W. H. McLeod (1932–2009)

McLeod's notoriety in academic circles, particularly in that of Sikh studies, is well earned. His humiliation in the 90's after it was discovered that he had sponsored his acolyte Pashura Singh in fabricating a manuscript allegedly of the SGGS to argue Guru Arjan altered the words of his predecessors hallmarked his notoriety for years to come.

Sikhs of the Khalsa is McLeodian in the classic sense of the term. Relying on myopic readings of the Rehatnamahs he builds up a one-sided perspective of the Sikh Rahit to argue that the Singh-Sabha (Lahore) created its modern version. More updated research by Professor Raj Kumar Hans and Neeti Singh has proven this to be a baseless allegation. McLeod's inability to pursue his source material thoroughly fails him.

A primary example of McLeod's failing within Sikhs of the Khalsa is his inability to discern the interconnected nature of the 5 K's. The contemporary Sri Gur Katha of Bhai Jivan Singh Shahid; the Hukamnamah of Guru Gobind Singh to the Sangats of Kabul; the Nishaan-i-Sikhi of the tenth Guru; the Guru Kian Saakhian and several other sources mention the existence of the 5 K's. He dismisses these under one pretext or another. On the other hand, he fails to discern the practicality of the K's. Yes, the older Rehatnamahs mention only three K's:

(a) Kesh.
(b) Kacch.
(c) Kirpan.

The unshorn hair, the underdrawers and the dagger. But as Karamjit K. Malhotra evinces: these documents also emphasize the cleanliness of the hair through combing which substantiates the Nishaan-i-Sikhi's underscoring of the 5 K's (according to McLeod this composition is a post-18th century creation but he provides no evidence for this). The Kara (steel wrist ring) was complementary to the Kirpan as a wrist protector. Three primary K's and two secondary to maintain two of the first. McLeod, however, ignores the practical nature of the K's as well as a host of other sources to argue otherwise.

Overall, Sikhs of the Khalsa is somewhat useful for its chronology. But McLeod's arguments and conclusions are lacklustre and insipid.… (más)