardly anything about Guru Nanak and very little about the Punjabi language. This is what McLeod wrote about his experience with his research supervisor:     


_   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. … 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.[3]_

  Moreover, McLeod had very little interaction with the two examiners who did not even read the complete thesis before approving it.[4] Again in McLeod’s own words:

_   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.[4]_

  It should not surprise anyone that Prof. Parrinder knew nothing of Guru Nanak and the Sikh religion except what he learned from McLeod’s thesis.[5] 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 PhD 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.[6]
_ 
  One may ask why didn’t McLeod pick a thesis supervisor or examiners with expertise in Sikhism? One may even question the University of London for falling short on its academic standards. Was Fauja Singh, “an honest and honorable historian of Punjab” [7] or Ganda Singh, “certainly an eminent Sikh historian” [8] or any other Indian scholar not good enough to be his thesis supervisor or examiner? Besides, why were the contents of the thesis kept out of public view until November 19689, [10] while the University of London had accepted the thesis in July 1965?[11] Why were even his friends, Ganda Singh and Harbans Singh, [9], [10] who had offered assistance in his work, kept in the dark until 1968 when _Guru Nanak and the Sikh Religion_ was released upon which McLeod was “widely known as being among the foremost scholars of Sikh studies in the world?”[10] 

  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,[10], [12] who reviewed _Guru Nanak and the Sikh Religion _in the _Times Literary Supplement_ in 1968.[13] In other words, McLeod became “one of the foremost scholars of Sikhism” simply through the publication of his PhD thesis which bypassed all the rigors of academic review.[13] Did Zaehner, who was an alcoholic [12], 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!”[10] From thereon, McLeod has never missed an opportunity to self-promote himself with the mantra: “one of the foremost scholars of Sikhism”[14] persistently and consistently. 

  Further it is intriguing that in _Guru Nanak and the Sikh Religion,_ published in 1968, he makes no mention of “School of Oriental and African Studies” where he studied for his PhD degree. He mentions only the name of the University of London in the preface.[15] Moreover, it is Dr. F.R. Allchin [15], one of the examiners, who is the first one to be acknowledged for assistance and encouragement in the preface to _Guru Nanak and Sikh Religion_ whereas in _Discovering the Sikhs: Autobiography of an Historian_, McLeod says that he met him first at the time of viva on July 13, 1965.[4] 

  About his other examiner Dr. Geoffrey Parrinder, McLeod says gleefully:

_   “Geoffery Parrinder was one such scholar and knowing virtually nothing about either Guru Nanak or the Sikh religion except what he gained as my examiner he depended on Guru Nanak and the Sikh Religion as his guide.”_[16]

  Finally, imagine that Jagpal Singh Tiwana got a PhD on the Bible (written in Latin) under the guidance of J.S. Grewal as his supervisor and Pritam Singh and Khushwant Singh as his thesis examiners and then Jagjit Singh Anand, the editor of _Nawan__ Jamana_ declared Tiwana as “being among the foremost scholars of Bible studies in the world”.

*References*

  1. W.H. McLeod. _Discovering the Sikhs: Autobiography of a Historian_. Delhi: Permanent Black, 2004, pp. 22-23.
  2. Ibid., pp. 26-28.
  3. Ibid., p. 39.
  4. Ibid., p. 40.
  5. Ibid., p. 63.
  6. W.H. McLeod. _Guru Nanak and the Sikh Religion_. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1996, p. 162.
  7. W.H. McLeod. _Discovering the Sikhs: Autobiography of a Historian_. Delhi: Permanent Black, 2004, p. 148.
  8. Ibid., p. 137.
  9. Ibid., pp. 46-47.
  10. Ibid., pp. 62-63.
  11. Ibid., pp. 39-40.
  12. Ibid., P. 68.
  13. Ibid., p. 62.
  14. W.H. McLeod. _Guru Nanak and the Sikh Religion_. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1996, cover.
  15. Ibid., p. ix.
  16. W.H. McLeod. _Discovering the Sikhs: Autobiography of a Historian_. Delhi: Permanent Black, 2004, p. 63.


----------



## H_Singh (Jul 28, 2008)

I find it amusing that so many base there entire work and life achievement on discrediting McLeod.  Inferring McLeod is intelligence is ridiculous, and ludicrous. Discrediting scholars from one of the top universities in the  world would require some serious credentials, not just a bland interpretation of old information.   

If it wasn't for scholars such as McLeod the Sikh community would not have a budding scholarly community committed to answering the history of our people our religion and our culture.  Though his views maybe contested by many of us, the fact that we are talking about this is something he has helped the community do, challenging our traditional perspective and forcing us to look deeper using academia and empirical evidence to define us as a people.  For that the Sikh community needs to recognize him.  These endless snide attacks are useless, and achieve nothing, we should be looking forward as a people and either updating his work, or challenging it with reason and evidence.


----------



## Sikh80 (Jul 28, 2008)

> W. H. McLeod has been wrongly painted as the expert on Sikhism and his Ph.D.theses (later published in the form of a book) has been cited by many who choose to adulterate the philosophy of Guru Nanak and confuse the Sikhs. Ever wondered how this person survived to write a thesis full of mistakes and pass his thesis committee and thesis defense? Read the analytical article from Dr. Baldev Singh below keeping the following questions in mind: -
> 
> What should be the qualification of the thesis committee to make it capable of knowing if the research of the student is correct? Specially when the topic is that of religion?
> Who were on the thesis committee of W. H. Mcleod?
> ...



While fully taking concern of Baldev ji into consideration, it is not to be forgotten that an outsider had done some work on Sikhism. I also hold the opinion of H-singh ji that, at least, he did something for sikhs. At least people are referring to the work that he produced. Needless to mention that due to the problem of language almost anyone will not be able to do full justice to this kind of task. 

It would have been more useful if Baldev ji had pointed out the distortions, if any, that Mcleod's thesis caused and how it was detrimental to  Sikhi. 

I am also grateful to you for the efforts that you have put in for bringing the issue.

Best Regards.


----------



## Akashdeep Singh (Jul 28, 2008)

*Re: How McLeod became “one of the foremost scholars” of Sikh Studies?*



H_Singh said:


> I find it amusing that so many base there entire work and life achievement on discrediting McLeod.  Inferring McLeod is intelligence is ridiculous, and ludicrous. Discrediting scholars from one of the top universities in the  world would require some serious credentials, not just a bland interpretation of old information.
> 
> If it wasn't for scholars such as McLeod the Sikh community would not have a budding scholarly community committed to answering the history of our people our religion and our culture.  Though his views maybe contested by many of us, the fact that we are talking about this is something he has helped the community do, challenging our traditional perspective and forcing us to look deeper using academia and empirical evidence to define us as a people.  For that the Sikh community needs to recognize him.  These endless snide attacks are useless, and achieve nothing, we should be looking forward as a people and either updating his work, or challenging it with reason and evidence.



H_Singh, 

Thank you for giving the article your eyes. However, it would have been appreciated in the response if it reflected serious inputs as well because the reply is sounding full of assumptions. Allow me to cite a few: -


First, you are inferring that the author if the article (Baldev Singh) has based his entire work/life and achievement just discrediting W. H. Mcleod? Can you please provide the readers of the forum the statistics on this claim?
Second, going forward to the limits of assumption you are making a sweeping claim that without W. H. Mcleod the Sikh scholarship would have been lost. Any substantiations of this claim? Did you forget to consider that there were Sikh scholars before, at his time and after Mcleod. Can you help us understand how Mcloed helped the Sikh scholars grow? Did you know that he even refused discussions and neglected giving response of any of the critiques of his Ph.D. thesis? Is that the ethics of scholarship?
Third, you are assuming and claiming that there is no logic the critiques that Dr. Baldev Singh has written. Did you research before making this statement? If not, its right time to do it. Try GOOGLE, its easy!
Challenges and critiques of a belief are always welcome. Even AGGS inspires thoughtful thinking, however, Mcloed is of guilty of propaganda and violating scholastic ethics . You seem to have again assumed without needed research and claiming that Mcleod's entire work is honest thought provoking. 

-Akashdeep


----------



## Akashdeep Singh (Jul 28, 2008)

Sikh80 said:


> While fully taking concern of Baldev ji into consideration, it is not to be forgotten that an outsider had done some work on Sikhism. I also hold the opinion of H-singh ji that, at least, he did something for sikhs. At least people are referring to the work that he produced. Needless to mention that due to the problem of language almost anyone will not be able to do full justice to this kind of task.
> 
> It would have been more useful if Baldev ji had pointed out the distortions, if any, that Mcleod's thesis caused and how it was detrimental to  Sikhi.
> 
> ...



Dear Sikh80, 

I am sorry to say that just like "H_Singh" below you have just made a frivolous non-serious attempt at responding and made several assumptions. 

The post below is just the first chapter of the article on Mcleod. Any serious reader would have Googled the article and the author to find more information on the topic before making any comments in the forum here. 

Please find the complete chapters of this article here": My Favorite Author : Response to J.S. Tiwana

Happy reading, 
-Akashdeep


----------



## dalsingh (Jul 28, 2008)

*Re: How McLeod became “one of the foremost scholars” of Sikh Studies?*



H_Singh said:


> I find it amusing that so many base there entire work and life achievement on discrediting McLeod.  Inferring McLeod is intelligence is ridiculous, and ludicrous. Discrediting scholars from one of the top universities in the would world require some serious credentials, not just a bland interpretation of old information.
> 
> If it wasn't for scholars such as McLeod the Sikh community would not have a budding scholarly community committed to answering the history of our people our religion and our culture.  Though his views maybe contested by many of us, the fact that we are talking about this is something he has helped the community do, challenging our traditional perspective and forcing us to look deeper using academia and empirical evidence to define us as a people.  For that the Sikh community needs to recognize him.  These endless snide attacks are useless, and achieve nothing, we should be looking forward as a people and either updating his work, or challenging it with reason and evidence.



I agree that as a positive, his controversial writing forces "adhay soohtay" (half asleep) Sikh scholars to wake up. No one can deny McLeod is intelligent and can write in an extremely readable fashion, but using passive voice to present opinions as if they are irrefutable facts is an old trick.  I'm not one of those knee jerk reactionaries who totally discount McLeod but he is not without his own flaws.

I actually read his work and own a fair few of his books. If there is truth in the way he got his PhD thesis from SOAS then I'm not surprised eyebrows are raised. I don't remember such a slack approach being taken on my undergraduate degree dissertation, let alone a PhD thesis no less! Also his own background of being a Christian missionary who had lied to this own church about his loss of faith is also a tad bit controversial in itself. The question of projecting his own angst on SIkhi is valid.  

Regarding McLeod's scholarly approach. 

Firstly he has only very recently started to respond to other scholar's critiques of his work, whereas he previously adopted an obnoxious "better than thou" attitude towards Sikhs who questioned his work. Even now his responses are what I would term "lazy."

His claim that he is treading "sensitively" on the matter of a living faith is rubbish. The amount of people upset by his work is testimony to that. 

He has a strange habit of trying to create a sort of "gang" of scholars with the same view and who are often his own protege. I read Lou Fennech's work on Martyrdom in Sikhi (it was a PhD thesis, heavily supervised by McLeod). How such a work could be passed as serious and of quality surprises me. 

For a community such as Sikhs, whose ranks, lets be honest, were/are largely made up of illiterate or semi literate peasants, his insistence on relying on "textual analysis" to establish norms of the past is seriously flawed. Although some of these texts may have been influential with the literate elite minority, their importance to the village based masses are very likely to have been over represented by him.   

He sticks to theories when other scholars have totally discredited them. Jagjit Singh's work on his "Jatt theory" coupled with his own close friends (J.S. Grewal's) comments that his theory is "not even well informed conjecture" are an example. 

Grewal, also points out that in the recent past, western academia used "research" to justify imperialism/colonialism by portraying  the would be "subjects" in a particular (and largely negative) way, he makes a point that McLeod fails to realise the link between such institutes and the activity of their modern day equivalents when he claims he is researching for the sake of learning.

So lets put it in balance. What exactly are McLeod's motivations for  studying Sikhs? I personally don't know? I read his work, but take large parts with a pinch of loon.


----------



## H_Singh (Jul 28, 2008)

*Re: How McLeod became “one of the foremost scholars” of Sikh Studies?*

H_Singh, 

Thank you for giving the article your eyes. However, it would have been appreciated in the response if it reflected serious inputs as well because the reply is sounding full of assumptions. Allow me to cite a few: -


Akashdeep Singh said:


> First, you are inferring that the author if the article (Baldev Singh) has based his entire work/life and achievement just discrediting W. H. Mcleod? Can you please provide the readers of the forum the statistics on this claim?



I have not specifically mentioned Baldev as a person, but there is no doubt he is running of the coat tails of the group who is after McLeod's proverbial head.



> [*]Second, going forward to the limits of assumption you are making a sweeping claim that without W. H. Mcleod the Sikh scholarship would have been lost. Any substantiations of this claim? Did you forget to consider that there were Sikh scholars before, at his time and after Mcleod. Can you help us understand how Mcloed helped the Sikh scholars grow? Did you know that he even refused discussions and neglected giving response of any of the critiques of his Ph.D. thesis? Is that the ethics of scholarship?


If you read what I said, I specifically said he helped, I didn't give him full kudos for the result.  



> [*]Third, you are assuming and claiming that there is no logic the critiques that Dr. Baldev Singh has written. Did you research before making this statement? If not, its right time to do it. Try GOOGLE, its easy!


I haven't discredited Baldev, but his comments implying McLeod is Indian intelligence is just rumour and i'll say again, absolutely ludicrous.



> Challenges and critiques of a belief are always welcome. Even AGGS inspires thoughtful thinking, however, Mcloed is of guilty of propaganda and violating scholastic ethics . You seem to have again assumed without needed research and claiming that Mcleod's entire work is honest thought provoking.


I'm waiting to see where I have written all his work is honest and thought provoking.  You need to stop making foolish assumptions and get off your horse.  I have also specifically stated we should contest his work using "evidence" and "reason" not useless emotion like you're doing now.  

Any scholar who feels the need to psycho analyze another scholar to me is trying to make up for his or her short comings.  Making accusations such as the university of London just gave him the degree, or implying Indian intelligence was involved, without empirical proof shows serious flaws within in an academic.


----------



## spnadmin (Jul 28, 2008)

*Re: How McLeod became “one of the foremost scholars” of Sikh Studies?*

Respected H_Singh ji,

Professor McLeod is a published author, who has published more than one controversial work. As  an academic he is not immune from criticism. In fact it is his lot in life to be the subject of public criticism because he is an academic who has published a book that has attracted controversy. Anyone who terms himself/herself a scholar is in the same boat. It is the nature of the game. One's work is expected to be open to evaluation, sometimes harsh evaluation, by other members of the academic community. 

Dalsingh ji and Akashdeep ji have  evaluated aspects of McLeod's work and have found them wanting. They have addressed only those aspects of McLeod's scholarship that  are typically considered in a review of published research. Everything they have critiqued is fair game. They have  given an assessment without resorting to _ad hominem_ arguments. This is called peer review. Sometimes we don't like what we read. We have a chance to respond in kind. However, we have a responsibility to avoid personal criticism.

I caution you to observe Forum Rule 3 A.  Please address issues, not personalities, where you believe these issues have not been given enough weight.


----------



## H_Singh (Jul 28, 2008)

I have absolutely no problem with the criticism of McLeod's work, but effectively what people are doing is attacking him personally, seeing only the controversial aspects of his work.  I wasn't trying to attack anyone, or make this personal, i'll be the first to admit I don't agree with some of McLeod's work, but when someone makes there own ad hominem attacks, whether it be implied indirectly or directly, I feel the need to say something.  

Scholarly criticism does not include unfounded accusations of collusion with Indian intelligence, or the University of London handing out Phd degrees without checking work.

False accusations are being made not only towards me, but about McLeod, which I see is a serious failing of which I will respond to.  

Baldev's attacks against McLeod have some, which i've alread outlined a few, serious failings is all I'm trying to point out.


----------



## spnadmin (Jul 28, 2008)

*Re: How McLeod became “one of the foremost scholars” of Sikh Studies?*

H_Singh jhi
*
This is your comment: I'm waiting to see where I have written all his work is honest and thought provoking. You need to stop making foolish assumptions and get off your horse. I have also specifically stated we should contest his work using "evidence" and "reason" not useless emotion like you're doing now. 

*This is directed against another forum member, and not Mr. Baldev Singh.*

Any scholar who feels the need to psycho analyze another scholar to me is trying to make up for his or her short comings. Making accusations such as the university of London just gave him the degree, or implying Indian intelligence was involved, without empirical proof shows serious flaws within in an academic.

*
Clarify who said this.

I stand by my warning. Forum rule 3 A.


----------



## dalsingh (Jul 29, 2008)

*Re: How McLeod became “one of the foremost scholars” of Sikh Studies?*



> Any scholar who feels the need to psycho analyze another scholar to me is trying to make up for his or her short comings.



What is so surprising about this? I recall reading Dickens in class as a teenager and a lesson was devoted solely to discussing his background and experiences and how that may have influenced his written work/ideas. 

Clearly McLeod's background is of interest to his readers and Sikhs in general. Personally I think he purposefully incorporates material which will offend many Sikhs in his publications. I know he is an exceptional writer and has the literary skills to present his "ideas" in a way infinitely less offensive to the average Sikh reader. However, controversy sells and I guess this may well be one of the motives of why he writes in this way. 



> Making accusations such as the university of London just gave him the degree, or implying Indian intelligence was involved, without empirical proof shows serious flaws within in an academic.



I never said anything about Indian intelligence myself. BUT, the way he got his PhD without peer review and with non experts as his supervisors......all I can say is......WOOW!!!!!

How many people get doctorates in this way? I'm planning to get a PhD one day myself, I very much doubt the experience will be remotely similar. 

Anyway, I think, as interesting as some  of his work is, he essentially is following the old "orientalist" discourse which should have died out a long time ago in my eyes. His best strength lies in his translation skills. He should stick to this  - solely.


----------



## H_Singh (Jul 29, 2008)

*Re: How McLeod became “one of the foremost scholars” of Sikh Studies?*



aad0002 said:


> *This is your comment: I'm waiting to see where I have written all his work is honest and thought provoking. You need to stop making foolish assumptions and get off your horse. I have also specifically stated we should contest his work using "evidence" and "reason" not useless emotion like you're doing now.
> 
> *This is directed against another forum member, and not Mr. Baldev Singh.*,*


*

*Direct me to where I said his work was honest?  It was directed straight at you.  Show me where I said his work was honest and thought provoking.  You have made claims about what I've said, so I responded accordingly.*




			Any scholar who feels the need to psycho analyze another scholar to me is trying to make up for his or her short comings. Making accusations such as the university of London just gave him the degree, or implying Indian intelligence was involved, without empirical proof shows serious flaws within in an academic.
		
Click to expand...


*This is directed towards any scholar, if you've taken it personally, not my problem really.
Clarify who said this.

I stand by my warning. Forum rule 3 A. [/quote]


----------



## spnadmin (Jul 29, 2008)

*Re: How McLeod became “one of the foremost scholars” of Sikh Studies?*

Veer H_Singh ji

You could not have been directing any comment at me when you made statement quoted above because the statement was a response to most respected member Akashdeep ji. I only entered the conversation a few posts ago to issue a warning. So I will take your latest rejoinder as an attempt to bow out of an uncomfortable situation. No problem.


----------



## dalsingh (Jul 29, 2008)

*Re: How McLeod became “one of the foremost scholars” of Sikh Studies?*

*Classic McLeod:*

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. …


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 29, 2008)

H_Singh said:


> I find it amusing that so many base there entire work and life achievement on discrediting McLeod. Inferring McLeod is intelligence is ridiculous, and ludicrous. Discrediting scholars from one of the top universities in the world would require some serious credentials, not just a bland interpretation of old information.
> 
> If it wasn't for scholars such as McLeod the Sikh community would not have a budding scholarly community committed to answering the history of our people our religion and our culture. Though his views maybe contested by many of us, the fact that we are talking about this is something he has helped the community do, challenging our traditional perspective and forcing us to look deeper using academia and empirical evidence to define us as a people. For that the Sikh community needs to recognize him. These endless snide attacks are useless, and achieve nothing, we should be looking forward as a people and either updating his work, or challenging it with reason and evidence.


 
Disagree.

Why should Mcleod be put on such a high pedestal?

There are other scholars of Sikhism, like Dr Gopal Singh, Dr Mann, Professor Gupta, Patwant Singh etc etc. I can list hundreds, yet Mcleod is put on a pedestal.

Basic analysis of Mcleods theories and assertion can demonstrate how wrong Mcleod has got it. I say this as a person who held Mcleod on a pedestal, but after reading more extensively found how wrong he is. FRom his Martial theory to the Kartarpur Bir he has been wrong.

Let me give you an example.

Mcleod asserts warriorism was brought into Sikhism by the Jatts. He states the 6th Guru was in effect pushed by his Jatt followers into Martial development. He says this because Jatts swelled the ranks of Sikhi during the reign of the 6th Guru.

Completely wrong:

Why:


He ignores Guru Angad starting the martial tradition where he set up wrestling matches amongst his Sikhs - Gurudwara Mal Akhara stands on the wrestling ring established by the 2nd Master.
Bhai Gurdas lists the main Sikh followers of the 6th Master. You can count the Jatt followers on one hand. Jatts cae into Sikhi after the 10th Master introduced Khandhay Da Pahul, which most "twice borns" refused to take.
Baba Buddha ji is credited with introducing martial streak - again not true. Baba Buddha was named so by Guru Nanak because he was so wise. He was a passive soul. The stereo type of the uncouth, uneducated Jatt was turned on its head by Baba Buddha. He was a passive soul and according to Bhai Gurdas, he was against the martial streak of the 6th Master.
The 6th Master came from a fighting clan, the Kshatriya's. They were not averse to martial arts.
The Guru's charachter shows no sign of ever being lead by followers. He was assertive and independent.
I agree on one point, that Mcleods works must be challenged with reason and researched work.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 29, 2008)

*Re: How McLeod became “one of the foremost scholars” of Sikh Studies?*



dalsingh said:


> *Classic McLeod:*
> 
> 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. …


 
I think this statement says everything about the contempt he holds Eastern scholars in. West is superior, East is inferior.


----------



## spnadmin (Jul 29, 2008)

*Re: How McLeod became “one of the foremost scholars” of Sikh Studies?*



dalsingh said:


> *Classic McLeod:*
> 
> 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. …



Nor should you have to explain this, Dalsingh ji. The Western methods of historical criticism are completely justified in the context of McLeod's writing. He is also a western historian, and as a trained scholar understands perfectly well the importance of openness to peer review. That is what keeps the process honest. When that process is somehow hindered, then that is when the charges of subterfuge begin to surface. Why not be perfectly open about sources of evidence and means of analysis that lead to conclusions. Sources and means should be transparent, so that one's conclusions can be adequately evaluated.

McLeod does not have an exemption from this process. No one gave him a free pass.


----------



## H_Singh (Jul 31, 2008)

McLeod produced a lot of his research over 40 years ago, we can say now that his work may be incorrect or wrong, but I stand by my statement that he has benefited Sikhi because he has helped us (by no means the only person to) challenge the traditions we hold onto dearly and triggered us to look into our own past to find out for ourselves, who we are and what we have become.  It's clear in most of the responses on here, the fact that he is being readily dismissed shows we are challenging our traditional notions, and now we are also challenging his notions.  There is no point arguing about McLeod, i'd rather talk about Sikhi itself.


----------



## H_Singh (Jul 31, 2008)

randip singh said:


> Why:
> 
> 
> He ignores Guru Angad starting the martial tradition where he set up wrestling matches amongst his Sikhs - Gurudwara Mal Akhara stands on the wrestling ring established by the 2nd Master.
> ...



The first point is that the Gurus had no standing army or force at least until Guru Arjan, there is no evidence for it.  Wrestling is a very far fetched link in my opinion.

Point two, is that the Jatts dominated the Punjab from the beginning, even before Guru Nanak established himself at Kartarpur.  Emperor Babur, the 1st Mughal emperor confirms this in his memoirs, the Baburnama.  He emphatically talks about the Jatts and Gujars who used to leading raid parties on his camps in the 1520's  for his cattle.  He said they were innumerbale in number.  This was during his entry into the Punjab before his battles with the Lodhi Sultanate.  This is further confirmed in the Dabistan-i-Mazahib where it states the majority of the Sikh community was Jatt and they did not speak 'Hindi' by the time of Guru Hargobind.    

Point 3. I don't agree with Baba Buddha introducing the militancy.  So no argument from me.  

Point 4. He came from the Khatri's, who often link themselves with the Ksyatria's but there is no real confirmed link between the two.  Though the names do sound the same.  You have to note that all the Gurus were part of the Khatris.  The power shifting between different sub-castes, but ultimately under the umbrella of Khatri.  

Point 5. The Guru may not have been lead by his followers but he had to fulfill the needs of the community at every stage right upto Guru Gobind Singh that meant adapting and shifting the policy of the community, with hightened threats, and pressures consolidating the leadership as well as many other things.  For example the Mughal threat, the corrupt masands, the rival sects Ramrai's etc.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 31, 2008)

H_Singh said:


> McLeod produced a lot of his research over 40 years ago, we can say now that his work may be incorrect or wrong, but I stand by my statement that he has benefited Sikhi because he has helped us (by no means the only person to) challenge the traditions we hold onto dearly and triggered us to look into our own past to find out for ourselves, who we are and what we have become. It's clear in most of the responses on here, the fact that he is being readily dismissed shows we are challenging our traditional notions, and now we are also challenging his notions. There is no point arguing about McLeod, i'd rather talk about Sikhi itself.


 
Hi H Singh ji,

I think I have made it clear that I could have been described as a Mcleodian in the past. As an amateur Historian I value facts, not emotion. I don't believe in fantastical miracles which some people attribute to Sikhism (because that contradicts Sikhi). I treat teh "Sakhi's" with caution, yet I do not come to the fantastical conclusions as Mcleod.

My problem with Mcleod is this. He says one thing and does another. Let me give you yet another example, because you seem to have ignored the one I gave you earlier.

Mcleod has placed great emphasis on texts, facts etc, then why has he ignored the best and contemporary (to the Guru's), source of historical facts. Varan Bhai Gurdas?

why does he ignore other texts such as Dabistan e Mazhib. Irfan Habib and Dr Grewal have gone to great lengths to tranlate Persian texts (of the contemporaries of the Guru's), to give an insight into historical events around the Guru's, and these too contradict many of Mcleods assertions. Why has he ignored this too? Dr Grewal is meant to be his protege is he not?

Amandeep Madra and Parmjit Singh have published eyewitness accounts from "Western" people a few years ago. Much of this contradicts Mcleod again. Why has he ignored this?

Another great source of Sikh history is Archeolgy and study of old Gurudwara's, and history behind them. Why has he ignored this?

These are the so called hard factual texts Mcleod is talking about, then why does he ignore them?

Mcleod has hindered Sikhism by creating idiotic debates and creating controversy where none is needed. He suffers either from scholary myopia or has a hiddden agenda.

I mean Feneche another protege of Mcleod, has written things on Dhadhi Jatha's that quite frankly verges on f{censored}, rather than controversy. When I read things like this I start to lose credibility for Mcleod.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jul 31, 2008)

H_Singh said:


> The first point is that the Gurus had no standing army or force at least until Guru Arjan, there is no evidence for it. Wrestling is a very far fetched link in my opinion.


 
I am talking about the Martial spirit being infused is SIKHs, not standing Armies. I have nowhere talked about standing armies.

Mcleod states it started with the 6th Guru. Gurudwara Mal Akhrara is clear evidence that the Martial streak was honed by the the 2nd Guru. We are not talking WWE wrestling here (I am sure you are aware of that). In this form of wrestling, bones can be broken, jaws shattered etc. (I say that from my own experience J )



H_Singh said:


> Point two, is that the Jatts dominated the Punjab from the beginning, even before Guru Nanak established himself at Kartarpur. Emperor Babur, the 1st Mughal emperor confirms this in his memoirs, the Baburnama. He emphatically talks about the Jatts and Gujars who used to leading raid parties on his camps in the 1520's for his cattle. He said they were innumerbale in number. This was during his entry into the Punjab before his battles with the Lodhi Sultanate. This is further confirmed in the Dabistan-i-Mazahib where it states the majority of the Sikh community was Jatt and they did not speak 'Hindi' by the time of Guru Hargobind.





Not True

Dominating from the beginning? Beginning of what? Time places dates please? What were they dominating? The Politics? The Economics?

Where does Babur talk about this? He talks about a lot of them, and them being dacoits, but not dominating anything. The description he gives is more akin to a Gypsie or transient (not very flattering)

The dominant Jatts (out of Jatts) were Muslim Jatts. Hindu Jatts had no importance at that time. Only Muslim Jatts received patronage. Jatts came into their own much later, after Bandha Bahadhur.

Where is this confirmed in Dabistan e Mazhib? I have never read this. I have read Jatts helped Bandha Bahadhur with supplies., but even Bandha Bahadhurs troops are described as “Untouchables”. I have also read Jatts swelled the numbers of Sikhs after the demise of  Bandha Bahdhur, but never this.

Read this. Some exerpts of Dabistan e Mazhib nd other texts I pasted years ago:

http://www.sikh-history.com/cgi-bin/Ultimate/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=000041



H_Singh said:


> Point 3. I don't agree with Baba Buddha introducing the militancy. So no argument from me.




OK



H_Singh said:


> Point 4. He came from the Khatri's, who often link themselves with the Ksyatria's but there is no real confirmed link between the two. Though the names do sound the same. You have to note that all the Gurus were part of the Khatris. The power shifting between different sub-castes, but ultimately under the umbrella of Khatri.




Guru Gobind Singh ji describing his clan as Kshatriya’s and his Uncle Kirpal as a Kshatriya is enough evidence for me in Dasam Granth in Bachittar Natak. 

There is a link between Kshatria and Khatri. Read Manu Smirti, onto what profession is acceptable for a Kshatriya when he has fallen on hard times. Also in Nepal Kshatriya’s are called Chettri too. A colloquialism, just like Khatri is a colloquialism to Punjab (and surrounding areas). 

One of the main problems for Kshatriya/Khatri at the time of the Guru’s was that they the Khatri’s were looked down upon by their Kshatriya brothers.



H_Singh said:


> Point 5. The Guru may not have been lead by his followers but he had to fulfil the needs of the community at every stage right upto Guru Gobind Singh that meant adapting and shifting the policy of the community, with hightened threats, and pressures consolidating the leadership as well as many other things. For example the Mughal threat, the corrupt masands, the rival sects Ramrai's etc.




This does not mean Jatts introduced militancy does it though?

All this means is that the 6th Master was willing to use the sword and drew on it when the time was needed.


----------



## H_Singh (Jul 31, 2008)

Domination population wise.  Not military or political.

I've already stated the sources, Emperor Babur's "Baburnama" which is a memoir written by himself, the memoir spans much of his life, including his entry into India, during the 1510's - 1520's which is the same time Guru Nanak Dev established Kartarpur in approximately 1520.  The Dabistan-i-Mazahib is dated to the time of Guru Hargobind and the translation I'm sourcing is the "Sikh History from Persian Sources" by J.S. Grewal and Ifran Habib.  I do not know the exact page number as I don't have the book on hand.  Also when Guru Nanak established Kartarpur the surrounding towns were majority Jatt's, I do not have the maps on hand for those either.  

Jatt's by trade were semi-nomadic farmers and labourers, Guru Nanak established a farming community not a trading community at Kartarpur.  The Khatri's were traders, I do not see why they would give up trading for hard labour, it makes no sense.  The Jatt's on the other hand were labourers and were established in the Punjab, per sources i've cited, they were not Hindu either.

I'm putting forward that the Jatts were there from the beginning, not a late entry like McLeod and you yourself have stated.  Looking at the geography of Punjab and the historical population demographics kept in the Mughal records you can see this.  

You are not wrong saying Jatts backed Banda Bahadur, because by that time the Jatts were dominant within the Sikh community and were leaders of the community.  But the majority Jatt's coming in at the time of Banda Bahadur I don't agree with.

I have a question, in using the Dasam Granth do we take the entire Granth as the word of Guru Gobind Singh or just parts?


----------



## Randip Singh (Aug 1, 2008)

H_Singh said:


> Domination population wise. Not military or political.





H_Singh said:


> I've already stated the sources, Emperor Babur's "Baburnama" which is a memoir written by himself, the memoir spans much of his life, including his entry into India, during the 1510's - 1520's which is the same time Guru Nanak Dev established Kartarpur in approximately 1520. The Dabistan-i-Mazahib is dated to the time of Guru Hargobind and the translation I'm sourcing is the "Sikh History from Persian Sources" by J.S. Grewal and Ifran Habib. I do not know the exact page number as I don't have the book on hand. Also when Guru Nanak established Kartarpur the surrounding towns were majority Jatt's, I do not have the maps on hand for those either.




Ok I have the book. 

If you have a look at the link I posted it was from "Sikh History from Persian Sources" by J.S. Grewal and Ifran Habib.

It does not state any dominance of Jatts in Sikhism at all. If anything Sikhs are described under Bandha Bahadhur as that 

Pg 143 - Follower of The Bandha

_A large number of persons belonging to the class of sweepers and tanners, and the community of banjaras and other base of lowly castes, assembled around him and became his disciple. The persons gace him the title of "Fat'h Shah_" 

And 

*pg 163-2 - Bandha Bahadhurs Followers *

_he (Bandha) in a very short time completed the building of a stone fort of great strength at the foot of the Siwalik Hills near Shahdaura (Sadhaura), of which he had laid the foundations. He made the fort his seat, and sent his officials to administer every city and village far and near.
Strange it was how through God decreed fate, the courage and bravery of the inhabitants of those places had departed. If a lowly sweeper or cobbler (chamar), more impure than whom there is no caste (qaum) in Hindustan, went to attend on that rebel, he would be appointed to govern his own town and would return with an order (sanad) of office of government in his hand. The moment he stepped into the territory, or town, or village, all the gentry and notables went out to recieve him, and after his alightining at his house, stood with folded hands before him. Since that man of low nature would have information about the real condition of all houses, what unprecedented impositions did they not inflict on the better-places persons of that place and what cruelty did they not invent! No Hindu or Muslim could have the power to see, or hear of, such cruelty. He (the official sent by Banda) would demand whatever precious goods were in anyone's house and deposit it in the ill-destined treasury of the Guru. No person could oppose his orders. Such is the power of Almighty that in the twinkling of an eye He can put such a lowly person in authority over a whole world of the high-born in such a manner that so many thousands of persons who had displayed bravery in so many manly contests, became help, became helpless and lost even the courage to speak in front of that single man_

This paragraph states the emergence of Jatts and how they helped these Sikhs:


Pp 671-2
quote: 
​_Although from lower castes of Hindu's countless people like ants and locusts had gathered round him (Bandha) and lost no time in getting killed or coming into battle for his sake, yet they did not harm such Hindu's of high status as Khatri's of the Punjab, who were colluding in the plans and designs of that rebel (Bandha) or the Jats, famous for their bravery, who were supporting and joining the army of that doomed one _

Here  is the composition of Sikhs in 1808:

*An Account of the Sikh 1808 - Imadu's Sa'adat by Saiyad Ghulam Ali Khan Naqavi (completed 1808)

page 214 Chapter 19 - Sikh History From Persian Sources

pp 70-71 Short Account of the Genesis of the Sect of Sikhs in Hindustan*
​_Completely moving away from their path of God-worship, the Sikhs began to devote all their courage to conquest of the country, the pillage of the cities and districts (parganas) and highway robbery. Although in the time of Tegh Bahadhur thay had taken to these ways, there was not then this much of tumult. Finally, now (1808 AD) the whole country of the Punjab up to the Attock River (Indus), and this side up to Multan, and from the banks of the Sutlej to Karnal, outside the Punjab, which (i.e. Karnal) is forty seven Kurohs (kurohs or kos = 2.5 miles) distant from Shahjahanabad (Delhi), all of it, is in the possession of this sect. Their leaders of high dignity are mostly from the lower classes, such as carpenters, shoemakers and Jats. They are the enemy to the hookhah-smoker, but take pot after pot of hemp (bang = Bhang) _


So taking your own source:

Jatts did not disappear all of a sudden when Bandha Bahadhur appeared. There was a gradual shift in power. A recent book I have read (I will cite when I have a chance,  I am at work at the moment states), that there was a paradigm shift in power from Khatri’s amongst the Sikh’s to Jatts after Guru Gobind Singh ji introduced Khandhay dha Pahul. Most twice borns refused to take it (i.e. Khatri’s) for fear of being shunned by brethren. That is why you note there are only a select few Sikh surnames from Khatri’s that are Sikh.

The Jatts embraced this, and after the mass slaughter of Sikh’s in Delhi after the Bandha Bahadhur campaign’s they took up the sword.




H_Singh said:


> Jatt's by trade were semi-nomadic farmers and labourers, Guru Nanak established a farming community not a trading community at Kartarpur. The Khatri's were traders, I do not see why they would give up trading for hard labour, it makes no sense. The Jatt's on the other hand were labourers and were established in the Punjab, per sources i've cited, they were not Hindu either.




This was a deliberate two fingers by Guru Nanak to his twice boorn brethren. One of the professions a Kshatriya must not do is touch a plough. Guru Nanak did this. This shows how enlightened he was, and he iused the food he grew for his Community Kitchen. People would today describe this as some sort of Hippy commune, but Guru Nanak was years ahead of his time.

Khatris would not give up trading because 1 – it is hard labour and 2 – it is below their twice born status.



H_Singh said:


> I'm putting forward that the Jatts were there from the beginning, not a late entry like McLeod and you yourself have stated. Looking at the geography of Punjab and the historical population demographics kept in the Mughal records you can see this.




No

Mcleod says exactly what you are saying i.e. Jatts dominated Sikhi from the 6th Master onwards. They introduced the Martial spirit to Sikhi, and they fought by the Guru’s side. There is no evidence for this. In fact there is contradiction to this. 

Jatts were in Sikhi from the beginning but were very few in number. They were not there in any large shape or form. Sikhi then was dominated by Khatri’s. I urge you to read Varan Bhai Gurdas. It states categorically by caste and name who were the 6th Masters kleading warriors and Sikhs.



H_Singh said:


> You are not wrong saying Jatts backed Banda Bahadur, because by that time the Jatts were dominant within the Sikh community and were leaders of the community. But the majority Jatt's coming in at the time of Banda Bahadur I don't agree with.




Read my quotes above from Sikh History from Persian Sources. Jatts were NOT dominant in the Sikh Community at that time nor were they leaders. The only leader of consequence came much later in the shape of Nawab Kapur Singh Virk.

Bandha Bahadhurs followers are described as, _A large number of persons belonging to the class of sweepers and tanners, and the community of banjaras and other base of lowly castes._ As far as I know, Jatts may have a lower caste status than Khatri’s, but they are in no way a low caste or have ever been.

I think H Singh you are mixing up a time frame of some  200 years from when the Guru’s were around (1469  to 1708) to the following 200 odd years when Jatts dominated Sikhism. You are not the first to do it and won’t be the last.

Jatts had a Golden period in Sikhism, but let us not put the Cart before the horse.



H_Singh said:


> I have a question, in using the Dasam Granth do we take the entire Granth as the word of Guru Gobind Singh or just parts?




Yes.

I am from the school that thinks Dasam Granth ji (definitely parts), must be read in context and in the spirit it is written. It is a valuable source of information, especially in the description of Battles.


----------



## Randip Singh (Aug 1, 2008)

H_Singh said:


> The Jatt's on the other hand were labourers and were established in the Punjab, per sources i've cited, they were not Hindu either.


 

So what religion were non-Muslim Jatts? The Hindali's (who had a Jatt leader/prophet), described themselves as Vashnavite. So I am a bit perplexed.

Please tell me more about the religion.


----------



## H_Singh (Aug 1, 2008)

I do not have the book on hand and cannot recite the portion exactly by memory.  But the Dabistan-i-Mazhib states something along the lines of the Jats being masands, i.e. they were prominent enough to control communities of the Gurus by the time of Guru Hargobind.  The masands are akin to leadership of the community effectively having authority of the Guru bestowed upon them by the Guru.  

The Jatts entered Punjab in the 15th century and began moving from a nomadic role to a farming one.  The Jatts were not alone in there entry as its also included the Gakhars, Gujjars, Kambos etc  

Where Guru Nanak Dev established Kartarpur was an area with a lot of Jats.  I cannot recall the two towns nearby which were Jat majority towns as I'm out of the country and don't have access to the data.




> Pp 671-2





> quote:
> _Although from lower castes of Hindu's countless people like ants and locusts had gathered round him (Bandha) and lost no time in getting killed or coming into battle for his sake, yet they did not harm such Hindu's of high status as Khatri's of the Punjab, who were colluding in the plans and designs of that rebel (Bandha) or the Jats, famous for their bravery, who were supporting and joining the army of that doomed one _



This only states that the people rallying to Banda Singh Bahadur were low castes, it doesn't negate that Jats were there from the beginning or that they were in the majority from the beginning.  

Guru Nanak may have chosen to reject the Khatri caste but I do not believe the Khatris would have left there caste in numerous numbers.  I have not seen evidence to conclude that.  In rejecting there caste and Hinduism wouldn't the Khatris have suffered the same ridicule from the Brahmans and others?  Khande di Pahul would have made little difference in that case.  Unless you're saying that Sikhism was accepted by the Hindu fold and khande di pahul was not acceptable?

McLeod states that the Jatts came at the time of the 6th Guru, I contend they were there from the first Guru and they were majority from then.  From the beginning.  

Bhai Gurdas's Varan contains the names of every member in the Sikh community?  As I recall it only contained 100 names.  To use that and say the majority of the community was Khatri doesn't sound right to me.  In the Dabistan-i-Mazhib it states that Guru Hargobind had a large standing cavalry which was more numerous than 100 people and referring back to the start, the Jatts also made up the majority of the masands.

Many dismiss the Jats as a later entry, when evidence from records lends to the notion that the Jats were the majority from the beginning.  Based on location of Kartarpur (and towns located near it), Baburnama, and exerpts from the Dabistan-i-Mazahib.


----------



## H_Singh (Aug 1, 2008)

randip singh said:


> So what religion were non-Muslim Jatts? The Hindali's (who had a Jatt leader/prophet), described themselves as Vashnavite. So I am a bit perplexed.
> 
> Please tell me more about the religion.



Some Jatts may have adopted the surrounding religions but during the establishment of Kartarpur they were a relatively new arrival into Punjab and had yet to be converted, not to say some weren't converted but the majority weren't.  This again is confirmed by the Dabistan-i-Mazahib which states that the Jats were non-Vedic speaking, by the time of Guru Hargobind. In saying that converting from Muslim-Jatt to Sikh would have ment the imposing of Jizya and other taxes on the person, which would make no sense.  

The revenues drawn by the Muslim rulers was not majority from other Muslims but rather non-Muslims, through Jizya and other forms of tax, to have a converted population would lead to a decrease in income for the leadership of the Mugals.  To have a converted population would again make no sense.  This in confirmed in British data which states that Muslims only made up 25% of the entire population at its peak in the 1800's, leading to the conclusion that mass conversion was not prevalent.

As to what religion the Jats were, I do not have that information with me.


----------



## dalsingh (Aug 1, 2008)

H Singh

Regarding Jatt conversions to Sikhism: The following is a break up of the Jat population from a 1925 census in India, notice that it is pre-partition.

Religion      Jat Population %   
Hinduism     47%   
Sikhism       2o%   
Islam          33%

What we can notice is that almost half of Jats remain Hindu and a significant portion Muslim. Sikhism has the smallest proportion. It is a valid question to ask if this percentage is actually smaller now due to the deaths from WW2, partition and the 1984 onwards in which large numbers perished.


The relationship between Jats and Sikhism is more complex then it might seem on the surface. I don't agree with your analysis that Jats were numerically dominant from Guru Nanak's time. There is nothing to support this other then conjecture. Even anecdotal information point at followers coming from diverse backgrounds. Remember Guru Nanak travelled for long periods out of the Panjab too.


I am however inclined to disagree with Randip on the make up of the panth during Guru Arjan Dev's time. I think at this time Jats had formed a significant portion of the panth as indicated in Dabistan. This is not to say they wee numerically dominant but that their representation was significant. However I don't agree that they were responsible for the miltarisation of the panth and an entry in Dabistan from a "Sikh covert" of convenience gives a very insulting account of Jats as {censored}s. However I believe it was about this time that Jats got their first taste of leadership in the panth as masands (ironically this very institute was outlawed later by Guru Gobind Singh due to corruption). 

In my opinion the relationship between Jats and Sikhism has always been fluid . Ganda Singh, in  a book written with Teja Singh called A Short History of Sikhs, mentions Jats of a certain area having turned against Guru Gobind Singh. 

Madra and Singh's "Siques, Tigers or Thieves"  give a rarely used account  of a battle between the Khalsa and Jat forces in about 1770 given by Francis Xavier Wendel. 

So the position seems to be that Jats who converted to Sikhs had to fight their own Jat brethren under the flag of the Khalsa. 

I agree with Randip's assertion that a surge of Jatt converts entered the fold under Banda Singh . I think some of these differed from religious converts in that they saw in Banda's rebellion an opportunity to strike back at an oppressive government and this motivated their conversion rather than deeply felt faith. 

In a modern context, Jats within Sikhi themselves seem to have become torn between pro-Indian government Jats (i.e. KPS Gill, General Brar and the bulk of Punjab Police) and those who had a more anti establishment perspective (i.e. Kharkoos).


About the Dasam Granth Question: I think parts are by Dasmesh Pita and  others not.  It is entirely likely that he sanctioned all of the contents and that some are simply translations of Hindu mythology and other literature by the famous 52 bards. See if I get excommunicated for these comments!


----------



## Randip Singh (Aug 4, 2008)

H_Singh said:


> I do not have the book on hand and cannot recite the portion exactly by memory. But the Dabistan-i-Mazhib states something along the lines of the Jats being masands, i.e. they were prominent enough to control communities of the Gurus by the time of Guru Hargobind. The masands are akin to leadership of the community effectively having authority of the Guru bestowed upon them by the Guru.


 
All masands were in effect were revenue collectors, and these Masands came from many different castes. There is NO doubt that at the time of the 6th Guru there were some Jatts within the Sikh fold, but they were not a majority. The Golden era of Jatts and Sikhi came later after the demise of the 10th Master and the demise of Bandha Bahadhur. It was the Jatts who carried the Sikh torch.



H_Singh said:


> The Jatts entered Punjab in the 15th century and began moving from a nomadic role to a farming one. The Jatts were not alone in there entry as its also included the Gakhars, Gujjars, Kambos etc




I am not sure so I cannot comment. I here all sorts of stories from from relatives on how they came to be in Punjab. One claimed that their family was decented from Siva’s locks (Jatta) but I digress.



H_Singh said:


> Where Guru Nanak Dev established Kartarpur was an area with a lot of Jats. I cannot recall the two towns nearby which were Jat majority towns as I'm out of the country and don't have access to the data.




There were a lot of Jatts in the vicinity, no doubt about that, but what I am stating is that the time frame for entry into Sikhi for Jatts en masse was later than Mcleod stated.



H_Singh said:


> This only states that the people rallying to Banda Singh Bahadur were low castes, it doesn't negate that Jats were there from the beginning or that they were in the majority from the beginning.




Let us take all my quotes:

*Pg 143 - Follower of The Bandha*

_A large number of persons belonging to the class of sweepers and tanners, and the community of banjaras and other base of lowly castes, assembled around him and became his disciple. The persons gave him the title of "Fat'h Shah_"

This states that that the followers of Bandha were banjaras and low castes. So if the Jatts had been around en-masse in Sikhi since the 6th Master they would have been mentioned here. They are not.

*pg 163-2 - Bandha Bahadhurs Followers *

_he (Bandha) in a very short time completed the building of a stone fort of great strength at the foot of the Siwalik Hills near Shahdaura (Sadhaura), of which he had laid the foundations. He made the fort his seat, and sent his officials to administer every city and village far and near.
Strange it was how through God decreed fate, the courage and bravery of the inhabitants of those places had departed. If a lowly sweeper or cobbler (chamar), more impure than whom there is no caste (qaum) in Hindustan, went to attend on that rebel, he would be appointed to govern his own town and would return with an order (sanad) of office of government in his hand. The moment he stepped into the territory, or town, or village, all the gentry and notables went out to receive him, and after his alightining at his house, stood with folded hands before him. Since that man of low nature would have information about the real condition of all houses, what unprecedented impositions did they not inflict on the better-places persons of that place and what cruelty did they not invent! No Hindu or Muslim could have the power to see, or hear of, such cruelty. He (the official sent by Banda) would demand whatever precious goods were in anyone's house and deposit it in the ill-destined treasury of the Guru. No person could oppose his orders. Such is the power of Almighty that in the twinkling of an eye He can put such a lowly person in authority over a whole world of the high-born in such a manner that so many thousands of persons who had displayed bravery in so many manly contests, became help, became helpless and lost even the courage to speak in front of that single man_

_Here the author states that Bandha’s administrators were Chamars. If the Jatts were already in Sikhi en-masse the author would have stated Bandha has appointed Jatts. He does not._

*Pp 671-2*

_Although from lower castes of Hindu's countless people like ants and locusts had gathered round him (Bandha) and lost no time in getting killed or coming into battle for his sake, yet they did not harm such Hindu's of high status as Khatri's of the Punjab, who were colluding in the plans and designs of that rebel (Bandha) or the Jats, famous for their bravery, who were supporting and joining the army of that doomed one_

_Look at the time frame now. Jatts start joining Bandha. The author would have stated that the Jatts were leading and key not colluding and joining._

_See my point? What I am saying is that if Jatts were there en-masse from the start by the time of Bandha Bahadhur they would be mentioned as being with Bandha en-masse. They are not._




H_Singh said:


> Guru Nanak may have chosen to reject the Khatri caste but I do not believe the Khatris would have left there caste in numerous numbers. I have not seen evidence to conclude that. In rejecting there caste and Hinduism wouldn't the Khatris have suffered the same ridicule from the Brahmans and others? Khande di Pahul would have made little difference in that case. Unless you're saying that Sikhism was accepted by the Hindu fold and khande di pahul was not acceptable?




You are missing the point. Up until Khandhay dha Pahul, Sikhism was seen by Hindu’s and Hinduism (albeit a sect), when they saw that Khandhay dha Pahul was actually creating a different faith and terms such as “brotherhood” were being used it was unacceptable. Ok, it may have been acceptable and sit next to a low caste in a communual kitchen, but sharing Amrit from the same bowl was too much. So when analysing this point, we must keep things in historical context.




H_Singh said:


> McLeod states that the Jatts came at the time of the 6th Guru, I contend they were there from the first Guru and they were majority from then. From the beginning.




They were there in small numbers. There is NO evidence to state they were there en masse.

Evidence that contradicts this is:

Sikh History From Persian Sources
Varan Bhai Gurdas
Jagjit Singh - http://www.globalsikhstudies.net Jagjit Singh*. The **Jats** and **Sikh militarization*



H_Singh said:


> Bhai Gurdas's Varan contains the names of every member in the Sikh community? As I recall it only contained 100 names. To use that and say the majority of the community was Khatri doesn't sound right to me. In the Dabistan-i-Mazhib it states that Guru Hargobind had a large standing cavalry which was more numerous than 100 people and referring back to the start, the Jatts also made up the majority of the masands.




The Masand point is erroneous and irrelevant. Jatts made up one portion of the masands. Masands were from many different castes. Many were Khatri’s whom tried to revert back to Hinduism, hence their abolition by the 10th Master.

100 names of leading SIKH’s. You cannot just dismiss this document my friend. This recalls the names of people of importance at that time. If Jatts were a majority they would have been mentioned. They are not.



H_Singh said:


> Many dismiss the Jats as a later entry, when evidence from records lends to the notion that the Jats were the majority from the beginning. Based on location of Kartarpur (and towns located near it), Baburnama, and exerpts from the Dabistan-i-Mazahib.




Dabistan e Mazhib actually does not confirm that Jatts were in a majority in Sikhism. If you speak to any of my relatives they would make people belive that Jatts started Sikhism, and when I present the facts they get a bit upset.

Just because Jatts were surrounding an area, does not mean they took to the religion. Jesus started Christianity with a few Jews in Jerusalem, and was surrounded by Jews, yet most Christian did not come from the Jews. So one point does not follow the other.

Baburnama does not make any comments on Sikhs.

Jatts may have been a majority in the area, but their entry into Sikhi en masse was around the 18th and 19th Century:

*An Account of the Sikh 1808 - Imadu's Sa'adat by Saiyad Ghulam Ali Khan Naqavi (completed 1808)

page 214 Chapter 19 - Sikh History From Persian Sources

pp 70-71 Short Account of the Genesis of the Sect of Sikhs in Hindustan*
_Completely moving away from their path of God-worship, the Sikhs began to devote all their courage to conquest of the country, the pillage of the cities and districts (parganas) and highway robbery. Although in the time of Tegh Bahadhur thay had taken to these ways, there was not then this much of tumult. Finally, now (1808 AD) the whole country of the Punjab up to the Attock River (Indus), and this side up to Multan, and from the banks of the Sutlej to Karnal, outside the Punjab, which (i.e. Karnal) is forty seven Kurohs (kurohs or kos = 2.5 miles) distant from Shahjahanabad (Delhi), all of it, is in the possession of this sect. Their leaders of high dignity are mostly from the lower classes, such as carpenters, shoemakers and Jats. They are the enemy to the hookhah-smoker, but take pot after pot of hemp (bang = Bhang)_















Here is the composition of Sikhs in 1808:

*An Account of the Sikh 1808 - Imadu's Sa'adat by Saiyad Ghulam Ali Khan Naqavi (completed 1808)

page 214 Chapter 19 - Sikh History From Persian Sources

pp 70-71 Short Account of the Genesis of the Sect of Sikhs in Hindustan*
_Completely moving away from their path of God-worship, the Sikhs began to devote all their courage to conquest of the country, the pillage of the cities and districts (parganas) and highway robbery. Although in the time of Tegh Bahadhur thay had taken to these ways, there was not then this much of tumult. Finally, now (1808 AD) the whole country of the Punjab up to the Attock River (Indus), and this side up to Multan, and from the banks of the Sutlej to Karnal, outside the Punjab, which (i.e. Karnal) is forty seven Kurohs (kurohs or kos = 2.5 miles) distant from Shahjahanabad (Delhi), all of it, is in the possession of this sect. Their leaders of high dignity are mostly from the lower classes, such as carpenters, shoemakers and Jats. They are the enemy to the hookhah-smoker, but take pot after pot of hemp (bang = Bhang)_


----------



## Randip Singh (Aug 4, 2008)

dalsingh said:


> H Singh
> 
> Regarding Jatt conversions to Sikhism: The following is a break up of the Jat population from a 1925 census in India, notice that it is pre-partition.
> 
> ...


 

Hi,

I think the point I am trying to make is that to climb a high mountain it takes a man a bit of time and he has to stop to acclimatise.

With Jatts and Sikhi this was the case. It took them time to acclimatise to Sikhi, first a few, then more, and by the death of Bandha the Jatts were fully acclimatised and saw no difference between their Jatt identity and Sikh identity.

One has to put history into persepective. 

You are correct about Dabistan and its rather annoying and insulting portrayal of jatts. Something I had to take in deep breaths when reading. However, in order to win the battle one must study the enemy. The writers of Dabistan certainly were no friends of Sikhs.


----------



## dalsingh (Aug 4, 2008)

> Hi,
> 
> I think the point I am trying to make is that to climb a high mountain it takes a man a bit of time and he has to stop to acclimatise.
> 
> ...



Hi Randip

I disagree, I think the person who wrote Dabistan was a very open minded and scholarly person. The views we are talking about weren't his own but that of a contemporary. 

Regarding Jatt/Sikh identity. I think they are at crossroads in many parts of the west. The ideology of caste discrimination and racial superiority which underpins much of "Sikh" Jatt culture, is becoming increasingly unacceptable and undefendable. There are die hards of course, but I just wonder how long this thing will last in an environment where such views are viewed with disdain? In Panjab itself, if the discrimination continues to its logical conclusion, then the ground is likely to be set for some serious movement like the civil rights one in America, one day. I think it is all Sikhs job to condemn this ****. 

YouTube - Bant Singh can still sing

YouTube - OUTCASTE


----------



## pk70 (Aug 4, 2008)

*Very good debate and very informatory, I applaud all members to participate in it without losing cool. History is always fascinating and it inspires to dig down from a lot of cover up.*


----------



## Randip Singh (Aug 5, 2008)

dalsingh said:


> Hi Randip
> 
> I disagree, I think the person who wrote Dabistan was a very open minded and scholarly person. The views we are talking about weren't his own but that of a contemporary.



Sorry, I meant in "Sikh History from Persian" sources there is some degrading stuff said about Jatts. Not nice. You are right it was not part of Dabistan




dalsingh said:


> Regarding Jatt/Sikh identity. I think they are at crossroads in many parts of the west. The ideology of caste discrimination and racial superiority which underpins much of "Sikh" Jatt culture, is becoming increasingly unacceptable and undefendable. There are die hards of course, but I just wonder how long this thing will last in an environment where such views are viewed with disdain? In Panjab itself, if the discrimination continues to its logical conclusion, then the ground is likely to be set for some serious movement like the civil rights one in America, one day. I think it is all Sikhs job to condemn this ****.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxSdru59NVshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tglRANwmtfQ



From my understanding in History of Sikhs....Sikhism has gone through many schisms........

Example......even in the zenith of Jatt Sikh power, the two many people that held the power within Sikhi were the two Jassa Singh's (a Kalal and a Carpenter), YET who emerged victorious, a person in the shadows in the form of Maaharaja Ranjit Singh of Jatt heritage (I know some argue he was not Jatt, because of the Sansi connection).

Under Bandha, Bajaras and Dalits formed the backbone with Jatts joining up fast.......however, the followers (Banjaras and Dalits especially), were murdered en masse with entire families and generations being obliterated, yet still they had the die hard spirit, like that Dalit you showed in the film had. Remarkable.

In the Gullighara's, no one suffered more than Jatt clans, that were completely obliterated and wiped out.........yet they emerged stronger and victorious. The never say die spirit.

Truly amazing.


----------



## dalsingh (Aug 5, 2008)

I concur. However I feel that as a community we do not  do enough to combat casteism . We need to start addressing it.


----------



## Randip Singh (Aug 8, 2008)

dalsingh said:


> I concur. However I feel that as a community we do not do enough to combat casteism . We need to start addressing it.


 

I agree, castism is a masive problem. People blame the Jats, but it is equally prevalent in other groups.

Here is some further reading from the writing od Jagjit Singh:

http://www.globalsikhstudies.net/pdf/Sikh_Revolution.pdf

He diseminates Mcleod throughout and on the topic we discussed here 263 onwards on Militerisation.


----------



## dalsingh (Aug 8, 2008)

randip singh said:


> I agree, castism is a masive problem. People blame the Jats, but it is equally prevalent in other groups.
> 
> Here is some further reading from the writing od Jagjit Singh:
> 
> ...



Thanks for the link. 

I don't know about your point though. By far, the most casteist SIkhs I have met have been Jats but maybe I am meeting an unrepresentative section?


----------



## Randip Singh (Aug 11, 2008)

dalsingh said:


> Thanks for the link.
> 
> I don't know about your point though. By far, the most casteist SIkhs I have met have been Jats but maybe I am meeting an unrepresentative section?


 
I think you are....they are probably the loudest about it, but I have met other groups such as Ramgarhia, Khatri, Labhana, Bhatra etc who are quiet about it, but quietly zelouse in their enforcement of caste. They are more subtle and sinister IMHO (I hope I don't offend anyone).....my family are pretty mixed with Jatts and other groups  such and Ramgarhia, Khatri, Rajpoot etc.


----------

