13.11.2013 Views

Authenticity of Kartarpuri Bir - Global Sikh Studies

Authenticity of Kartarpuri Bir - Global Sikh Studies

Authenticity of Kartarpuri Bir - Global Sikh Studies

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

67<br />

Pritam Singh when faced with the actual Banno <strong>Bir</strong> could not<br />

fail to realise that it was a Granth written in 1699. But, he,<br />

instead <strong>of</strong> accepting the natural inference, as had been done<br />

by Mahan Singh who concluded that the Banno story was<br />

unreliable and that the date <strong>of</strong> the Banno <strong>Bir</strong>, in view <strong>of</strong> the<br />

absence <strong>of</strong> the mention <strong>of</strong> the Nishan <strong>of</strong> the 5th Guru in the<br />

Tatkara, was really 1,699, and that the custodians <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Bir</strong><br />

who could go to the length <strong>of</strong> spinning a yarn, and altering the<br />

date <strong>of</strong> completion <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Bir</strong> could hardly be depended upon<br />

to supply any credible information, went to the extreme <strong>of</strong><br />

raising the illusion <strong>of</strong> another Banno <strong>Bir</strong> <strong>of</strong> which the Kanpur<br />

Banno <strong>Bir</strong> is a copy. The suggestion <strong>of</strong> Pritam Singh is patently<br />

impossible. There is no basis whatsoever for the story <strong>of</strong> the<br />

loss <strong>of</strong> Banno <strong>Bir</strong>. And in the circumstances <strong>of</strong> the case it<br />

appears a suggestive wrong statement to tend to convert the,<br />

story <strong>of</strong> the loss <strong>of</strong> the cover <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Bir</strong> into the loss <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Bir</strong><br />

itself. If the suggestion <strong>of</strong> Pritam Singh that the real Banno <strong>Bir</strong><br />

was lost and the Banno family has concealed that fact, were<br />

assumed for the sake <strong>of</strong> argument, then the present <strong>Bir</strong> would<br />

be a copy <strong>of</strong> some other Granth and not the so called original<br />

Banno <strong>Bir</strong> since the same was lost and could not be available<br />

for being copied out. Another allied question would be whether<br />

it is a true copy or a false copy. If it is a true copy the original<br />

too was produced in 1699; and if it is a false copy who<br />

prevented the copyist from writing the date <strong>of</strong> production as<br />

1661 instead <strong>of</strong> 1699, and why did the copyist allow the<br />

mention <strong>of</strong> the Nishan <strong>of</strong> the 6th Guru to be in the Tatkara<br />

when his purpose would have been served far better by a<br />

reference to it as the Nishan <strong>of</strong> the 5th Guru, especially when<br />

he had extraneously introduced it by pasting the Nishans. Pritam<br />

Singh’s suggestion is, thus, apart from having no factual basis,<br />

very irrational and self-Contradictory.<br />

However, in line with his suggestion <strong>of</strong> another Banno<br />

<strong>Bir</strong>. Pritam Singh has raised another phantom as well.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!