Annual Vaisakhi Gala and Honouring W. H. McLeod

ਸਿੰਘ ਸਭਾ ਇੰਟਰਨੈਸ਼ਨਲ

6th April, 2007.

Parminder Singh, Chairperson
Centennial Foundation
Gala Festivities
Toronto, Ont.

Dear Sir,

Sub: Annual Vaisakhi Gala and honouring W. H. McLeod

We have come to know of the Gala Celebration taking place in Toronto and have read the objectives of your Foundation. One of the most interesting objectives of the Foundation is “creating and fostering a positive and accurate portrayal of Sikhs”.

While we appreciate your efforts in promoting such a cause under the above objectives, we fail to understand how inviting and honouring Dr. W. H. McLeod would promote such an objective. In addition, the statement: “Dr. W. H. McLeod is responsible for modernising Sikh history and putting it on a more scientific footing.” is very contradictory to what McLeod is engaged in Sikh faith, founded by Guru Nanak Dev and its doctrines as introduced and practiced by the great Gurus are based on truth and truthful living. Dr McLeod, commences Chapter II of his book The Sikhs, (1989, Columbia University Press) with the following statement, on p. 16: "Sikhism, we are often told, is a sect of Hinduism. Guru Nanak, born a Hindu, he remained one until the day he died, and so too did his successors." He continues his tirade against the Sikh religion and its doctrines, examples of which are attached herewith.

All we know is that Dr. McLeod has written persistently against the doctrines of Sikh religion without giving any concrete proofs. Dr McLeod admits that his assertions are mere conjectures but when confronted does not retract his writings against the Sikh religion.

In addition, we also know that the research scholars most of whom have received Ph.D. degrees under Dr McLeod’s guidance have further developed on his conjectures and have in some cases committed blasphemy. Names of some of these scholars are Dr. Harjot Oberoi, Dr. Pashaura Singh, Dr. Gurinder Singh Mann, Dr Fenech, Dr Jeevan Singh Deol, Dr.Doris Jakobsh (students of Dr Oberoi)...

We firmly believe and their work prove that these people are spiritually blind, intellectually corrupt, highly conceited writers and scholars who have described Sikhs and Sikhism in a manner, no ordinary person with even a rudimentary intellectual honesty and historical insight can ever comprehend or describe.

We have listed some samples of Dr McLeods’ writings as well as of some scholars who became prisoners of his paradigms to get their Ph. D. degrees and who have sold their souls in return for dollars.

We sincerely believe that you will care to read at least the samples of their writings against Sikhism and also against our revered Gurus and Bhagats and would in future make informed decisions as to who you are inviting and honouring.

As followers of great Gurus, please read this carefully, seek guidance from Guru Granth Sahib and your inner self and come home with the Guru where you belong.

You can read detailed reviews of their works by Dr Bhagat Singh, Dr Baldev Singh, Dr S. S. Sodhi, Dr Jasbir Singh Mann, Dr Balwant Singh Dhillon, Dr Kharak Singh, Dr Darshan Singh, Dr Gurdarshan Singh Dhillon, and so on, the list goes on.

Sincerely,

Singh Sabha Canada International Brampton
President

SAMPLES

1. Mcleod was not given employment by Toronto university and his contract was cancelled for his misrepresentation of Sikhism by Toronto university in 1993. Now centennial foundation is honoring him after 14 years of his departure from Toronto. Why? Click on at link below and read letter of David cook Provost Toronto UNI canceling his appointment on page 312-313. http://www.globalsikhstudies.net/pdf/planned%20attack.pdf
2. Mcleod’s research work and response by sikh scholars: Click on following link to read the opinion of Sikh Scholar,s on Mcleod,s work and his student Pasaura Singh research at Toronto university.
   1. Dr Mcleod's research at glance http://www.globalsikhstudies.net/r_link/mcleod.htm
   2. Pashaura Singh's research at glance http://www.globalsikhstudies.net/r_link/pashaura.htm
3. Mcleod takes the plea that he is an atheist and has left Christian church but see the evidence below that he is still a member of Presbyterian church. http://www.archives.presbyterian.org.nz/Page181.htm
   Register of New Zealand
   Presbyterian Church Ministers,
   Deaconesses & Missionaries from 1840
   McLeod to McWilliam
   McLEOD, Rev William Hewat (Hew) (EmeritusProfessor) M.A.(Hons), Ph.D.(London), b Feilding
   w Margaret Ruth Wylie b Invercargill m 14.5.1955
   -Educated at Nelson College (winning a University National Scholarship) then to Otago Universitywhere he gained his M.A with Honours. Theological Hall Dunedin 1955-57
   -Licensed 12 Dec 1957.
   -Appointed to succeed Dr Ryburn in India 1957; took special training in printing, accounting etc.
   -Ordained and set apart for Overseas Missionary work 3.12.1957, left for India by sea 14.4.1958 “Own Worker” of the Bible Class Movement Kharar India 1958, Manager of the Mashaâ Press then engaged in special research on Sikhism
   -To United Kingdon in July 1963 for 2 years to study Sikhism at the London School of Oriental and African Studies.
   -Returned to India 6.1965
   -Institute of Sikhism, Batala 1966 resigned mid 1969 to return to NZ, and take up Smuts Fellowshipat Cambridge University England.
   -Resigned 30.9.1969 and withdrew
   -Professor of History at Otago University.
   -Convener of Presb. Church of Aotearoa NZ Historical Records Committee 1998 to 2000.
   -Member PCANZ Historical Records Reference Group from 2000 http://www.archives.presbyterian.org.nz/Page181.htm

Dr W. H. McLeod with insidious persistence has erroneously presented the Sikhs to the world as a sect of Hinduism. McLeod's thesis revolves around the following main points

1. "It is misleading to call Guru Nanak the founder of Sikh religion, as he did not originate a new school of thought or set of teachings...
2. Guru Nanak established a Panth as sect of Hindusim and not a new religion.
3. "The ten Gurus never preached one set of religious doctrines or system..."
4. "The arming of the Panth could not have been the result of any decision by Guru Hargobind, but because of Jat influx in the Sikh fold..."
5. "The traditional account about the founding of the Khalsa on the Vaisakhi day of the year 1699, (A.D.) cannot be accepted, as there are `compulsive reasons for skepticism', and `the traditions relating to the period of Guru Gobind Singh must be, in some considerable measure, set aside..."
6. "The Sikh code of discipline, Rahit Maryada, and Sikh symbols were evolved during the eighteenth century as a result of gradual growth, though the tradition declares they were definitely settled by a pronouncement of Guru Gobind Singh and were a part of the Vaisakhi day proceedings in 1699 (A.D.)."
7. "Though the Gurus denounced the caste system and preached against it, yet they did not seem sincere or serious in removing caste difference."
8. "The succession of Guru Granth Sahib as Guru of the Sikhs, ending the line of living Gurus on the death of Guru Gobind Singh, was not because of an injunction of Guru Gobind Singh himself, but was a subsequent adaptation by the Sikhs, who were fighting for their existence, to meet the needs of the Panth for cohesion."
9. "The authenticity of the current version of Guru Granth Sahib which is widely accepted and revered by the Sikhs, is open to question, since there are three manuscripts (birs) available which are not entirely identical."

Dr. Harjot Oberoi in his book” The Construction of Religious Boundaries: Culture, Identity and Diversity in the Sikh Tradition “ writes about Sikhs and Sikhism: A pseudo-synthetic historiography comforts contemporary practitioners of the (Sikh) faith that their present vision of the world and their religious practices simply continue all that was enunciated and established by the founders of the Sikh tradition….I argue for the series of highly complex ruptures, rapprochements and transitions which eventually resulted in what we recognize as the modern Sikh community” (p. 47)

ਭਾਵ ਕਿ ਇੱਕ ਡੳਕੲ ਜਾਂ ਬਨਾਉਟੀ ਬਣਾਈ ਇਤਹਾਸਕ ਕਹਾਣੀ ਅੱਜ ਦੇ ਸਿੱਖੀ ਨੂੰ ਮੰਨਣ ਵਾਲਿਆਂ ਨੂੰ ਇਹ ਧਰਵਾਂਸ ਦੇਂਦੀ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਦੁਨੀਆਂ ਦੀ ਨਜ਼ਰਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਅਜੋਕੀਆਂ ਧਾਰਮਿਕ ਰੀਤਾਂ ਉਸੇ ਤਰਾਂ ਚਲ ਰਹੀਆਂ ਹਨ ਜਿਵੇਂ ਕਿ ਧਰਮ ਦੇ ਮੋਢੀਆਂ ਨੇ ਚਲਾਈਆਂ ਸਨ... ਪਰ ਮੈਂ ਇਹਨਾਂ ਗਲਾਂ ਦਾ ਤਰਕ ਕਰਦਾ ਹਾਂ ਇਹ ਜਾਣਦਿਆਂ ਕਿ ਕਈ ਕੁੱਝ ਬਦਲਿਆ ਅਤੇ ਕਈ ਉਥੱਲ ਪਥੱਲ ਹੋਣ ਪਿਛੋਂ ਦੇਖਣ ਵਿੱਚ ਆ ਰਿਹਾ ਅਜੋਕਾ ਸਿੱਖ ਧਰਮ ਕਾਇਮ ਹੋਇਆ ਹੈ।

ਨੋਟ: ਹਰਜੋਤ ਉਬਰਾਏ ਦੇ ਵਿਚਾਰਾਂ ਅਨੁਸਾਰ ਅਜੋਕੇ ਸਿੱਖ ਧਰਮ ਦੀ ਘਾੜਤ ਸਿੰਘ ਸਭ੍ਹਾ ਦੇ ਮੋਢੀਆਂ ਨੇ ਸੁਰੂ ਕੀਤੀ ਸੀ ਨਾ ਕਿ ਗੁਰੂ ਸਾਹਿਬਾਨ ਨੇ।

That just as there is no fixed Guru Nanak in the Janam Sakhis there is no fixed Sikh identity in the early Sikh period” (p. 56).

ਭਾਵ: ਜਿਵੇਂ ਜਨਮ ਸਾਖੀਆ ਵਿਚਲਾ ਗੁਰੂ ਨਾਨਕ ਦੇਖਣ ਨੂੰ ਇਕ ਨਹੀ (ਬਨਾਉਟੀ ਅਤੇ ਬਦਲਦਾ ਹੋਇਆ) ਨਜ਼ਰ ਆਉਂਦਾ ਹੈ ਇਸੇ ਤਰਾਂ ਹੀ ਸਿੱਖਾਂ ਦੇ ਸਮੇਂ ਸਿੱਖਾਂ ਦੀ ਪਹਿਚਾਨ ਵੀ ਇੱਕ ਨਹੀਂ, ਸਗੋਂ ਬਦਲਦੀ ਰਹੀ ਹੈ।

ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਨੋਟ (1): ਇਥੇ ਇਹ ਵੀ ਦਸਣਾ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਮੈਕਲਾਊਡ ਨੇ ਗੁਰੂ ਨਾਨਕ ਦੇ ਮਿਸ਼ਨ ਦੀ ਅਤੇ ਗੁਰੂ ਨਾਨਕ ਦੀ ਤਸਵੀਰ ਜਨਮ ਸਾਖੀਆਂ ਤੋਂ ਆਪਣੇ ਮਨ ਵਿੱਚ ਬਨਾਈ ਹੈ ਅਤੇ ਉਸ ਦੇ ਸਾਰੇ ਚੇਲੇ ਭਾਵ ਵਿਦਿਆਰਥੀ ਵੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਨਾਨਕ ਨੂੰ ਇੱਕ ਬਨਾਉਟੀ ਭਾਵ ਇੱਕ ਖਿਆਲੀ ਜਿਹਾ ਪਾਤਰ ਬਨਾਇਆ ਸਮਝਦੇ ਹਨ।

ਨੋਟ (2): ਪਹਿਲਾ ਕਿ ਜਨਮ ਸਾਖੀਆਂ ਇਤਹਾਸ ਨਹੀ, ਸਿਰਫ ਬਾਤਾਂ ਜਾਂ ਕਹਾਣੀਆਂ ਹਨ॥ਂ ਸਾਨੂੰ ਸਭ੍ਹ ਨੂੰ ਪਤਾ ਹੋਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਜਨਮ ਸਾਖੀਆਂ ਪਹਿਲਾਂ ਤਾਂ ਕੁਝ ਸ਼ਰਧਾਲੂਆਂ ਨੇ ਆਪਣੇ ਮਨ ਦੇ ਵਿਚਾਰਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਸ਼ਰਧਾ ਨੂੰ ਪਰਗਟ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਕਈ ਵਧ ਘਟ ਮਸਾਲੇ ਲਾ ਕੇ ਲਿਖੀਆਂ ਹੋਣਗੀਆਂ ਅਤੇ ਦੂਜਾ ਉਹਨਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਮਿਲਾਵਟ ਪਾਣ ਵਾਲਿਆ ਨੇ ਉਹਨਾਂ ਕਹਾਣੀਆਂ ਨੂੰ ਕਈ ਹੋਰ ਮਸਾਲੇ ਲਾ ਕੇ ਵਧਾ ਚ੍ਹੜਾ ਕੇ ਇਵੇਂ ਲਿਖਿਆ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਬਹੁਤੀਆਂ ਗਲਾਂ ਉਤੇ ਅੱਜ ਦਾ ਪੜ੍ਹਨ ਵਾਲਾ ਯਕੀਨ ਨਹੀਂ ਕਰ ਸਕਦਾ। ਇਸ ਲਈ ਗੁਰੂ ਨਾਨਕ ਦੇਵ ਜੀ ਦੀ ਹਸਤੀ ਨੂੰ ਜਨਮ ਸਾਖੀਆਂ ਉਤੇ ਆਧਾਰਤ ਕਰਨਾ ਅਤੇ ਉਸ ਆਧਾਰ ਉੱਤ ਖੋਜ ਕਰਨੀ ਅਤੇ ਨਤੀਜੇ ਕਢਣੇ ਬੜੀ ਵੱਡੀ ਭੁੱਲ ਹੈ।

The author Oberoi perversely observes that, “its (Adi Granth’s) heterodox texuality and diverse contributors were far more the manifestation of a fluid Sikh identity than a signifier of exclusivity” (p. 55).

ਭਾਵ: ਗੁਰੂ ਗਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਵਿਚਲੇ ਆਪ ਵਿਰੋਧੀ ਲਿਖਤਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਕਈ ਵਖਰੇ ਵਖਰੇ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਦੇ ਵਿਚਾਰ ਸਿੱਖੀ ਦੀ ਬਦਲਦੀ ਹੋਈ ਪਛਾਣ ਦਾ ਪਰਗਟਾਵਾ ਹਨ।

Dr Oberoi argues that, “although in the present state of research it is hard to specify the factors that prompted the fifth Guru of the Sikhs to collate an anthology of devotional literature (The Adi Granth) it is easier to discuss its impact” (p. 49).

ਭਾਵ: ਅੱਜੋਕੀ ਖੋਜ ਦੇ ਸਮੇਂ ਇਹ ਦਸਣਾ ਮੁਸ਼ਕਲ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਪੰਜਵੇਂ ਗੁਰੂ ਅਰਜਨ ਦੇਵ ਨੇ ਬੀੜ ਕਿਉਂ ਤਿਆਰ ਕੀਤੀ, ਪਰ ਇਸ ਦਾ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਵ ਦਸਣਾ ਸੌਖਾ ਹੈ।

Author Oberoi continuing his tirade against the sacred scripture of the Sikhs writes, “While propagandists of modern Sikhism see in the collation of the Adi Granth in 1603-04 under Guru Arjan a powerful public declaration of the separation of the Sikh Panth from other religious traditions, historically it is difficult to admit such an interpretation” (p. 54).

ਅਜੋਕੇ ਸਿੱਖ ਧਰਮ ਦਾ ਪਰਾਪੇਗੰਡਾ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਲੇ ਗੁਰੂ ਅਰਜਨ ਦੇਵ ਜੀ ਦੀ ਦੇਖ ਭਾਲ ਹੇਠ ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਦੀ ਬੀੜ ਨੂੰ ਤਿਆਰ ਕਰਨ ਨੂੰ ਬੜਾ ਉੱਚ ਪਧਰਾ ਬਿਆਨ ਕਰਦਿਆਂ ਦਸਦੇ ਹਨ ਕਿ ਸਿੱਖੀ ਦਾ ਮਾਰਗ ਹੋਰ ਧਰਮਾਂ ਦੀਆਂ ਰੀਤਾਂ ਨਾਲੋਂ ਵੱਖਰਾ ਹੈ । ਪਰ ਇਤਹਾਸਕ ਤੌਰ ਉਤੇ ਇਸ ਗਲ ਨੂੰ ਮੰਨਣਾ ਬੜਾ ਮੁਸ਼ਕਲ ਹੈ।

Oberoi talks of numerous gutkas and pothis (p. 54) prevalent in medieval India.

ਉਬਰਾਏ ਕਹਿੰਦਾ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਪਰਾਚੀਨ ਭਾਰਤ ਵਿੱਚ ਕਈ ਗੁਟਕੇ ਪੋਥੀਆਂ ਅਤੇ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਨ, (ਭਾਵ ਕਿ ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਕੋਈ ਨਵੀਂ ਪੋਥੀ, ਗੁਟਕਾ ਜਾਂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਨਹੀ ਸੀ)।

Oberoi writes that while “the Adi Granth has become a key cultural marker of Sikh ethnicity, it would be a gross misinterpretation to view it in the same vein for the early seventeenth century (p.55).

ਉਬਰਾਏ ਲਿਖਦਾ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਭਾਵੇਂ ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਅੱਜਕਲ ਦੇ ਸਮੇਂ ਇੱਕ ਸਿੱਖ ਸਮਾਜ ਦੀ ਇੱਕ ਉੱਚੀ ਨਿਸ਼ਾਨੀ ਜਾਂ ਇੱਕ ਮੁਨਾਰਾ ਬਣ ਗਿਆ ਹੈ ਪਰ ਇਸ ਤਰਾਂ ਯਕੀਨ ਕਰਨਾ ਜਾਂ ਮੰਨ ਲੈਣਾ ਬੜੀ ਉੱਚ ਦਰਜੇ ਦੀ ਗਲਤੀ ਹੋਵੇਗੀ।

Oberoi’s contradictions again and again leave a sickening effect upon the indulgent reader’s mind. Relating to the late 18th century he observes that “finally the Adi Granth had not become the exclusive focus of Sikh religiosity (p.90).”

ਉਬਰਾਏ ਅਨੁਸਾਰ ਆਦਿ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਅਠ੍ਹਾਰਵੀਂ ਸਦੀ ਤੱਕ ਸਿੱਖਾਂ ਦੇ ਧਰਮ ਦਾ ਧੁਰਾ ਨਹੀਂ ਸੀ ਬਣਿਆ।

It is a reckless statement indeed and again he argues that “in the unsettled conditions of the eighteenth century Khalsa Sikhs were in desperate need of cohesive principle that would replace the institution of living Gurus….An older principle of Guru Granth or scriptural Guru was successfully put into service by Khalsa Sikhs….In the absence of any clear leadership with the Sikh ranks the doctrine of Guru Granth served as a useful substitute for the line of Sikh Gurus by providing much needed cohesion for a panth faced with political turmoil and serious internal dissentions….For a social historian it is unimportant whether or not Gobind Singh formally declared the Adi Granth a Guru”. (pp.69-70).

ਭਾਵ: ਅਠ੍ਹਾਰਵੀਂ ਸਦੀ ਦੇ ਬਿਖੜੇ ਸਮੇਂ ਦੀਆਂ ਹਾਲਤਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਖਾਲਸਾ ਸਿੱਖ ਬੜੀ ਪ੍ਰੇਸ਼ਾਨੀ ਦੀ ਹਾਲਤ ਵਿੱਚ ਸਨ ਅਤੇ ਖਾਲਸਾ ਸਿੱਖਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਇਕੱਠ ਨੂੰ ਕਾਇਮ ਰੱਖਣ ਲਈ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਸੀ ਕਿ ਦੇਹਧਾਰੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਦੀ ਪ੍ਰੰਪਰਾ ਦੀ ਥਾਂ ਕੁਝ ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾਵੇ ਅਤੇ ਪੁਰਾਣੇ ਅਸੂਲਾਂ ਦੇ ਅਧੀਨ ਖਾਲਸਾ ਸਿੱਖਾਂ ਨੇ ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਦੀ ਬੀੜ ਨੂੰ ਦੇਹਧਾਰੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਦੀ ਥਾਂ ਸਥਾਪਤ ਕਰ ਲਿਆ। ਇਸ ਸਮੇਂ ਜਦੋਂ ਪੰਥ ਬੜੇ ਬਿਖੜੇ ਸਮੇਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਦੀ ਲੰਘ ਰਿਹਾ ਸੀ ਅਤੇ ਸਿੱਖਾਂ ਦੀ ਸਿਆਸੀ ਤੌਰ ਪਰ ਆਪਸ ਵਿੱਚ ਖਿਚੋਤਾਨ ਸੀ, ਉਸ ਵੇਲੇ ਕਿਸੇ ਠੀਕ ਆਗੂ ਦੀ ਗੈਰ ਹਾਜ਼ਰੀ ਵਿੱਚ ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਨੂੰ ਕੰਮ ਚਲਾਣ ਅਤੇ ਆਪਸ ਵਿੱਚ ਗਠਜੋੜ ਰੱਖਣ ਲਈ ਸਥਾਪਤ ਕਰ ਲਿਆ। ...ਕਿਸੇ ਸਮਾਜਕ ਇਤਹਾਸਕਾਰ ਲਈ ਇਹ ਕੋਈ ਵੀ ਨਾ ਮੁੱਲ ਰੱਖਣ ਵਾਲੀ ਗਲ ਸੀ ਕਿ ਗੋਬਿੰਦ ਸਿੰਘ ਨੇ ਆਦਿ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਨੂੰ ਗੁਰੂ ਸਥਾਪਤ ਕੀਤਾ ਸੀ।

Oberoi writes that the Sikh peasantry also resisted the mainly evolved Sikh norms of the Khalsa quality.

ਭਾਵ: ਉਬਰਾਏ ਲਿਖਦਾ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਸਿੱਖ ਕਿਸਾਨਾਂ ਨੇ ਵੀ ਖਾਲਸਾ ਸਿੱਖੀ ਦੀਆਂ (ਉੱਚ ਵਿਸ਼ੇਸ਼ਤਾਈਆਂ) ਕਦਰਾਂ ਦੇ ਦਰਜੇ ਨੂੰ ਮੰਨਣ ਵਿੱਚ ਰੋਕ ਪਾਈ ਸੀ।

Oberoi suggests that there were vague and unclear identities of the Sikhs till the closing years of the 19th century.

ਉਬਰਾਏ ਲਿਖਦਾ ਹੈ ਕਿ 19ਵੀਂ ਸਦੀ ਦੇ ਅਖੀਰ ਤੱਕ ਸਿਖਾਂ ਦੀ ਕੋਈ ਖਾਸ ਪਹਿਚਾਨ ਸਥਾਪਤ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੋਈ ਸੀ।

Oberoi writes that, “the history of Sikh tradition is radically different from, say, Christianity, which from the very beginning had a dominant concern with demarcating believers and non-believers. Christian church leaders had begun to excommunicate those within the church who transgressed its systematized beliefs. Such modes of exclusion, of publicizing the boundaries of belief and practice, were quite alien to early Sikh tradition.” (p.48).

ਉਬਰਾਏ ਲਿਖਦਾ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਸਿਖ ਧਰਮ ਇਤਹਾਸਕ ਰੀਤਾਂ ਪੱਖੋਂ ਹੋਰ ਧਰਮਾਂ ਦੀਆਂ ਇਤਹਾਸਕ ਰੀਤਾਂ, ਜਿਵੇਂ ਈਸਾਈਆਂ ਦੀਆਂ ਇਤਹਾਸਕ ਰੀਤਾਂ ਨਾਲੋਂ ਬਿਲਕੁੱਲ ਹੀ ਵੱਖਰਾ ਹੈ।ਈਸਾਈਆਂ ਦੀਆਂ ਇਤਹਾਸਕ ਰੀਤਾਂ ਅਨੁਸਾਰ, ਈਸਾਈ ਚਰਚਾਂ ਦੇ ਆਗੂਆਂ ਨੇ ਈਸਾਈ ਧਰਮ ਨੂੰ ਮੰਨਣ ਅਤੇ ਨਾ ਮੰਨਣ ਵਾਲਿਆਂ ਲਈ ਸਪੱਸ਼ਟ ਤੌਰ ਪਰ ਲਕੀਰ ਲਾ ਦਿਤੀ ਸੀ।ਈਸਾਈ ਚਰਚਾਂ ਦੇ ਆਗੂਆਂ ਨੇ ਈਸਾਈ ਧਰਮ ਦੇ ਹੱਦ ਬੰਨਿਆਂ ਦਾ ਨਾਂ ਖਿਆਲ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਲਿਆਂ ਨੂੰ ਈਸਾਈਅਤ ਵਿੱਚੋਂ ਸ਼ੇਕਣਾ ਸ਼ੁਰੂ ਕਰ ਦਿਤਾ ਸੀ। ਇਹੋ ਜਿਹੇ ਸ਼ੇਕਣ ਦੇ ਤਰੀਕੇ ਅਤੇ ਇਹਨਾਂ ਦਾ ਪਰਚਾਰ ਸਿੱਖ ਧਰਮ ਦੀਆਂ ਹੱਦ ਬਂਨੀਆਂ ਅਤੇ ਧਰਮ ਦੀ ਪਰੈੱਕਟਸਿ ਸਿੱਖੀ ਦੀਆਂ ਰੀਤਾਂ ਵਿੱਚੋਂ ਅਲੋਪ ਹੀ ਸਨ।

It is amusing to note that Oberoi contradicts himself within a space of 24 pages of his work. He writes, “The dramatic political triumph of the social movement in the second half of the 18th century gave the Sikhs a vast empire but ironically the attainment of power and the process of state formation stalled the crystallization of a uniform Sikh identity.”(p.47)

He writes again, “The increasing political power of the Khalsa allowed it to begin recasting Sikh society after its own image. During the course of the 18th century tens of thousands of Sikhs took to the Khalsa identity, some in pursuit of worldly power and others out of deep religious conviction.”(p.71)

In these two statements the author alone can better tell us as to where he actually stands.

By introducing Sakhi Sarvar, Gugga and goddess Devis among the Sikhs the author is unmeritedly adulterating and profusely corrupting the pure Sikh religious practices as prescribed by the Gurus. Those who followed the practices of the non-Sikh cults could not be Sikhs. It is a fact--plain and simple. The following example would suffice to drive home the point.
Macauliffe writes that Manj - a follower of Sakhi Sarvar (a Muslim saint), prayed to Guru Arjan to make him a Sikh. The Guru told Manj that Sakhi Sarvar’s way was easy and that of Sikhism was difficult to practise. He could not sail in two boats at the same time. Either he should continue to worship the shrine of the saint or accept Sikhism. Manj demolished the niche appropriated to Sakhi Sarvar’s worship in his house and returned to the Guru and became a Sikh.

H.A. Rose tells in his ‘Glossary of Castes and Tribes in the Punjab’ that the Sikhs in the villages were not favourably disposed towards the Hindu worshippers of Sakhi Sarvar.
Surprisingly enough, Oberoi devotes hardly a couple of pages to Guru Nanak and his teachings in his book but devotes fourteen pages to Sakhi Sarvar (pp.147-160).
Oberoi names Maharaja Ranjit Singh and Raja Fateh Singh Ahluwalia as having undertaken pilgrimage to Jawalamukhi in the Kangra district to worship at the Devi’s shrine. And the Maharaja gifted large amounts of money to the shrine and had its roof gilded (pp.202-03).

Does Oberoi, in the heart of his hearts, believe these rulers to be the worshippers of Devi? If he does, I have every reason to deeply pity him.

Dr. Pashaura Singh develops on some of McLeods conjectures:

1. Pashaura Singh goes a step further, and writes that the Fifth Master also made ideological and other changes in the bani of Guru Nanak Dev and that the Kartarpuri bir cannot be considered to be authentic in the sense that it is not a correct compilation of the bani of the First Master.
2. The bani, as proclaimed by Guru Nanak Dev and the other Gurus is not a revealed one, for later it can be changed, and has been changed by Guru Arjun Dev.
3. That Guru Arjun Dev made misrepresentations in so far as he passed on to the public his own bani as that of Guru Nanak.
4. That hymns, which for the Guru, were not true bani (sachi bani) are eulogized by the scholar to be true bani of Guru Nanak.

Dr Doris Jakobsh, who teaches religion in Renision College, Univ of Waterloo, Canada and who is a prisoner of McLeodian and her supervisor Oberoi’s paradigms and also a prisoner of Eurocentric feministic paradigms and who admits her total lack of understanding of Gurbani as enshrined in Guru Granth Sahib, writes in her book “Relocating Gender In Sikh History, Transformation, Meaning and Identity“:

1. Doris, in agreement with her supervisor Harjot Oberoi, joins Harjot in asserting that Guru Nanak and his successor Gurus were sexist. Guru Nanak’s God was a Male God, such as, Akal Purkh, Karta Purkh. P. 11.
2. Nanak states in Guru Bani that the ideal woman produces sons, especially Rajas. P. 24
3. By supporting Rajas, Guru Nanak gave his support to the dominant social and political order of his time. P. 25
4. Guru Nanak associated women with Maya and barrier to the attainment of emancipation. P. 11
5. Guru Nanak used women to explain bad behaviours of men. P. 25
6. Guru Nanak grieved over the rape of women during the Babur invasion but is silent about sati and female infanticide. P. 26
7. Guru Nanak belonged to the upper echelons of society, so it could be construed that his silence about sati and female infanticide was an approval. P. 26
8. Guru Nanak seemed content to leave the prevailing system in place in his Shabads. P. 11, 26
9. When Guru Nanak addressed the Divine through the feminine voice (Bani) it accepted that God was a male, use of bride and bridegroom analogy also signifies that Guru Nanak’s Sat Guru was a male. P. 11
10. Guru Nanak perceived his married life as a burden, an obstacle that needed to be overcome. In other words Guru Nanak was not a happy householder. P. 28
11. Guru Nanak lived squarely within the patriarchal framework surrounding him. He did not criticize the society he lived in regarding the status of women. P. 28
12. Guru Ram Das Sabads contained feminine imagery of palpable reality. He expressed love for the divine in utterly PROFANE language (P. 32 RG 1 SH). P. 32
13. While appointing Masand, the Fourth Guru excluded women. P. 34
14. Guru Arjan kept fine horses and wore rich clothes. Doris also hints that Mata Ganga, Guru’s wife may have done Niyoga with Baba Buddha who was eighty-five years old to produce the Sixth Guru, Guru Arjan came to be known as “Sacha Padishah” because of his high living!! Doris agrees with McLeod and Gurinder Mann that Guru Arjan was executed by Mughals as he was a threat to the state and hence he is not a Sikh Martyr. [At least there was NO TAUNT of Fenech (1996).] During Guru Arjan’s and Hargobind’s time, the role of Sikh women was restricted. P 35, 36, 247
15. The role played by Mata Jito, Mata Sahib Devan and Mata Sundri at the time of creation of the Khalsa is not clear. All they did was to bring Patashas to sweeten the Amrit. Whether Khalsa was given Five K’s in April 1699 is debatable. P 38, 39
16. While writing Chritro Pakhyan for Dasam Granth, Guru Gobind Singh depicted women as seducers. According to Doris, “Chritro Pakhyan should be used for the construction of gender during the time of the tenth Guru.” These stories were written by Guru Gobind Singh as a warning to the Khalsa order. The Rahit-Namas also degraded women. The Warrior-Saint ideal for the Sikh male was detrimental to the status of the Sikh female. P 42, 43, 44, 45.
17. Mai Bhago being dressed in male attire and becoming a bodyguard of Guru Gobind Singh was a suppression of her femaleness. Creation of Khalsa by Guru Gobind Singh devalued the Sikh females who were not included in the order. P. 48, 49
18. In Jat Sikhs, Britishers saw a reflection of themselves; hence started promoting Martial Race Concept. Khalsa Sikhs represented British ideals of masculinity and hence was not good for Sikh female image. British aroused in the Sikhs, their religious impulse to produce in them the martial spirits which they used to control India. So it was politics of similarity between the Sikhs and the Britishers. (She does not know that two thousand Sikh Freedom Fighters were hanged during British Raj 1849-1947.) )P 57, 60, 61
19. The British supported the practice of KAREWA for Jat widows that curtailed the desire for power and liberty in Sikh widows. P 77
20. The hyper masculinity of Sikh males was appreciated by the British masters who cut Maharani Jindan to size because she was a muscular woman.
21. Sikhs in Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s court did not honour their women and indulged in homosexual practices. Sikh women did not fit the “Victorian notion of frailty of women” because they were sturdy and looked tough. P. 81
22. Britishers colonized India because Indians have depraved attitudes towards women. Christian missionaries (men and women) were invited to teach Sikh males the manners. That is why British administration supported conversion of Panjabis to Christianity. Christian missionaries and Singh Sabha movement liberated Sikhs from magic practices of DAINS and OJHAS. P. 81, 108
23. Guru Ram Singh was exiled to Burma because he preached open sexual morality among his Kuka adherents. “Kuka women were loose” and they did that to find a place in the male oriented society of Kukas, followers of Guru Ram Singh. P 115, 116
24. Highly developed gender ideology of Arya Samaj affected Singh Sabda movement which in turn started defining the role of Sikh women. Singh Sabha was not an original movement. Singh Sabha leaders turned to fastidious interpretations of Sikh scripture as a basis of their reforms and shaped a new Sikh female on the basis of models provided by Bhai Vir Singh. P. 122
25. As compared to Panjabi Sikh males, Bengali men were effeminate and only suitable for civil service and not for military service, which is a “man’s” job. P 64, 65, 66, 128
26. If the parents married through Anand Karj ceremony, their children were called bastards (HARAMZADAS). P. 180
27. The Sikh female middle name KAUR came from Rajput term KANWAR (Prince). This middle name for the females was taken to Rajputize their identity.