|
Kalgi
Why does our community trip so badly on issues of heritage?
WSN Bureau
 AMRITSAR/VANCOUVER:
Two scholars who
brought a plume to Punjab refuse to reveal source, but then give
specious reasons for concealing it.
* First, the
Akal Takht jathedar strongly backs the plume’s authenticity as the
Kalgi belonging to the tenth Master, Guru Gobind Singh ji,
dismissing reservations by the SGPC. Then, doubts start prevailing.
* The family
which originally held the plume, says it never claimed a link with
the Guru.
* Kalgi goes
into Toshakhana, and then is pulled out of it.
* The so-called
researchers cannot explain how they associated the plume with Albert
Museum
* Now, the
sangat does not know whether it is a mere plume bought at a whim by
an antique collector or a priceless relic of the Guru acquired with
humility in mind and a sense of heritage preservation
Now, Sukhdiyal
Singh, professor in the department of historical studies, Punjabi
University, Patiala and a member of the five-member committee set up
by the SGPC to study the authenticity of the Kalgi has said it does
not belong to the Guru.
He said there
was no historical reference establishing the link of the Kalgi with
the tenth Sikh Guru. Balwant Singh Dhillon of
Guru
Nanak
Dev
University
has also said the crucial facts that could have possibly established
such a link were not available.
The mystery was
also deepened with Atam Singh Sandhu, elder son of late Chanan Singh
Chan, saying, “At no point have we claimed that the Kalgi is that of
Guru Gobind Singh Ji. We do believe that it dates from the 1800s
(Guru Gobind Singh died in 1708), although we have no documentary
support for this and we are not experts in the field.”
The disclosure
has put Kamaljit Singh Boparai and IPS officer Harpreet Singh Sidhu,
the researchers who brought the Kalgi and vouched for its
authenticity, in a corner.
Well, all of
that could have been part of a debate between available and lost
facts and linkages, but the row over the plume has underlined a
rather shoddy approach towards how we as a community respond to
issues concerned with our heritage.
While the Sikh
community scholars at large are wondering why the SGPC and the Akal
Takht could not find and reach a synergy level to go deep into the
issue before and without playing with the sentiments of the sangat,
the latest revelations by some dramatic personae involved further
sadden any engaged member of the sangat.
In a telephonic
conference interview by a Canada-based radio station where
Canada-based scholar Manjit Singh Randhawa and the man who brought
the Kalgi to India, Kamaljit Singh Boparai, were both present, Dr
Randhawa claimed that he has been informed by Mrs Mohinder Kaur, the
wife of antique collector late Dr Chanan Singh Chan, that Kanwaljit
Singh Boparai had taken away the Kalgi by saying that he wanted it
to be put through authenticity tests. At this, Boparai virtually
confirmed where the Kalgi has come from but said he had promised the
family not to let out their identity but he will not contradict what
“aunty ji has said.”
What was more
shocking was that Boparai failed to respond to questions as to how
he came to link the Kalgi with
Albert
Museum or
with Bhai Sangat Singh. He chose to snap out of the conference call
saying he was neither a scholar nor a leader and he has done his
duty by bringing the Kalgi to Punjab.
Meanwhile, even
as the sub-committee is to submit its final report on August 3, it
is not clear how any carbon dating or other test can prove the
Kalgi’s links with the tenth Guru. At best, they can prove the
vintage of the plume.
Bizarre
statements have also started making the rounds, and some of these
could very well be true. Sikh historian Dr Harjinder Singh Dilgeer,
in an emailed statement to the World Sikh News, has claimed that the
entire issue is a “fraud” and that he was aware that the so-called
plume was bought by Dr Chanan Singh Chan from a horse merchant for
Rs 100. He said he knew Dr Chan very well and the latter was in the
habit of passing off curious objects as antiques.
Dr Dilgeer said
he has made inquiries with the Commonwealth office in London and the
British Museum, and there is nothing to find. He expressed faith
about SGPC’s committee members Dr Kirpal Singh and Mohinder Singh
and said they were good researchers and will find out the entire
truth, but that, he added, will be possible only if SGPC president
Avtar Singh Makkar and Akal Takht Jathedar Giani Gurbachan Singh act
sincerely.
What however has
pained the community was that the sangat’s sentiments were
completely ignored and a kalgi was kept for Darshan for days even as
questions hung all the time over its heritage status. It is time the
Sikh community re-thought its entire approach towards how to care
for heritage, and that includes our concept of karsewa, Galiara
projects, UNESCO heritage status moves for Golden Temple, and sundry
other issues.
29
July 2009
|
Read Also