Authenticity of Kartarpuri Bir - Global Sikh Studies
Authenticity of Kartarpuri Bir - Global Sikh Studies
Authenticity of Kartarpuri Bir - Global Sikh Studies
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.