Authenticity of Kartarpuri Bir - Global Sikh Studies

61
changing it to 1659. Apart from that, Pritam Singh is also aware
that G.B. Singh’s examination of the Banno Bir, according to
his own admission, was just casual, and superficial Sahib Singh
writes that it is quite likely that he did not have even a close
look at the Banno Bir. 86 For, he expressed his views chiefly on
the written replies sent to him by the custodians of the Banno
Bir. Evidently, the words of the custodians of the Bir, who
have tempered with the recorded year of production and
interpolated the Nishans of the Gurus in the Granth in order
to give it authenticity, can hardly be accepted as reliable by
any disinterested scholar. So far G. B. Singh is concerned we
have seen already that, a sober person like Jodh Singh has found
his facts, views and statements to be untruthful, senseless and
baseless. Therefore, Pritam Singh’s statement that the Bir G.B.
Singh saw, and wrote about, in 1944 with its year of production
tampered with was the original Banno Bir and the same has
since disappeared is without any basis. Had the real Banno Bir
been lost between 1944 and 1950 or so, not only the custodians
of the Bir but the whole of the Sikh world would have been
aware of it; but, nothing of the sort has ever happened. The
truth is that what G. B. Singh saw in the forties was the Banno
Bir with the over written year of production as 1659. G. B.
Singh made an absurd guess that the year of production beneath
it was probably 1648. The same Bir with the over-written year
1659 was seen by Giani Gurdit Singh in the forties or early
fifties. His guess was that the figure beneath 1659 was the
figure 169 which the scribe had wrongly written instead of
1659 and which, on discovering his own error, he later converted
into 1659 by changing 9 of 169 to 5 and adding another 9 to
it. 87 Again, it is this very Banno Bir with over-written 1659 that
was examined by Mahan Singh who on the basis of the shade
of the ink concluded that both G. B. Singh and Giani Gurdit
Singh were wrong because it was only the 9 of 1699 which