dalsingh101

About 500 California NRI Sikhs protest against the appointment of Prof. Pashaura Singh at Sikh and Punjabi Studies Chair at UCR

Riverside, Los Angeles, California, Sep. 26, 2008

Swaran Dabgotra/Gary Singh/J. Dhillon

Today September 26, 2008 Sikh community of Southern California, USA, protest in front of University of Southern California, Riverside in the campus grounds. Coalition of Gurdwaras of California and

Sikhs for Preservation of Sikhism and Sikh Heritage (Freemont Gurdwara, Nothern California, Walnut Gurdwara, Riverside Gurdwara, Buena Park Gurdwara, Vermont Gudwara and Lankershim Gurdwara) arranged buses to carry NRI sikh community to join the protest.

This was a peaceful protest and well organized. They had banners and signs "Remove Pashaura Singh." They were shouting slogans in the air “Remove Pashaura”, and Nahras “Bole Son Nihal…” etc.

The reason for all this was that in 1991, Mr. Pashaura Singh wrote his Ph. D. thesis on Sikh History and Sikh Scripture. He made wrong statements about Sri Adhi Granth without proper research and unauthentic sources.

His thesis caused a strong reaction from other Sikh researches and intellectuals all over the world because of poor research and misrepresentation of Sikh History and Scripture.

In June 2006, because of the pressure from the world Sikh community Mr. Pashaura Singh wrote a written apology for his research thesis at Sri Akal Takhat, Amritsar.

After accepting his charges at Sri Akal Takhat, he did not refrain from his blasphemous views and published a book “The Guru Granth Sahib Cannon Meaning and Authority” in 2000.

http://www.nriinternet.com/A_Z/P/Pashaura_Singh/index.htm

Gurtej singh is mentioned in that post. He was boss of IOSS ( president) and he is the one who took

IOSS to bottom of pit it finds itself now.He is the one who staged this whole drama against Piar singh

and pashaura singh.

Okay, are you a friend or relative of Pashaura? Now I am getting suspicious. First you are lax about McLeod and now you are backing one of his chelas that has been reprimanded for casting doubt on our undisputed Guru, SGGS ji. I am beginning to think you have some personal relationships with those involved. Are they associates of yours?

The first of these is Dr. Pashaura Singh. On November 22, 1991, the University of Toronto conferred on him the degree of Ph.D. Pashaura Singh had earned the degree in Religious Studies with a dissertation entitled "The Text and Meaning of the Adi Granth," and was the first person to have graduated at the doctoral level in Sikh Studies from a Canadian university. The following year, in September 1992, he was appointed to a nontenured position in Sikh and Punjabi Studies at the University of Michigan. Meanwhile his Ph.D. dissertation had been photocopied without authorization and copies of it were freely circulated around North America and other parts of the world.

The first article concerning the dissertation appeared on October 2, 1992 in World Sikh News, a Sikh newspaper published from Stockton, California. Numerous articles and letters followed during the latter months of 1992 and early in 1993, many of them roundly accusing Pashaura Singh of the most monstrous blasphemy. Soon they were followed by judgment from the Punjab. A group was appointed by the Dharam Parchar Committee of the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (the S.G.P.C. [3] and this group issued a statement supporting the accusation of blasphemy.

This statement was subsequently confirmed on November 2 by the S.G.P.C., which notified its decision in a press statement issued by the president, Gurcharan Singh Tohra. In view of the seriousness of the matter, the statement declared: "Sikh sangats [congregations] the world over and the gurdwaras [sikh temples] should boycott and not extend any cooperation, whatsoever, to S. Pashaura Singh." The S.G.P.C. also drew attention to the fact that Pashaura Singh had committed blasphemy in a dissertation written "under the supervision of Dr. McLeod," who has "been at work for long with a view to creating confusion among the Sikhs throughout the world, regarding authenticity of the holy Gurbani embodied in the holy Guru Granth Sahib. [4]

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go20...9/ai_n28748804/

So you are backing this person who has been found to be blaspheming againt our Guru by the Akal Takhat no less? I think you may be personally involved with some of these people, can you clarify any relationship you have with Pashaura and also tell us why you think Akal Takhat was wrong to finding him guilty of blasphemy?

See also:

http://www.worldsikhnews.com/24%20Septembe...%20Sep%2026.htm

I will answer some of your other comments separately.

It wouldn't hurt any of you that have the work at hand to try and look through yourselves would it. It is recorded in a footnote when talking of the Amrit ceremony.

What if they were already Amritdhari? Is Macauliffe the only person who mentions this? Sounds dodgy.

Do you think Macauliffe may be lying then? I doubt it. I think he was just highlighting British policy.

Look it up yourself Bijla. I haven't got my copy here. It is as clear as glass in the intro to vol 1. It was used for all Sikhs joining the British army, you are right in that it wasn't practiced by the entire panth, to my understanding it was just Sikhs joining the forces.

Do you think I would make something like that up? lol

Singh2

I don't get the purpose of your post numbered #25. It is about the Spokesman not IOSS?

But there are other manuscripts also that date prior to Bhai mani singh's bir. Then we have Baba Binod singh's bir and Baba deep singh's bir. Contents of all of them are almost same.

It would be really interesting to see what parts are different and see what the contents of the lesser known compositions are.

Are you aware of any arguments against the Dasam Granth that are rigourous and academic?? So far all of the arguments that I have seen seem based either on Victorian style puritanism or Hindu phobia.

I am getting the same feeling myself these days. I was reading something about Gursobha by Sainpati, said to be written round 1711 (i.e. within a few years of Guru Gobind Singh's passing), and apparently the text follows Bachitar Natak in places. Hinduphobia grew stronger in Sikhs after the British came and I think this is the source for the suspicion towards the Dasam Granth.

With the Bhai Mani letter. What I find strange at times though is how Sikhs fail to use modern technology to conclusively clinch matters. The letter could EASILY and quickly be verified by using a forensic expert to date and analyse it (using carbon dating pehaps and analysing the type of ink used). We have plenty of money available to the SGPC for this but they don't do it?

That being said: Thee best fries in the world, and you can make them at home, are these babies!

Try making them in the oven and see.............<drooling>

Okay I take your points onboard.

However, just because I appreciate some writers who have written under the IOSS banner, it doesn't mean I am anyones "follower", that is an unwarranted comment. Agreement with some publications doesn't mean agreement with all. In your response above, you seem to have come sympathy for McLeod.

I am not aware how far their criticism about Mcleod was correct. Mcleod had done some injustice to sikh history but i doubt he needed such a harsh treatment at the hands of heretic IOSS who have no life themselves. It seemed more of a personal vendetta.

Is it fair for anyone to label you a McLeod follower based on that? Besides I do find it strange that whilst you condemn many Sikh writers, you seem to hold back with McLeod who has questioned and put doubts on pretty much every Sikh concept going? How come you are so relaxed about this exChristian minister?

RE: Bhai Mani Singh's letter. See reproduction below.

It does seem peculiarly modern in composition to me. The writing style is very modern looking and unlike anything I have seen previously from this period. The use of words being broken up is also strange for the period. Do we not have a bir of Dasam Granth said to be scribed by Bhai Mani Singh himself? If anyone can post a page of DG in his writing, we can compare together. I will blank my mind towards this document and keep an open mind. Give me solid arguments that it is not a modern forgery if you like.

Earlier I meant translations of DG in English, side by side with the original by the way. Giani Narain Singh's work doesn't fall into that category. But thanks for the heads up anyway. On that topic, could you give me your views on translating texts for todays youth in the west. Where do you stand on this. I see it as a positive step towards bringing them closer to the Panjabi originals. But with works in the Dasam Granth such a Hikayats even good Panjabi knowledge is insufficient.

You seem to be their follower without knowing their view points.

Is your statement a contradiction in terms then? If I am not exactly following them, how can I be a follower? As I said before, I appreciate the translations of Parchian, Panth Prakash, Dhadi nathmal's Amarnama, Jagjit Singh's work and some others.

They also wrote that bhagats whose banis are in SGGS had different world view than Sikh Gurus. Do you belleive that?

Yes I do. Bhagat Kabir's work in totality seems to diverge from Sikhi at places. You have to study his whole body of literature to see that properly. Please do thsi and then come back. Why do you think that the Guru's were selective in what they included in the granth? Are you saying that what was preached in total by say Bhagats Kabir and Sheikh Fareed is the same as Khalsa way of life, which is the total Sikh world view? You yourself implied that it was the failure of having a martial philosophy that led to the demise of Kabir panthis!

So forget Dasam granth and await the fate of Kabir panthis.

So clearly you yourself believe the Sikh Gurus philosophy in sum is different from Bhagat Kabirs. The Gurus views took a wider perspective incorporating political and military institutions generally not possessed by these others. However, spiritually the Bhagats and Gurus were talking the same language.

What is contained in SGGS ji is bani from the Bhagats that is inline with Sikh thought. This helps Singhs to reduce narrow mindedness in my opinion by showing others too (outside of Sikhs) were capable of being Godcentred.

I do appreciate that lately you have toned down the accusatory pitch a bit (although not completely). This is the better way to do this!

BTW, at some stage, it would be nice if we actually completed that tatkara examination we started. You could bring it here. I am very busy at the moment and may not be able to respond as quickly as I would like, just to warn you.

In the meanwhile, take it easy. We are both members of the panth, albeit very different. In all you do, try and keep an eye on unity. Failure to do this WILL lead us to the same path as Kabir Panthis.

Watch this. I didn't know he had adopted a half Sikh girl.

You can see the whole documentary part by part.

we need specialists in their respective fields, who can command those underneath them, rather than a jack of all trades trying to keep everyone happy.

You hit the nail on the head. Different areas need different types of people. That is statehood. People have different skills and abilities. They all need to be utilised positively.

McD!

It is a propaganda being done by anti sikh forces. When i say this i do not mean by you. People like you are sucked into it unknowingly.

This is being done in an organized way after rise of sikhs in the wake of operation blue star. You can call it "operation scripture distortion".

I agree this is taking place within an Indian and western academic context. But to suggest that anyone with views that deviate from a particular perspective is part of this is wrong. Yes - we do all have to be careful.

That is what i have seen. Banis of tenth master are being referred to in obscene language like KK etc etc. It has been happening on quite a few forums. It was happening on SPN. Slowly believers will raise their voice against this Blasphemy (and it is blasphemy).It is not good to be a political correct sikh. We need to counter it .

You must be careful not to fall into elongated flame wars. There are better ways to deal with it. From what I have seen this is what it often comes down to.

There was never and repeat never a question mark on Dasam granth. You have addressed this question to me earlier also and i have replied to you. You wanted a reference and i provided you a hukamnama against Teja singh bhasaur. Do you remember that? You did not raise the point again. Please provide a reference from sikh history where there is a doubt on DG before Teja singh bHasuar.

I think this is a matter that we need to clear up. I am not talking about a century or so ago. I was pointing out that even in modern times some people question the authorship of some of the contents of DG. I do not think this is linked to Teja Singh Bhasuar.

Doubt was spread by arya samaji Hindus. The same theory is being repeated by some sikhs today.

See that is the strange paradox. The people who usually object to DG do so for the contents of CP and the heavy use of Hindu mythology in the granth. They say that this is essentially pushing SIkhism back into a Hindu framework. I know the granth is interspersed with references denying the divinity of the gods and goddesses but, they still feel that way. I hope you notice that it is actually anti-Hinduism that is making many people suspicious of the granth.

Khushwant Singh also believes that sikhs are part of Hindu religion. Do you believe that? he was married to a Hindu woman. Have these writers read dasam granth themselves? Moreover their personal opinions do not count.

When you say Narang i suppose it is gokul chand narang. He wrote that following bani was the composition unparalleled in any scripture of the world. I am not able to understand why a historian who writes so highly about bani of DG will write aginst it. Have you got the refrence from his book?

Moreover historians have their own opinions also. H macleod wrote so many thigs about SGGS ji.

One has to see the reverence and acceptance of this scripture among puratan sikhs.

My point in referring to these individuals (some of whom I find seriously distasteful) was to simply show you that there is a body of writing that does not support the view that Dasam Pita wrote all of the granth. Regardless of my own point of view (and yours). You must factor that into your thinking. This will help you understand why people have negative views of the granth. I personally do not think this is due to Bhasaur, Arya Samaj or any conspiracy myself. I think a serious, rational, new study of the relationship between Sikhs of old and DG is needed. The sad fact is that this is such an (understandably) emotive issue, that it is difficult to do subjectively as accusations start flying around in no time. As you fully aware. You may say that studies have been conducted already, I believe the panth is now is a much better position to conduct new research because our own knowledge of analysis has developed so much in the last century. I am not suggesting that we sacrifice faith over logic but merely saying that a revisit is merited. Whilst I am talking about this, I am really surprised that you still use the so called letter by Bhai Mani Singh as evidence. Have you seen it? It is very likely to be a modern forgery. It is not like anything written in early 1700s.

I know quite a bit about the founders of this body of heretics who themselves had no spiritual life

They had been Govt servants all their lives working 8 to 5 . They were not Gursikhs as may of them were not

Amritdharis. So one can judge their commitment towards sikhi.

After retirement they gather and are roped in by another traitor Gurtej singh IAS who was a mole in sikh

struggle of 1980/1990s. When whole of Punjab was burning and sikh youths were being killed they were

making alliances for spreading misinformation about Dasam granth. That is when it started. Now if you

ask me i will term it as conspiracy.

Regarding the IOSS. We spoke before about blanketing a whole organisation with one brush. I do not know them personally but I can say this. As an organisation, they have done much to rebut anti Sikh writings by Harjot Oberoi and McLeod. (See Invasion of religious boundaries and The Sikh revolution for examples). They have also translated puratan literature such as Sewa Das's Parchian and Rattan Singh Bhangu's Panth Prakash for the masses including the Panjabi text. I do not know the ins and outs of the organisation. From what I have read and seen of their publications I find it difficult to accept that they are anti SIkh. In fact I would go as far as to say that thay have actually done an extremely valuable service by making certain important puratan literature on Sikhi widely acccessible. I feel very passionate about this and from what I have seen some of their contributions have been awesome. Jagjit Singh's book, Sikh revolution, for example, is an unparalleled work that contrasts the Sikh movement with other contemporary movements such as the one in France and the American independence movement. It also does much to debunk the caste ridden interpretation of Sikh history by McLeod and J.S.Grewal awesomely.

Singh, it is very easy to slander people over the net. I beg the sangat to refrain from this and try and form your own opinions of people based on your own experiences. Anyone of us can be tarred with a brush. I would hope that Sikhs have enough "akl" to be careful of blindly jumping on bandwagons against people or orgs.

I had a talk with Bindra. I asked him he has translated hikayts whose language is persian. Did he know persian( I knew he does not know).He told that he did not know persian. My question was how he could he translate those. he replied by refrerring to dictionary.THus he made a fool of himself. I told that he waa dead wrong in understadning those hikayats. Give to it a persian scholar and he will tell that these are beautiful metaphors used for God. The problem here is some people have led their lives as a manmukh not following sikh rehat and then they become writers overnight

and write something they themselves do not understand. That is the case of Bindra. He spread a lot of misinformation about Dasam garnth. Finally he was detected and engaged in discussion and then he left the scene.

What I noticed with Sikh studies is a certain pattern. Pioneering work is done. Thsi is then reflected on, challenged, revisited and then improved. So I would regards his attempt at translating Hikayats as pioneering. I have to ask teh question of why has no one prior to him bothered to attempt to make the contents of Hikayats more accessible to the wider Sikh public? Presumably even Nihungs would struggle with comprehending the text given that it is written in Persian, a language notorious for its subtleties and nuances. Now he has produced his work, I am sure it will lead to better translations being produced in time. I always respect the doers. Whether I agree with him or not, he is a doer. If more people had that characteristic than we Sikhs as a community would be better off. Agree or disagree, he has contributed with (albeit imperfect) attempts to translate the portions of Dasam Granth others seem to avoid (i.e. Dr. Jodh Singh). I am sure Bindra's work will be improved in future, but I am glad to have something over nothing.

I believe that Dasam granth is very important for sikhs as a religion. I hope you believe sikhs should be amrtidhari sikhs at one stage of their life. there is no sikhism without Dasam granth. There were millions of kabir panthis in India. Where are they now? Just vanished. if there is no Dasam granth same thing is going to happen to sikhs.

That is why it is duty of a sikh to combat misinformation being spread about our scripture.

I appreciate your beliefs/feelings. Whatever my views right now, I don't want to see the DG disappear either. However, Sikhs existed for sometime before DG, this is something that needs to be understood. Besides, if we are to be destroyed, it will not be solely down to the disappearance of the DG from Sikh circles but also poor leadership, poor cohesion amongst Sikhs and inadequate strategic planning and action (amongst other things).

PS - That reference to Guru Gobind Singh seeking Kali Devi's help (who I think is the same as Durga) comes from Chibber's Bansavalinama. Look it up. I do not believe this at all btw. I only referred to it to show that interpolation and misinformation does occur in old sources.

Anyway. Let us leave the matter now we could probably argue over it for years. I have plenty of gaps in my knowledge to fill in this time. lol

Can you provide some evidence? Explain more.

Read the introduction to Macauliffe's work.

Will respond soon. Very busy at the moment with work.

The also added an extra bit ro Amrit bani saying making inititates say that they will be loyal to the King of England. THat was the 'modified' Amrit ceremony for joining the army.

Thank God we got them out! lol

Mithar:

I get what your saying but globalisation means that leaders must be able to play a part in the global community. The other option is withdraw and do your own thing. I don't think this is feasible/possible in these days. I am talking in terms of economics, resources, education and development etc. We can't be like an Amish community on the global platform.

Where our homeland is, has become so red hot in terms of Afghanistan/Pakistan and the possiblity of nuclear weapons getting in the hands of kuttarh musalmaans, we simply can't live in a bubble. Besides if a theoretical Khalistan formed, I have no doubt it will be attacked by India/Pakistan.

You said:

Some smooth talking western politician is not my idea of a Sikh leader. We already have plenty of those.

I haven't seen any that don't end up making themselves like bewakoofs! Politics is essentially about manipulating the situation to ones own benefit (I mean on a national level here). We haven't had anyone who can do that effectively since Maharajah Ranjit Singh.

But currently we have no one like Sant Jarnail Singh Bindrawala

True but in my opinion, such a person needs to be head of the military. I don't think they are equipped to deal with global politics. Which we are compelled to be a part of. This is not something I am happy about but a reality.

Whether we like it or not we have to deal with other nations, including the currently dominating west. We have to learn to do this without being colonised or manipulated, which they are expert in. That is why we need a modern educated leader now.

I strongly advise the UK sangat to watch this documentary. Others may find it interesting too.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=...rties&hl=en

Dalsingh veer you wrote:

Can you clarify more on this by giving examples from sant ji interactions with western media/leaders?

There are two incidents that stick in my mind. One was the American CNN guy who openly asked him if he was a Sikh Khomeini (available on the net).

The other was with BBCs Mark Tully (I think it was him). Anyway, the guy seemed to have tuttied himself after meeting sant ji. This was the impression one got from his writing (which I haven't got as the majority of my old books are locked up in storage).

When I finally saw Tully in a documentary years later, I could understand why. Tully seemed to be quite a gentle, giddarh type of English man, the type that seem to have an inbuilt fear of virile, strong, confident foreigners.

My point is that the west DO NOT like militant, religiously motivated movements unless they are behind them (i.e. Mujahadeen in Afghanistan). From what I have seen over the years, their portrayal of people in such movements (and Sant ji is an example), is never fair or unbiased. They always transpose a good versus evil framework on such conflicts. And when it is an anti governement movement, they will only take the side of the "rebels", when they want to destroy or destabilise the government for whatever reason. In which case they will give sympathetic media portrayal and perhaps even secret military support. However, as they did not have any major concerns with the ruling Congress party at the time, the western media generally towed the line with the official government version of events.

Avoid Lou Fennech. I read the book on Sikh martyrdom by him. It was basically an attack on SIkhi in the guise of academia.

I disagree, anyone who wants to be an effective leader of Sikhs in this age needs to bridge that gap between modern and traditional. I think one test criteria we should use is the persons ability to hold their own on the international political scene. How would they hold out in conferences? Can they inspire, communicate effectively to both Sikhs and the rest of the world. Could they hold their own againsts weasals like Tony Blair, could they openly debate with Obama without being totally overshadowed? These are things we need to develop and look for.

I love Sant ji but do not think he had these characteristics. He was on the right track though, he knew he had to communicate to the outside world but didn't have the language skills to do this. He also misunderstood the western mind and its general fear of religious people like him. He was simply a Sikh separatist to them. A Sikh Khomeini.

For me, the person who should be the leader of the Sikh army should be man like Sant ji. That will ensure the highest discipline. But politics - no. Leave that to more "khuusht" bunday. The average Panjabi would have rings run around him/her by the average naturally/inherently deceptive Europeon politician. The only person we ever produced that wasn't completely fooled by them was Maharajah Ranjit Singh!

Anyway, I do not want to reignite the distasteful exchanges that occurred lately. Singh2 at times it seems as if you have some conspiracy theory tendencies and sees "propaganda" where opinions differ from yours. What does this mean?

In another thread you are calling Dasam granth as literature only. THis is subtle proapaganda.

Are you suggesting that I am part of some wider conspiracy? That is what your post implies and it seems nuts to me (seriously). I've already told you my position on DG. I do not doubt Amrit bani. The other works is something I am studying. Until I draw a conclusion, I am referring to it as literature. I am talking of the reworkings of older tales here. At no time have I advocated negativism towards the granth but you see "conspiracy", that is what I mean by having an accusatory nature. I guess our disagreement boils down to my caution in subcribing the title bani to some of contents of DG. Please do not go into a frenzy over this. In time I will openly debate these matters.

When asked for proofs, no refrences are given. So far such misrepresentation will continue appropriate answers will be given. Make no mistake abut that.

Seriously, I don't know what your experiences have been but you seem to think that everyday Joes are part of some insidious anti DG campaign. Please stop it. The fact is that many Sikhs are largely unaware of the Dasam Granth in regards to the contents outside of the prescribed prayers and perhaps the short prayer attributed to Dasmesh Pita whilst in the Machiwarra jungle.

Now, I want you to grasp this. Prior to the years between around 89 and say 95, when I initially started studying literature on Sikhs, I was (like many) largely unaware of the wider (non Amrit bani) contents on DG. The view I generally got from reading literature on Sikhs was that their was some question marks on the authorship of all the compositions. This is my experience, I cannot recall every single publiccation I read back then (being quite young) but clearly there was a paucity of info on DG back then. In those days we did not have anything like we have today with translations and transliterations so it was very difficult for people to make their own informed decisions.

You seem to have serious problems grasping this. There is no conspiracy involved. Now that I am older I have learnt to assess the value and disposition of some of writers I encountered. In light of this I am not at all surprised people are cautious of some of teh DG contents (I am not saying they are right and wrong in this).

Anyway examples of references are: Khushwant Singh in his History of the Sikhs mentions that Macauliffe, Cunningham, Narang and Banerjee do not believe all of the writing in DG was Guru Gobind Singhs (appendix 4).

Other organisations have voiced similar opinions (i.e the IOSS).

J.S.Grewal says (in his The Sikhs of Punjab, 1998):

"Turning to the Dasam Granth, or The book of the Tenth Master, we find that all that there is in this compilation was not written by the Tenth Master. But there is much that was and more that was approved by him."

Pritpal Singh Bindra, who has done more than ANYONE else to try and translate the so called controversial parts of the granth also questions the authorship.

I hope you are realising that there is information out there that contradicts your assertion that very little doubt has been ascribed to DG. That is plainly wrong, at least from many English sources. Please note that these sources do not reflect my own opinions on the matter and also try and refrain from seeing conspiracies everywhere. I do not doubt that there are some that are using academia to attack Sikhs/Sikhi but not everyone who has a contrary position to your own (or even my own) is in this camp. I hope you have your references for this now.

Regarding that other point about old references to GGS worshipping Kali Devi prior to the Khalsa (something I do not believe). Are you seriously telling me you are unaware of this?

I will try and dig them out if you want but see no purpose as they are just early attempts at the Brahmanisation of Sikhi. I see no point really, all I was trying to highlight is that there are some strange things in some old manuscripts that we would consider anti gurmat today. Why turn that into a war now?

Anyway, have you noticed how all of your discussions seem to wind up back at DG Singh2? This was about Guru Gobind Singh ji's wives...but alas.....

Do you not see other important issues that Sikhs must face and address?

Don't be blind to the fact that other cultures can die a slow death. They can get strangled slowly. Most Sikhs recognise this tactic from Brahmins but fail to see it from other sources.

In terms of one man having impact on and reforming his culture Ataturk has no parallel in modern times. Even the national script was changed from Arabic script to a European one.

The religion of Islam will be elevated if it will cease to be a political instrument, as had been the case in the past."[26]

—Mustafa Kemal

On 3 March 1924, the Caliphate was officially abolished and its powers within Turkey were transferred to the GNA. The debate as to the validity of Turkey's unilateral abolition of the Caliphate was taken up by other Muslim nations in order to decide whether they should confirm the Turkish action or appoint a new Caliph.[25] A "Caliphate Conference" was held in Cairo in May 1926 and a resolution was passed declaring the Caliphate "a necessity in Islam", but failed to implement this decision.[25] Two other Islamic conferences were held in Mecca (1926) and Jerusalem (1931), but failed to reach a consensus.[25] Turkey did not accept the re-establishment of the Caliphate and perceived it as an attack to its basic existence; while Mustafa Kemal and the reformists continued their own way.[27]

The removal of the Caliphate followed with an extensive effort to establish the separation of governmental and religious affairs. Education was the cornerstone in this effort. In 1923, there were three main horizontal educational institutions. The first and most common institution was medreses (local school) based on Arabic, the Qur'an and memorization. The second type of institution was idadî and sultanî which were the reformist schools of the Tanzimat era. The last group was the colleges and minority schools in foreign languages that used the latest teaching models in educating pupils. The old medrese education was modernized.[28] Mustafa Kemal changed the classical Islamic education with a vigorously promoted reconstruction of educational institutions along the line of an enlightened pragmatism.[28] Kemal linked educational reform to the liberation of the nation from dogma, which he believed was more important than the Turkish war of independence.

Today, our most important and most productive task is the national education [unification and modernization] affairs. We have to be successful in national education affairs and we shall be. The liberation of a nation is only achieved through this way."[29]

—Mustafa Kemal

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk

If we had a leader like this Khalistan would be achievable.