Regarding “Singh” and “Jagiasoo” — Firstly, I am no supporter of agitations and “nareybaaji”. Having said that, I think you may not be aware of the full picture concerning Dr McLeod and his students. One fact that might be relevant here is that the first critique of Dr McLeod’s work (published in 1968) was published sometime in mid-1970s (I am unable to recall the exact year off-hand, but the info should be available on my blog). Dr McLeod chose to not respond to the questions raised by the reviewer of his work (Daljeet Singh, who died in 1994). After that everytime McLeod published a book, there were reviews, which were published in different university journals. But Dr McLeod, in a very unacademic way, chose to simply ignore criticism of his methodology, his “pick & choose” way of quoting sources conveniently supporting his unsubstantiated statements, and in many cases patently false statements — for instance he suggested that Guru Nanak never left Punjab on the basis that some place names which contemporary accounts say he visited, may also be found in Punjab. So he claimed that showed Guru Nanak did not journey outside Punjab.
At best, Dr McLeod’s work may be understood in terms of Dan Brown’s “Da Vinci Code” — Dan Brown picks and chooses his historical sources (in his case gnostics accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings) and spins a tall tale. To understand the parallel, please follow this link:
http://www.spotlights.org/Gospels1.htm

I hope this helps.
Regards,

For me a good researcher on a religious trdaditon is the one who is adept in Scientific Method where subjective allegiance to the tradition is sometimes a distraction and even a disqualification.

If someone honestly feels that there is some flaw in the arguments or the facts brought out by a researcher he/she should in all honesty should invest time and effort to bring forward these in a civilised way rather than mere polemics or gathering a horde of stormtroopers. I am confident that the persons being targetted would humbly accept the new arguments for enriching the study.

Some people have double standards.

I hope the people who are getting in buses to protest the terrible outrage that is Pashaura Singh’s academic career also pack rallies to voice their objection to…
- infanticide in Punjab and the resulting gender gap that is sociological suicide by our people
- alcoholism and drug abuse in our diaspora and homeland communities
- the ever-dwindling water table in Punjab, the subsequent threat of land salinization
- Punjab’s impending ecological-economical catastrophe (see previous)
- domestic violence in our homes
- the criminal activity being passed along as “government” in our homeland (can you start an NGO or buy a plot of land to live on in Punjab without stuffing the coffers of the thugs who run the place?)
- the mafia rule that the “Akali Dal” is perpetrating in the name of the Sikh panth

If we want to get outraged let’s get outraged. Let’s just direct our anger at the stuff that really matters, for God’s sake.

To paraphrase the great Punjabi Poet Surjit Patar: there is much injustice yet to fight.

Second, “the cycle” DOES NOT “repeat itself” when a student of one scholar becomes a scholar in her own right. There may be overlap of methodology, but there is so much divergence between scholars from generation to generation. Hang out with grad students, sometime (if you’re masochistic) and listen to them complain about their advisors.

Third: this is a slow process. have some patience with it. It will take 25 years to see a new wave of good scholarship come out, but I guarantee you, that scholarship will be written by scholars influenced by (if not trained by) the people you are today so demonizing.

In the meantime, if you have some real guts, quit your day jobs and get in the field yourself. And please don’t think jingoism and threats of violence make us look all that good as a community. If you really want to hurt the panth, follow the rest of the mob. If you want to help it, embody the etymology of the word “Sikh”.

… Post script: argue the points on their actual merits. It may take some self education. ASK: Why is MS 1245 an unreliable document? What is its textual relationship to the Kartarpur Pothi? Who are the scholars who have attempted to date the Janam-Sakhis, and what are the diiferent opinions of that dating? What does Pashaura really mean when he says “editing”? Where do Mann and Pashaura substantly diverge on the historiography of Sikh scriptural development? What is Oberoi’s central thesis and what evidence does he use to make his point? Is his lining up of theorists (Ortner, Foucault, Said, and Benjamin) coherent?
… if you’re not educating yourself on the real issues, but still participating in these debates, you’re just pointing and shouting… from a distance, you are making us all look very bad.

You did not really address my key point about how the field of Sikh Studies is being made unattractive and will fail to attract fresh talent given the constant intimidation and harassment of those who daily work in this specialisation.

Satinder, if this is your key point the answer should not come from me but you should have had a look at the whole situation to find the answer. I have been associated with research all my life and I have seen the kind of cabalistic control being exercised over Sikh Studies in other fields as well. The only difference has been that this kind of control never lasted more than a few years and never extended beyond one institution.
In case of Sikh Studies, it is astonishing how a cabal could extend its control over the institutions of entire Western world wherever Sikh Studies were sought to be established.
My interest in this cabalistic control began in December 2003 when a conference was organised in University of Otago by this group. What struck me was an utter lack of debate. To borrow the use of a term from Dr McLeod himself – all the paper presenters sounded more like hagiographers (paying homage to Dr McLeod) than scholars.
That my friend is the tragedy – your answer lies in trying to find a difference of opinion amongst this cabal.

Prem,

I’m glad you said “some Sikhs” would rather hysterically demonize and use mob rule; in such matters, and in my experience, these Sikhs are the minority.

Many of the scholars in question have been academically challenged on the works they have produced, and have refused or been unable to address the critisisms put forth. The Sikh community, in general, is fully within its rights to challenge the positions put forward by these scholars. The inability of these scholars to address these questions, and their nonchalant dismissal of anything critical of their works, shows an outright lack of academic integrity.

These scholars have failed to engage in academic debate, and have almost wholly refused to change their flawed positions. If continued pressure against such scholars is termed “harrassment”, then bravo to such harrassment.

I would much rather that there be no such scholars in Sikh studies, than scholars holding (and teaching) flawed views, unable to address academic criticism, and lacking the integrity to engage in debate.

And this being said, without taking into consideration the nefarious politics involved in the appointment of some of these scholars.