Authenticity of Kartarpuri Bir - Global Sikh Studies
Authenticity of Kartarpuri Bir - Global Sikh Studies
Authenticity of Kartarpuri Bir - Global Sikh Studies
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
56<br />
even in the Banno <strong>Bir</strong> <strong>of</strong> 1699. These being the facts, to relate<br />
the question <strong>of</strong> deletion with the absence <strong>of</strong> puberty hymn in<br />
the <strong>Kartarpuri</strong> <strong>Bir</strong> is evidently an attempt to mislead and<br />
prejudice the lay reader into linking in his mind the ommission<br />
<strong>of</strong> the puberty hymn with the event <strong>of</strong> deletion, thereby making<br />
him to believe that though the so called awkward hymn was<br />
present in the Banno <strong>Bir</strong> its absence in the <strong>Kartarpuri</strong> <strong>Bir</strong> has<br />
been secuerd by the fishy method <strong>of</strong> deletion. The facts speak<br />
out for themselves and are otherwise. We know that neither<br />
are the deletions in the <strong>Kartarpuri</strong> <strong>Bir</strong> a fishy matter, nor was<br />
the puberty hymn originally present even in the Banno <strong>Bir</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
1699, nor was the Banna <strong>Bir</strong> prepared earlier than Samat 1699<br />
to enable anyone to copy it (a Granth <strong>of</strong> 464 folios into a<br />
Granth <strong>of</strong> 974 folios) during the time <strong>of</strong> the fifth Guru or<br />
even 35 years later.<br />
Both Mcleod and Loehlin have been lamenting their<br />
frustration at not being able to serve academic interests because<br />
they were not allowed access to the <strong>Kartarpuri</strong> <strong>Bir</strong>. 74 Mcleod<br />
even went to the extent <strong>of</strong> recording that non availability <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Kartarpuri</strong> <strong>Bir</strong> to them suggests that there was something to<br />
conceal therein. 75 But one wonders why the acute academic<br />
keeness <strong>of</strong> these scholars never led them to see the Banno <strong>Bir</strong><br />
even though the same was all these years available for the<br />
examination <strong>of</strong> any serious scholar. Had they cared to see they<br />
would have found out that the year <strong>of</strong> its production was Samat<br />
1699 and that it had practically been written by one scribe and<br />
that the story <strong>of</strong> 12 scribes having copied it out on way to<br />
Lahore was not tenable. Again we may ask how is it that these<br />
scholars remained entirely ignorant <strong>of</strong> the work <strong>of</strong> Mahan Singh<br />
who wrote in 1952 that the Banno <strong>Bir</strong> was written in Samat<br />
1699 and the year <strong>of</strong> its production had been altered into an<br />
earlier date, or the writings <strong>of</strong> G. B. Singh and Gurdit Singh all<br />
<strong>of</strong> whom had recorded that the year <strong>of</strong> its production stood<br />
tampered with, or the work <strong>of</strong> Sahib Singh that the Banno<br />
story <strong>of</strong> the