Download entire Journal volume [PDF] - Global and International ...

26 JPS 17:1&2
Nanak and the Origin of the Sikh Faith (Patiala: Punjabi University,
1969), and J. S. Grewal (1927–), Guru Nanak in History (Chandigarh:
Panjab University, 1969).
It might also be useful to mention that McLeod’s writings evoked a
hostile response within some circles. He reports that he was not invited to
the international conference arranged by Punjabi University in September
1969, and Kapur Singh denounced the book there; see his Discovering
the Sikh: Autobiography of a Historian (New Delhi: Permanent Black,
2004), 63–64. Early responses to the book included Kirpal Singh’s
critique published in The Sikh Review (February-March 1970). The
second round of this attack was spearheaded by Daljeet Singh (1911–
1994), whose interest in Sikh studies began after his retirement from
Indian Administrative Services in 1969. As McLeod’s status rose on the
North American academic scene in the 1980s, Daljeet Singh’s opposition
to his works became increasingly strident. With some degree of effort, he
was able to bring together some supporters who were ready to help him
save “Sikh scholarship from the missionary onslaught.” This
denunciation of McLeod’s writings and, by extension, those of others
who were thought to have been working with him largely unfolded in
North America. This criticism barred the Sikh studies programs at
Toronto University (1986–1992) and Columbia University (1988–1999)
from attaining permanence, and stunted the growth of the programs at the
University of British Columbia (1987–1997) and the University of
Michigan (1992–2004) during the nascent stages of their development.
For details of these debates, see Gurdev Singh, ed., Perspectives on the
Sikh Tradition (Patiala: Siddharth, 1986); J. S. Grewal, Contesting
Interpretations of the Sikh Tradition (New Delhi: Manohar, 1998), 215–
237; and Hew McLeod, Discovering the Sikh, 154–191.
In my view, Daljeet Singh and his associates could not distinguish
between McLeod’s training in biblical studies and what they perceived as
his “missionary designs” to erode the foundation of the Sikh tradition;
see Grewal, Contesting Interpretations of the Sikh Tradition, 128. As a
result, they could not identify the precise nature of what irked them in
McLeod’s writings. McLeod’s response to their criticism was no less
enigmatic. He argued that he was an atheist and attack on his research
was part of an effort to protect the Sikh traditions from historical
scrutiny; see his “Cries of Outrage: History versus Tradition in the Study
of Sikh Community,” South Asia Research (14: 1994), 121-135. Given
the fact that the people McLeod refer to in his discussion were products
of Western modes of education and wrote in English, I am not convinced
that McLeod’s characterization of them as “traditional scholars” and their
motivation as being centered on protecting “traditions” have much
justification.