Authenticity of Kartarpuri Bir - Global Sikh Studies

59
by the fifth Guru, and it is a Chhant. As such, it could only
find a place in the section for Ramkali Rag in the subsection
for the Chhants, and, further in the subsection in which Guru
Arjun’s Chhants had been recorded whether those were short
or long. There is no other place in the Adi-Granth where Guru
Arjun’s Chhants under Ramkali Rag are recorded. Hence the
Chhant hymns in question could only be where these are, and
could not be recorded elsewhere, without violating the scheme
of the Adi-Granth.
Here it is not our purpose to ascertain whether Mcleod
made his observations out of sheer ignorance of the available
facts and materials, or of his anxiety to suppress known but
awkward facts, or of his conscious or unconscious bias because
of his years of working and association with the Christian
Missionary Centre, Batala. But, in either case, it does little
credit to his credibility as a scholar, especially because, even
after quoting Jodh Singh he writes: “From this report it is clear
that the issue should still be regarded as open.” 81 In view of
the above, we conclude that Mcleod’s criticism is factually
incorrect, untenable, and, in parts, even misleading.
VII
We, now, come to the criticism of Prof. Pritam Singh.
In his paper 82 he has, on the one hand, tried to attack the
authenticity of the Kartarpuri Bir and, on the other hand, tried
to give a fresh lease of life to the Banno story and the Banno
Bir having been written in the time of the 5th Guru. He states
that in the present Banno Bir the year of completion recorded
in the Tatkara has been changed from 1699. From all the
available internal evidence, he concludes that the present Banno
Bir at Kanpur was completed in 1699 and not earlier. 83 But,
quite inexplicably and on the