Bijla Singh

I wouldn’t call his work a research or findings. Have you seriously not read his books? Do you know how he obtained his so-called PhD? His work is not based on facts but simply conjectures and no serious student of Sikh history can learn anything truth from his nonfactual work. He can call himself a “non believer” or whatever but the fact remains that his hostility towards Sikhism is well known. He worked for Christian Missionary College that is well known to write against Sikhism in vulgar language. He joined the team of Nehru to promote the “national” policies. His books “The Sikhs”, “Evolution of Sikh Community”, “Who is a Sikh” etc were widely criticized by Sikh and non-Sikh scholars and to this day he has not answered back in a reasonable and rational manner. He discredits puratan jamansakhis, rehatnamas and always ignores Gurbani and Vaars. Wherever he referenced Vaars, he mistranslated and twisted facts. For example, he suggests that Guru Amardas Ji changed teachings of Guru Nanak Dev Ji, Guru Hargobind Ji introduced Miri-Piri because of Jat influence and overall Sikhism is nothing but a sect of Hinduism and Guru Nanak Sahib Ji was a Hindu reformer greatly influenced by Hindu Bhakti movement. His knowledge of Brij, Punjabi dialects, Persian, Arabic and Hindi/Urdu words used in Gurbani and by Bhagats especially Fareed Ji is less than zero. So how reliable is his work and translation? He is no different than Trumpp. He suggests that Goindval Pothis is an early draft of Guru Granth Sahib and Guru Arjan Dev Ji changed many of the words, lines and Shabads in the final volume to make it better. Simply ridiculous. He is calling Guru Granth Sahib not a dhur-ki-bani but a revised version of the original. This is something no true Sikh would accept. Prem Sumarag was published by Bhai Randhir Singh before him. Some of Gurbani was translated and published by Dr. Trilochan Singh in 1960. Just because he translated some works doesn’t make him a scholar. His translation is wrong. He knows nothing about Sikhism and his method of studying and researching is simply unethical. His arguments have to be based on authentic Sikh scriptures and historical documents, which he always overlooks and discredits, in order for anyone to say “agree to disagree”. Read the works of Dr. Fauja Singh, Dr. Trilochan Singh, Dr. Amarjit Singh Ball and other scholars that have refuted every conjecture of Mcleod.

Mcleod’s whole point of writing books is to paint Sikhi as part of Hinduism instead of a separate religion. In his books he always ignores the vast amount of evidence from Gurbani and Vaars which advocate Gurmat as a separate Panth. He suggests that Guru Sahib was influenced by Bhagti movement or Sufism. Prem Sumarag had been published before Mcleod even heard about it. I suggest reading the text yourself rather than relying on Mcleod’s translation. His argument that Bhai Kahan Singh and Teja Singh are wrong about the date of this text because they were Tat Khalsa is simply irrational. Bhai Randhir Singh was also Tat Khalsa yet he dated it in late 18th century. Prem Sumarag does have many Hindu practices which cannot be justified from Gurbani and Vaars. It cannot be held as 100% correct. Mcleod has been refuted many times and instead of giving sound reasoning he defends himself by saying “my approach is different”. One who questions authenticity of Guru Granth Sahib and calls Gurbani a “revised/edited” work of Goindval Pothis cannot be trusted as a scholar of Sikh studies. http://www.globalsikhstudies.net/pdf/Ernest_Trumpp.pdf