dalsingh101

Before we reinvent the wheel why don't you try and investigate the large body of writing on McLeod already in existence. I noticed you have a strategy of avoiding any effort on your part other than copy and pasting from the Internet with abandon but as soon as you have to make any effort.....you demand that people do the work for you and post. I cannot post a whole book on the Internet!

Before we discuss McLeod it is reasonable to ask you to read up properly on what we wil be discussing but......you wont?. I am not here to spoon feed you. Go to the library, borrow the books, read them. Then get back. But we both know that the chances of you doing that is slim.

Are there two brands of sikhism one being followed in UK and the other in rest of world. There are his chelas like Gurbax singh Gullshan in UK who routinely mislead sikhs. he was an aspirant for the job of head Granthi at harmandir sahib. Was rejected because of sangat's presurre.

Here is the thing. I have never heard of this guy and SIngh2, seriously, most Sikhs in the UK wouldn't have. Your blanket statement about UK Sikhs is ridiculous BTW.

Okay we can go in circles now. How about this:

For us to have a proper informed discussion about this, you need to do some background reading. Please do that and we can proceeed. I reiterate my suggestion that you fully read Jacobzh and Fennech's book. They are not too weighty and it wont take too long. Do that and we will continue. In this way you can make your own independent opinion about the works without having little bits and pieces thrown at you over the net in a mickey mouse discussion. Read them and you will get the whole picture of their portrayal of Sikhi. Then we can have an informed discussion instead of the rubbish type that dominate the Internet and you seem keen to participate in.

Yet again you go on about unrelated matters when you have a thread to do that on.

Maybe McLeodian propaganda may not be an issue for you but it is for plenty of Sikhs. I don't think KA and the issues you (incessantly) talk of are of any significant concern in the UK. Most of us know when to spot an idiot without having to be told a thousand and one times.

Like I said, get off your 4ss and read those books. I don't take you to seriously know because you think insults to Sikhs are acceptable from one source (McLeod and co.) but are unacceptable from other, non significant sources that most half intelligent people know of.

Besides the way you defend them yopu would think that you are a friend/associate/relative of people involved in the McLeodian set. We all know of KA, stop flogging a dead horse. NO ONE is about to become his follower here. So stop repeating yourself like a mad man. It is boring and annoying.

WE GET IT OKAY!!!

Unlike you I have put the extract for you to see.

Wow! If you are serious about these things, is it to much to ask for you to pick up a couple of books and read them? Sadly, you are sympomatic of the laziness that has crept into people's research with modern technology. I thought it was only substandard teenager students who try and get all of their information from the web these days and can't be bothered to purchase or borrow a book to learn.....but you seem to have taken that whole armchair approach yourself.

Repetedly requests have been made to put on the net extracts WITH REFRENCES from the books of Mcleod or pashuara singh which are against gurmat but none has been put so far.

Like I have repeatedly asked you. Please get off your backside and read the Jacobsh and Fennech book and get back to us. Do this now, otherwise you are going to be embarassed about who you are defending down the line.

Don't be ignorant and familarise yourself with the stuff you are defending. Basically you are lazy and can't be bothered to read those books because you are not really interested about attacks on Sikhi despite all of your posturing.

Regarding McLeod, as you were told previously, their is an existing body of work exposing his nonsense, use a search engine and find it. Are you really that lazy?

Admin. Please have a word with Singh2 and clean up the thread.

He has gone into a rant about Kala Afghana again. I don't mind but this thread is about McLeod and his chumchay. I said before he should stick his KA stuff in another thread.

Rest assured Singh2, we are all now aware of the KA threat. No need to keep repeating it every time you post something.

Plus stop being lazy and get those books I told you about. They will open your eyes. I'm sure you will be singing a different tune when you read them.

its so widespread, it makes me wonder if its part of their subconscious or just an attitude ingrained in a lot of them from a young age.

I was talking to a PanAfricanist friend of mine and she was saying the same thing. She came to the conclusion that it may actually be a biological feature of theirs. Personally, I believe it is culturally ingrained. It is a result of the imperialistic mindset and I think it is a fairly recent phenomena i.e. 500/400 years old.

Their society now has this mindset deeply ingrained within them. Dissemnation comes from widespread sources such as their interpretation/selection of history, media. Their is a deep vein of passive hatred and neurosis at the heart of it.

You wrote about the workplace and recently I talked to people from many different cultures and I was shocked at the level of discrimination they reported at work. Apparently there are lots of cases of discrimination and bullying going on in tribunals. These cases are usually settled out of court with a legally binding severance agreement that the victim does not refer to the case in public.

A recent one of interest concerns a Sikh scientist who worked on the Dolly the sheep DNA clone project.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/...een-776746.html

Until lions have their own historians, tales of the hunt will always glorify the hunter.

African proverb.

dalsingh, i'm glad you realised what these people are like, but try not to make out maharaja ranjit singh was a shining light like some of our lame-excuse-for-historians do. its time sikhs learnt to stop following petty leaders or non-sikh "intellectuals" and forged our own path in this world.

HSD, I see M. Ranjit Singh in all his "humanness" including both flaws and good points. Of course I admire him but I do not think he was a whiter than white, puritan Gursikh.

The point I was trying to make was one that clearly demonstrated the hypocrisy of western academia by comparing the way they represent a Sikh monarch with an English one who was clearly a bloodthirsty nutjob. Recently there was a series on King Henry on British TV and I couldn't help but notice how they didn't focus on the negative. Yet whenever Ranjit Singh is mentioned you you always get an unbalanced focus on his more controversial behaviour such as his sexuality and revelry. This again is a part of the whole orientalist dialog and it fails to fully appreciate him and his achievements in a holistic manner.

We need Sikh centric historians as opposed to Euro centric historians on Sikhism.

That Mithar veer ji, hits the nail on the head. Some Sikhs have actually clocked on to this. In America it has become accepted that black people's history must be portrayed through the lens of Afrocentrism. As I said McLeod seems to have realised that there are lumpen egotistical sections of the community that will lap up his work, as long as some flattering comments are made.

Self definition is the most fundamental freedom. Western academia such as McLeod's essential tries to do away with that.

I think one reason is that they find concepts that they like to think of themselves as exclusive champions of, inherent in this mystical Eastern religion called Sikhism. Examples are racial/caste equality, feministic principles, egalitarianism, atruism, community spirit, valour, secular trends, military capability, sacrifice and trends against superstition. That is not to say many Sikhs are doing a really poor job in practicing these but nonetheless if you notice, it is often these very things that are attacked by western academics who seek to prove that these things are not part of Sikhi. This forms the bulk of their work. In essense they are trying to cut us down to size in their own way.

Fascinating documentary for the conscious brothers and sisters out there. Puts a lot western "histiography" in context.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwCOSkXR_Cw

Mcleod's agenda was simple, to put doubts in Sikhs minds about SIkhi. He questioned and then said Dam Dami Taksal Bir that Guru Gobind SIngh Sahib ji gave Guruship to was not authnetic. Then he calls Guru Nanak Dev ji a Hindu and Sikhi is a sect of Hinduism. This backless man was out to put confusion and doubts about Sikhi.

There was another aspect to his agenda. He also attempted to belittle the Sikh religion in the eyes of westerners. This is part of the classic white supremacist/colonial agenda that attempts to deride other cultures with the ultimate aim of either subjugating them in some form or reducing empathy for these "others" from within the western world. The ultimate conclusion an unwitting outsider would draw from reading McLeod's work is that the Sikhs are largely ignorant of their own history and have falsely manufactured large sections of it. So, for example, McLeod has attacked the independent identity of Sikhs starting with Guru Nanak message, 5 ks, caste equality concepts and Singh Sabha reforms amongst others. Through his chumchay he has attacked the concept female equality (Jacobs), Sikh shaheeds (Fennech) and Adi Granth (Pashaura).

What such people really hate is other communities having strong, self confident histories of themselves. supremacists know that such things are dangerous to their own perceived supremacy. Hence they attack the foundation of that. At the same time, these peoples own account of their own history is very patchy and seeks to play down their own corporate misdeeds such as slavery, colonial executions, international drug trading etc. etc. In the narrative they produce, they are the enlightened one and the "others" backward, savage, ignorant and unable to truthfully/correctly define themselves. As an example whilst Maharajah Ranjit Singh is a debautched womeniser in their narratives, they play down the psychotic nature of their own royalty such as King Henry, who famously has numerous wives beheaded for trivial reasons.

Whereas other communities have twigged onto such subtle attacks, Sikhs are slow, mainly because McLeod used backhanded compliments which are lapped up by some egotistical Sikhs. He does this whilst continuing to question all of their cultural/religious foundations and that with a very haughty attitude to other Sikhs who question him. His work is taken to new depths by many of the people that end up completing doctorates under his tutelage.

Yety again, you fail to address the issue at hand and selectively read what you like. Have you actuall read any ofteh McLeodian stuff I am referring to?

If so, can yo tell me which publications of his chumchay you have read? If you haven't, just please say so. Stay quiet. Do some research and then come back.

Are you going to read Jacobs and Fennech's books or are you just going to keep defending your position without doing this?

Singh2 said:

Mcleod was a historian. His field was limited to history. Learn the difference between theology and history.

Are you saying that Sikh theology/ideology hasn't had a considerable influence on subsequent Sikh history?

Seriously, read that Louis Fenech book. I think it may open you eyes to these people. Rarely have I been disgusted by what I have read. That was one of the few exceptions.

Don't do the angry man on the net thing. Get hold of a copy (try and borrow it because the author does not deserve any sort of financial rewards that he may receive if you buy it), and then explain it to us.

You talk of no agenda: But how do you explain his supervision of many PHd projects which produced material very offensive to accepted Sikh belief. Look at Doris Jacob, Lou Fennech, Harjot Oberoi.

Look who is talking. The man who attributes things to McLeod that even McLeod has not claimed!

Truth is, whilst you rant like a mad man on Kala Afghana, who pretty much everyone agrees is an idiot. You turn a blind eye to McLeodian nonsense and even bolster his chelay, like Pashaura. If there is some conspiracy, it is you who are part of it, by giving credibility to McLeod and his chumchay.

Have you read Louis Fenech's work on shaheedi in Sikhi? This PHd was supervised by McLeod, get off you backside and read that. Then tell me what kind view of Sikhism McLeod was promoting. Read it and tell me you are not disgusted by the attitude towards Sikh shaheeds.

McLeod is infinitely more mischevious than KA, because KA views are limited to a small amount of his chelay. Whereas McLeod, using his so called academic platform, spreads his nonsense to a much wider audience.

You are obviously highly biased about the McLeodian set. That is your issue. They say the best thing to do with a fool is not engage them. You make me laugh with the way you twist every debate with a point contrary to yours into some Kala Afghana conspiracy. It borders on insanity/paranoia. Seek help.

A typical sneaker, back biter and a timid. I never praised Mcleod. All i am saying is that thuggery of your gang

is much graver than his works.

You guys are groomed in the lies,distortions and sycophancy tricks of kala afghana and IOSS thugs. Say something and then disappear

That is not a sikh trait.

You are borderline senile and paranoid mate. Not worth the time.

Do you check under your bed before you sleep to make sure Kala Afghana bogeymen are not hidin there..lol

I have work to do, unlike yourself it seems, and am not unhealthily obsessed with what we discuss.

Ramble on.....I'd be better off reading a book than engaging with your schizio nonsense.

Before we continue please provide some evidence for your assertion that McLeod created digtised copies of manuscripts from the library that was sacked in Amritsar. Something you attribute to him.

I only wish it were true. If it is, believe you me, I would be over the moon with joy.

Yet again you start with your wild accusations of KA chelas etc. I have never read a word of his and frankly I think that issue is one that is important in Canada as very few average Sikhs know of him in the UK. I'm sure he may have a small number of supporters in the UK but they are insignificant, off the radar here.

In the meanwhile, you yourself seem to be a chela of McLeod and his chumchay. Especially Paushara......who, I repeat was hauled up before the Akal Takhat for his blasphemy and admitted to his guilt.

Try and think about doing something more productive than defending the undefendable at this time of your life. You should be at shaant with the world at this stage of your life but instead you rage like a bitter, angry man.

You accuse others of things that you are guilty of yourself.

Singh2. You are not worth the time. You plainly think you know it all, but your points are flawed to the core. At least have some humility to entertain the notion you may be wrong but I guess your hankar prevents you from doing this. I mean your points about McLeod were totally contradicted by McLeod himself.

Who are you really? Pashaura Singh's cha cha?

It is essential that things are put in proper perspectives.

Yes, and that is that you do not know what you are talking about. And for someone who likes to dictate in debates, such as yourself, that is shameful.

There was rehatnam of Bhai chaupa singh in sikh reference library.The library was destroyed in 1984.

Mcleod had made a copy of that rehatnama before that and lodged with Guru Nanak Dev university.It has a

manuscript no now. So it is not lost as dalsingh states in his post.

Who was saying we never had a copy? I said the original had been destroyed. Stop hiding your ignorance by deflecting to non issues that you invent. Please tell me where you got your information on wholesale digitising of manuscripts by McLeod?

The other early rahit nama of importance is a dated copy the Chaupa Singh rahit nama. A manucript was held by the Sikh reference Library attached to Harmandir Sahib in Amritsar that was copied in Jind City and explicitly dated in its colophon as Chet sudi 14, S. 1821 (1765 CE). This manuscript was destroyed by fore when the Indian Army attacked Darbar Sahib in 1984, but a copy had been made before then and appears as the Gurmuki text in the published version of the rahit nama. (In footnote: I made a copy of the manuscript before it was destroyed and thsi has been published together with an English translation.....A photocopy of this copy is held at the Library of Guru Nanak University at Amritsar. McLeod, 2003

Where does the above suggest he made copies of other manuscripts, let alone digital ones.

We can discuss contents of chaupa singh rehatnama separately. To call a Sikh who has scarificed his life for sikh

panth is very unbecoming of a sikh.

Try reading it. It is he himself who believes he is a 'Brahman Sikh'. No one else has subsequently attached the label to him.

Like these many sikh granths have one or the thing that goes against Guru sahib's teachings. that does not mean that whole text is anti gurmat

Who said it was? Again making issues for no reason. Anyway, if he was around today you would be the first to call him a heretic for his belief that Dasmesh Pita worshipped Durga. But when it suits you, heresy is no big deal.

Plus, get the evidence for McLeod's apparent digitising of manuscripts please. Or is that more "c0ck and bull" as you put it?

(Not withstanding that the technology for this was not easily available when McLeod was researching at the library prior to the 1987 publication).

Please answer that.

That is not the only one. he found tankahnama of Bhai nand lal ji also dating to 1718 in the library. These manuscripts are still avaliable.

Jeevan Deol only and only quotes Mcleod on rehatnamas. Please do not fabricated admin cut and bull stories. If you have his new finding done by Jeevan Deol please share with us.

If there ever was evidence that you do not know what you are talking about:

The earliest extant rahit nama manuscript appears to be a copy of Nasihat nama, one of the three attributed to Nand Lal. This copy is one of several works, together bearing the date S. 1775 (1718-19 CE), which Jeevan Deol reports having discovered in the library of Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, where it is numbered MS. 770 (Deol, 2001)

McLeod - Sikhs of the Khalsa. A history of Khalsa rehat.

Please do not fabricated admin cut and bull stories.

I'll leave that to you.

It is completely unbecoming of a sikh to call Chaupa singh a Brahmin. Chaupa singh's rehatnama was the major document in rehatnamas.

He also met martyrdom in sikh struggle of that era. Do not you know that? From where you read your history?

Anyone who has read what I post will know I am very interested in manuscripts. I respect the Chaupa Singh rahit nama for the insight it can provide on the past. But here are some quotes from it from the translation by McLeod.

Sikh marriages should be performed by Brahmans. Brahman SIkhs should receive double the deference and attention normally bestowed on a Sikh.

A Gursikh should never trust a women, neither his own or anothers. Regard them as the embodiment of deceit.

McLeod also adds:

The [goddess] Devi receives abundant attention in Chaupa Singh's rahit nama. It comes it comes in the lengthy narrative description of the successful fire ceremony held on the hill called Naina Devi [pg. 205-35]. The author here is trying to say Guru Gobind Singh worshipped or appealed to Durga (not Akal Purakh) to help form the Khalsa.

That will help in shedding some of your ignorance. Do your home work before opening your mouth.

Advice you REALLY need to follow yourself. But if you haven't learnt by now.....I doubt you ever will.

dalsingh101

You have posted generalizations so far. can you post concrete quotes form his works so that we can discuss

those specifically.

here is another singh asking for the same from you in the same thread.

Basically, you can't be bothered to go and find the dozens of articles by Sikhs who expose McLeod can you? Try using a search engine, I know you are good at this.

As for:

That is what is required from a scholar of your calibre.

Don't be condescending.

Moghals were enemies of sikhs. When younger sahibzadas were bricked alive, Nawab of malekotla spoke against this

in the court of Wazir khan.

During partititon Muslims were killed all over Punjab but Malerkotla was not touched. Sikhs have history

of recognizing the good done by their enemies.

in 1984 most of manuscripts were looted and carried away from Sikh refrence library by

GOI. It was Mcleod who had digitized those and given a copy of those to SGPC.

He needs credit for that. Do not you think so.

As far I as I am aware the only thing he done of this nature is to publish the Chaupa Singh rahitnama from the library that was sacked. This manuscript was one that was lost so what is in his published work is all that survives of it. Apparently he made a copy of the work in that publication. This was a rahit written by Brahmin which he thought was the earliest extant example (mid 1700s). Recently Jeevan Deol discovered a smaller rahit that was much earlier (early 1700s)

If you know something I do not about this digitising of manuscripts, please share. Because I have not heard of this wholesale digitising of manuscripts of the library. Please share where you learnt this and what evidence you have that it is true? If so what manuscripts did he digitally record?

If you can't I can only presume you are either making this up or are repeating rumour.

Anyway, it is remarkable that McLeod jettisoned much of the valid understanding gained from research into orientalism and carried on like some Victorian ignoramus rewriting Sikh history into the 21st century. That alone is indicative of his bias and intentions. Like those that preceded him McLeod followed the orientalist pardigm in all his work. Insofar as he was essentially an instrument of an academic colonialism that seeks to describe Sikhs to the western world in a way that made them look like they themselves had a very poor understanding of themselves. This was simply playing the old "othering" game and feeding White notions of supremacy against unenlightened "orientals".

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. … McLeod

Yes, he really did try to understand Sikhs from a holistic perspective didn't he.......

Sikhs are not thankless people. They remember the contribution of people of other religions for sikhism however small it may be.

So will they remember Macleod as well.

Yes, like they remember Trumph and his distortions.

Do Not club fields of kala afghana and Mcleod together. They are separate.

You are the one harping on about KA in this McLeod thread. Take some of your own advice.

The insidious influence of McLeod's work on people who stumble upon his books whilst studying Sikhism will long outlast McLeod's personal presence here on earth.

Singh2, your hypocrisy is unlike anything I have encountered before. Try and stick to discussing McLeod (or his influence on Sikh studies) in this thread please. You can make a whole new thread for Kala Afghana and say all you like about him there.

Singh2/Admin

Could we remove/keep Kala Afghana stuff in another thread. This one was about McLeod not Afghana.

Obviously you have nothing in your closet to disprove the authenticity of Dasam granth as Dasam granth itself

is clear cut proof of guru sahib's writing. In that case you should have the courage to admit that you withdraw from

that discussion. I have to write this here as you ran away from the other thread.

It is only in your imagination that the world is divided between those 'heretics' who want to disprove the authenticity of DG and those who are its defenders.

If you'd read and absorbed what I have previously said, instead of ignoring it to suit your own skewed perception, I have said that I am studying the DG. If anyone doing this asks questions along the way, it does not make them heretics, unless you follow the Taleban school of Sikh thought. I have never been disrespectful of the contents of DG, so you can put that accusatory finger away. Instead perhaps point it at Pashaura Singh who actually has been found to have blasphemed against SGGS ji. Whom you seem to be defending like you are a relative of his. What sort of Sikh is that who is guided by an atheist like McLeod anyway?

McLeod should have stuck to translating manuscripts and restrained his wildly speculative and often erroneous opinions. The fact his that his malicious opinions and false notions are being accepted as the current apex of Sikh studies by the west means that his work will give those reading a very incorrect perception of Sikhs and Sikhi.

He follows a form of representation known as Orientalism. I seriously suggest people look this up. It does much to explain the failings of western research such as McLeods, when studying other cultures/ways of life/beliefs.

Here is an extract about an important work on this:

Many scholars place the beginning of postcolonial studies in history, literature, philosophy, anthropology, and the arts at the publication of Said's Orientalism, published in 1978.

Said focuses his attention in this work on the interplay between the "Occident" and the "Orient." The Occident is his term for the West (England, France, and the United States), and the Orient is the term for the romantic and misunderstood Middle East and Far East.

According to Said, the West has created a dichotomy, between the reality of the East and the romantic notion of the "Orient. The Middle East and Asia are viewed with prejudice and racism. They are backward and unaware of their own history and culture. To fill this void, the West has created a culture, history, and future promise for them. On this framework rests not only the study of the Orient, but also the political imperialism of Europe in the East.

Edward Said:

Unlike the Americans, the French and British--less so the Germans, Russians, Spanish, Portugese, Italians, and Swiss--have had a long tradition of what I shall be calling Orientalism, a way of coming to terms with the Orient that is based on the Orient's special place in European Western Experience. The Orient is not only adjacent to Europe; it is also the place of Europe's greatest and richest and oldest colonies, the source of its civilizations and languages, its cultural contestant, and one of its deepest and most recurring images of the Other. In addition, the Orient has helped to define Europe (or the West) as its contrasting image, idea, personality, experience. Yet none of this Orient is merely imaginative. The Orient is an integral part of European material civilization and culture. Orientalism expresses and represents that part culturally and even ideologically as a a mode of discourse with supporting institutions, vocabulary, scholarship, imagery, doctrines, even colonial bureaucracies and colonial styles. . . .

It will be clear to the reader...that by Orientalism I mean several things, all of them, in my opinion, interdependent. The most readily accepted designation for Orientalism is an academic one, and indeed the label still serves in a number of academic institutions. Anyone who teaches, writes about, or researches the Orient--and this applies whether the persion is an anthropologist, sociologist, historian, or philologist--either in its specific or its general aspects, is an Orientalist, and what he or she says or does is Orientalism. . . .

Related to this academic tradition, whose fortunes, transmigrations, specializations, and transmissions are in part the subject of this study, is a more general meaning for Orientalism. Orientalism is a style of thought based upon ontological and epistemological distinction made between "the Orient" and (most of the time) "the Occident." Thus a very large mass of writers, among who are poet, novelists, philosophers, political theorists, economists, and imperial administrators, have accepted the basic distinction between East and West as the starting point for elaborate accounts concerning the Orient, its people, customs, "mind," destiny, and so on. . . . the phenomenon of Orientalism as I study it here deals principally, not with a correspondence between Orientalism and Orient, but with the internal consistency of Orientalism and its ideas about the Orient . . despite or beyond any correspondence, or lack thereof, with a "real" Orientalism.

(Orientalism. New York: Vintage, 1979, 1-3,5.

http://www.wmich.edu/dialogues/texts/orientalism.htm