|
Stopping Academic Fraud
| |
In response
to the contentions of wide sections of the Sikh community about
the work and motives of Prof Pashaura Singh, Dr. Charles Louis
of University of California Riverside has dismissed the
complaint of the Sikh Community of Southern California, citing
‘tolerance of ideas’. But the issue is not only more than that,
but rather has nothing to do with the concept of tolerance. It
has to do with academic honesty and validity of data. The Sikh
community has now written to Mr. Timothy P. White, Chancellor,
University of California Riverside, detailing and reiterating
its position and awaits a response. We reproduce here an
excerpted version of the letter to the Chancellor.
|
|
Dear Dr. White:
This letter is
in reference to your reply dated
January 22, 2009
regarding enquiry into Prof. Pashaura Singh’s academic scholarship.
Having gone through your letter, we feel that our concerns have not
been taken into account in their right perspective. Instead the
whole exercise appears to be an attempt to wrap up the issue, under
the carpet, and no effort made to bring out the truth, in which we
are interested. You have rightly pointed out that “Research
misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism… in
reporting research results.”
Dr. Charles
Louis of UCR dismissed the complaint of the Sikh Community of
Southern California, entirely on the basis of ‘tolerance of ideas’.
The complaint, whereas, has no conflict with the university’s policy
of tolerance of ideas or freedom of speech, and independence of
research. Rather it specifies and demonstrates that Prof. Singh has
falsified and fabricated his data which formulated the basis of his
publications that facilitated his academic appointment. The three
manuscripts namely No. 1245, Bahowal and Vanjara Pothi(s) which he
used for most of his key publications have no inherent evidence
being prepared by the 5th Guru before compiling the sacred book of
Sikhism, “Aad Guru Granth Sahib”. The pitfalls f these manuscripts
are fully explained in our original Summary Complaint. Prof. Singh’s
research questions the sanctity and authenticity of the sacred
scriptures of Sikhs and therefore, hits at the basis of Sikhism
without offering any credible evidence.
The three
manuscripts are in Gurmukhi script and written in a conventional way
of old style scribing where letters are joined together and the
words are not written separately. Therefore, they can only be read
by an expert who can read Gurmukhi script and is able to decipher
manuscripts before drawing any conclusions about their
authenticity.
We request the
university to reconsider our complaint under the light of this
factual evidence.
In keeping with
the norms of the academics, appointing an investigative expert for
reading Gurumukhi Manuscripts would make a better sense. An
investigator (such as this), we are certain, would have found Prof.
Singh’s research is fabricated. Similarly, there are glaring
examples of falsification in manipulating research materials.
Unfortunately your letter underlines that there is no evidence
regarding fabrication and falsification in your response to our
summary complaint submitted to you. Here we are reproducing a
portion of that summary complaint in which we have quoted the
references of the books and the manuscripts in question. We feel it
provides enough evidence to prove that fabrication and falsification
have been an integral part of Prof. Singh’s work.
Entire
foundation of Prof. Singh’s research is based on the interpretations
of hand written religious manuscripts: MS 1245, Bahowal, and Vanjara
Pothis. These are written in many dialects of
Punjab, though
the main language is Punjabi. The style of writing of these
manuscripts is quite cumbersome i.e., they are written in running
style where the letters are joined to each other, making it very
difficult to read and interpret. A manuscript expert is necessary to
read and interpret them.
As requested in
our summary complaint: Did you ask any expert to look into the
manuscripts in question? If not then the evaluation is invalid,
faulty and full of academic flaws. Was an expert detailed to look
into the manuscripts to fully scrutinize Prof. Singh’s research? We
will appreciate if that was the case. If so, what were his/her
qualifications and expertise in interpreting the manuscripts? What
were the findings of the expert based on review of the Manuscripts
and Prof. Singh’s conclusions published in his work we had asked to
investigate specific questions as noted in our summary complaint
submitted on November 2008.
|
There is
enough evidence to prove that fabrication and falsification have
been an integral part of a religious ‘Draft Theory’ on
compilation of Sri Guru Granth Sahib. UCR must get opinion on
the issue by an Independent Sikh scholar well-versed in
interpretation and analysis of old Gurumukhi manuscripts in
order to decide the issue of Fabrication and Falsification”. |
|
We know that it
is a secret process; however, Sikhs have the right to know the
qualifications of the expert without knowing his/her name.
Specific
Examples of Fabrication and Falsification are as follows:
In our written
request and subsequent meeting with you on
Sept 26, 2008
regarding the investigation into the research work of Prof. Singh,
currently a professor of Sikh Studies at the University of
California Riverside, it appears he committed an act of academic
fraud under the disguise of publishing original research on Sikh
Scripture. We have already brought to your notice that ever since
his PhD thesis, “The Text and Meaning of the Adi Granth” submitted
to University of Toronto in 1991, he has been in the thick of
controversy especially by his use of debatable source namely
MS#1245.
When the Sikh
scholars confronted him on his methodology to date the above
document and his wrong premises, in June 1994 he appeared before the
Akal Takht and submitted in his own hand writing that he is guilty
and promised that he will rectify that wrongs done by him. After
that he has published two books: The Guru Granth Sahib Canon,
Meaning and Authority, OUP, New Delhi, 2000; Life and Work of Guru
Arjan, OUP, 2006 and an article ‘Vanjara Pothi: A New Source in the
Formation of the Sikh Canon’ Textures of the Sikh Past, ed. Tony
Ballantyne, OUP, 2007.
An examination
of the above works reveals that Prof. Singh is again on his old game
of misstatements and misrepresentation of facts. He is not only
playing fraud but also playing with the religious sentiments of the
Sikh community. He simply found an easy way to manipulate his
research in order to show originality of his findings. Ironically,
the scholars who approved his thesis and helped him to get
professorship, neither saw nor scrutinized the manuscripts (Drafts)
that formulated the basis of his Ph. D. dissertation and future
researches.
 On
behalf of the Sikhs of North America, we fervently appeal you to
reconsider our request
The following
points fall under the category of fabrication and falsification used
by Prof. Singh:
1. Baba Budha’s
Association with MS 1245:
Prof. Singh
states “It is quite possible that the manuscript was placed in the
custody of Bhai Budha and his descendants may have preserved it as a
scriptural relic” (2000, p. 43).
No source
validates it except the manuscript dealer’s note which has been
taken on its face value by him. Fabrication
2. Guru Arian’s
Association with MS 1245:
Prof. Singh
asserts, “When the emperor[Akbar] met Guru [Arjan] towards the end
of 1598, he had seen same collection of Sikh writings…..Perhaps it
was the GNDU manuscript [1245] which was under preparation at that
time” (2000, p.45).
It is only a
conjecture. There is no internal and external evidence that Guru
Arjan has prepared MS 1245. Fabrication and falsification
3. Scribe of the
MS 1245:
Earlier in his
thesis he has concluded that Bhai Gurdas is the scribe of this
manuscript. Now he shuns reiterating it but claims, “Finally, a
careful examination of the manuscript [1245] reveals that the entire
writing work has been done by one hand only” (2000, p.43). It is a
gross misrepresentation of facts as one can see hand writing of
different scribes in the manuscript under discussion. Fabrication
4. Guru Arjan
and Bhagat-bani:
On the basis of
MS 1245 Prof. Singh concludes that “Presumably he [Guru Arjan] was
collecting the hymns of the Bhagats separately in another volume to
include them later in the final recension.” (2000, p. 50). Where is
this volume? He has no answer. Perhaps he will present it sometimes
later on. Fabrication
|
 When
the Sikh scholars confronted him on his methodology to date the
above document and his wrong premises, in June 1994 he appeared
before the Akal Takht and submitted in his own hand writing that
he is guilty and promised that he will rectify that wrongs done
by him. After that he has published two books, whose examination
reveals that he is again on his old game of misstatements and
misrepresentation of facts. |
|
5. The issue of
Kachi-bani:
It is a fact
that the Mina Gurus were circulating their writings in the name of
Sikh Gurus. In MS 1245 there are more than 48 apocryphal writings of
which 20 are entered in the name of Guru Arjan. Pashaura Singh hides
this fact in his thesis presented to
University of
Toronto (p.9.f.n.32). Falsification
The apocryphal
writings attributed to Guru Arjan have not found any place in the
Adi Granth. It proves that MS 1245 has originated after 1604 and
belongs to a different tradition of Gurbani.
6. Involvement
of Maharaja Ranjit Singh:
Prof. Singh says
“It is quite possible that Maharaja Ranjit Singh appointed a council
of prominent Sikh scholars to prepare an authorized version of the
Adi Granth” (2000, p.227).
It is only a
figment of imagination. There is no official chronicle of Ranjit
Singh or of his times to certify the above statement. Falsification
7. Theory of
‘Working Drafts’:
For textual
studies on any Scripture one requires the sources that have their
origin in the pre-canonical stage. Their antiquity, authority and
authenticity have to be established on the basis of academic norms.
Besides one is required to identify the tradition from which these
sources have descended. Every manuscript has a purpose therefore a
scholar has to find out the purpose and use made of these
manuscripts. In his thesis Pashaura Singh has projected MS1245 as an
early draft of the Adi Granth. Now in order to prove his pre-
conceived formulations he flaunts the theory of ‘Working Drafts’ and
asserts, “In addition to MS 1245, Bahoval, and the Vanjara Pothi(s)
must be regarded as one of the ‘Working Drafts’ prepared by
different scribes under the direct supervision of Guru Arjan”(
2006,p.142; 2007, p.29).He places them in pre Adi Granth period i.e.
before 1604 and claims, “All these Pothis were kept in the Guru’s
archives at Amritsar” (2006,p.161; 2007, p. 55).
Firstly, his
‘Working Drafts’ theory of the Adi Granth finds no validity in the
Sikh history. No internal and external evidence support that these
manuscripts have been prepared under the direct supervision of Guru
Arjan. The Bahoval and Vanjara Pothi(s) carry no colophon mentioning
about the scribe, date and place of their scribing. Therefore
Pashaura Singh’s claim that they have been prepared under the direct
supervision of Guru Arjan is highly illogical and untenable.
 Similarly,
MS#1245 which he calls an ‘early draft of the Adi Granth’ and places
it in 1599, carries a colophon on folio1255 in which death date of
Guru Arjan i.e. Jeth Sudi 4, 1663 BK. (1606 CE) has been recorded.
However, Pashaura Singh in order to prove the earlier origin of the
manuscript states that, “This was perhaps inserted later in the
blank folios” (2006, p. 51).
This is not an
honest deduction as the relevant entry has been made by the primary
scribe with the same pen and bears the same shade of ink. In fact
the manuscript continued to be written after that. Even a scholar
with a rudimentary knowledge of manuscriptology would hesitate
hundred times to place it before 1606 CE. In fact Pashaura Singh has
played an academic fraud which needs condemnation by all the
scholars irrespective of their position and affiliations.
Fabrication and falsification
8.
Misrepresentation of Facts:
In Vanjara Pothi
there is an apocryphal composition Sahansar Nama attributed to
Mohalla 6.Scholars know well that Guru Hargobind, the sixth Guru
has not authored any composition. It was Prithi Chand, the Mina
guru who wrote kachi-bani in the name of Nanak which is found
recorded in the Mina works under the authorship of Mahalla 6.
Pashaura Singh knowingly attributes it to Guru Hargobind and
misleads the scholars, “Interestingly the last composition was added
later on with a different pen” (p.53). However a close look at the
manuscript reveals that it is in the hands of primary scribe written
with the same pen and is in the same shade of ink. Falsification
9. In
Conclusion:
There is no
politics in opposing Prof. Singh holding a Sikh chair in UCR. It’s
purely an academic issue that needs an independent and impartial
investigation. We are interested in truth. Therefore, we request
again for reconsideration and looking into Sikh community’s
Intellectual Property Rights and academic concerns. There is enough
evidence to prove that fabrication and falsification have been an
integral part of a religious ‘Draft Theory’ on compilation of Sri
Guru Granth Sahib. UCR must get opinion on the issue by an
Independent Sikh scholar well-versed in interpretation and analysis
of old Gurumukhi manuscripts in order to decide the issue of
Fabrication and Falsification”.
Please note
that, recently, Prof. Singh wrote to us for a meeting. We responded
that as Sikhs we have high regards for him and his family
emphasizing that we carry no ill-will against him or his family. Our
issues are purely concerning his academic research and inferences
pertaining to Sikh scriptures and suggested a seminar on the issue
in presence of discussants qualified as professors retired or
presently working in any university with expertise in Gurumukhi
script and well-versed in the reading of Sikh Scripture especially
the old Sikh manuscripts. Proceedings of which would be published,
circulated among the Sikh academicians and the Sikh community. We
have not received a reply so far. For details we are attaching the
letter dated
April 14th 2009.
Sincerely
Members of Coalition and Watchdog Agency
6
May 2009
|
Read Also