It was a pleasure attending the Conference on the `The Academic Study of Religion with Focus on the Sikh Tradition' held at St. Michael's College, University of Toronto on February 10 to 12, 1994. In my judgement, the Conference was, in its real sense, an attempt to revive the interest of the Sikh Community in furtherance of the Sikh Studies in the University. This was evident from the opening remarks of Prof. J. T. O'Connell in the `Roundtable Discussion' on first day; the interest of the students in the Sikh Studies was dwindling, the number of pupils electing for such subjects was declining, and extra efforts were needed to keep the studies going.

But the attendance was sorrowfully low; it ranged between 40 and 60 through out the Conference. I was told that, apart from the fliers handed out by the University Students, there had been no publicity.

Contrary to the feeling in the Community, no restrictions on the entry were imposed. It was visible by the presence of a few Sikh protagonists who had been very critical of the derogatory work done at the University in the past.

In the Roundtable session, some students appreciated the endeavour of Ms. Jugraj Pal (Toronto), who imparted the knowledge of Punjabi in the classes for the Language of the Sikh Religion. But, in their view, the teaching in Sikh Religion was distorted. Student Neil Mann pointed out that they came there to enhance their religious awareness, but they were distracted by the presentation of misstatements. For example, he mentioned, just a day earlier Mr. Fenech had tried to establish that Kabir was the Guru of Guru Nanak, which was quite contrary to their ingrained belief. Mr. Fenech seemed apologetic at the time but during his Paper on the Poetry of Bhai Nand Lal he made no attempt to clarify. His Paper, no doubt, was brilliant on the subject.

Here I must mention that, in keeping with the procedure adopted in the conferences and the seminars at large, no questions were permitted to be asked except the ones pertaining to the subject of the Paper itself. It was very annoying for Prof. Uday Singh when he was cut off a few times during the question periods on the Papers primarily due to this reason.

Regarding the dwindling interest in, and the support of, Sikh Studies in the University of Toronto Prof. Uday Singh pointed out that it was the result of the sceptical research conducted by the University. He held Dr. McLeod responsible for this damaging repercussion, and abruptly accused him of getting paid by the Government of India to malign Sikh prestige. There was no response from any quarter.

To save the teaching of Sikh Studies in the University, Prof. Petro Bilaniuk (Toronto) advised the Sikh Community to collect a couple of million dollars to establish the Department for the same. Dr. Jarnail Singh expounded that the Sikh Community had already done so; their contribution was for the advancement of Sikh Religion but the negative approach of the University had, rather, downgraded the Sikh Decorum.

Dr. Spellman's expression of his opinion in this session was very offensive. He condemned the Sikh attitude towards academic studies. He blurted out that the Rehat Namas exposed Sikh `bigotry' by telling the Sikhs to hate the Hindus and the Muslims. There was strong reaction, and he was admonished for speaking out of contest. He was attending the Conference in his individual capacity, and had no Paper to present--probably he had come there to extend his recently acquired hate for the Sikh Community.

The informal discussion continued during the ensuing break. It became very alive when Dr. Spellman was encountered by a few students, led by Harman Singh, and some individuals. They expressed their concern for his out of the context remarks in his Globe & Mail article; the turban and the hair, which were initiated by Guru Gobind Singh, were complimentary to each other but this fact was totally omitted by him in his stipulations. Dr. Spellman was absolutely unabashed. He flew into partial rage when it was suggested that his intentions were emotive, and he had been instigated by certain external forces. The cat came out of the bag when, later on, he asked why the Sikh Community was not supporting Dr. Pashaura Singh.

The first paper by Prof. W. Oxtoby (Toronto) was universally applauded. The Religious study is like love and it is associated with faith, devotion, and sentiment. His dissertation of insider-outsider was much acclaimed; an outsider should submit his descriptions to an insider to see whether there was self-recognition.

Even Dr. McLeod, presenting his paper on Friday on Religious Scriptures, emphasised the need for the realization of the insiders' feelings. He propounded that the research of religious scriptures should be banned to the foreigners; in case of Sikh scriptures any person not belonging to the Panth, the Sikh Faith, should not be allowed to indulge in the interpretation, explanation, or validation of the Sikh Scriptures.

This contention was augmented in the Papers presented by Prof. Petro Bilaniuk (Toronto) and Professor Hadiya Dajani-Shakeel (Toronto) on Friday.

Prof. Bilaniuk was asked when a point in his research of History touched the sensibility of people, what would he do to avoid (controversy). He replied that he would go and thank the person, say thank you, apologise, and promise not to repeat.

Prof. Hadiya Dajani-Shakeel, commenting on the Western feminist perspective in Islam, quoted two scholars; the work of the one who explored entirely from the outside was negated whereas the work of the other, conducted from the inside, was still extant.

Similarly Prof. Leif Vogue (Victoria/Emmanuel) expressed that the academics (we) must think how their (our) comment would effect the people, would it give them soothing effect, and what difference would it make in the lives of the faith?

But, as mentioned above, two persons emphatically refuted this theory of insider-outsider. They wanted to give freehand to the academics. One of them was Dr.Spellman. His 180 degree turn in respect of Sikh Culture, articulated by him in the Globe & Mail, had caused considerable discomfort to the Sikh Community. And the other person was Dr. Sulakhan Singh Dhillon of Golden Gate University, a close associate of Dr. Pashaura Singh. Dr. Dhillon's double standard was beyond comprehension. Contrary to his above comment, he advocated in his Paper, "The strict cognitive methods that are generally applied in philosophical inquiry (i.e. academic study-PSB) appear to be irrelevant.... Therefore, Sikh ethical theory is best understood by knowing the way of a Gur-mukh Sikh (insider-PSB) whose everyday actions are self-evident."

In the same context Dr.Gurudharam Singh Khalsa (Gettysburg)'s words are worth noting. He said, "Studying religion is a bit like courting woman, the approach must be restrained and appreciative. Hidden jewels won't be revealed to a clumsy suitor who sees only facts of age and fails to remark on beauty."

Dr. Pashaura Singh (Michigan) spoke on the Kartarpuri Bir, Bano's Bir, and Guru Arjan Dev's Ramkali Hymn (controversial Puberty Hymn). He countered Dr. McLeod's contentions. He acknowledged that the Kartarpuri Bir was the original Bir prepared by Guru Arjan, there was no trace of Puberty Hymn in that volume, and there was no evidence of the erasure of the same. According to him the alterations or the additions were committed in the Bano Bir during the period the copies were made. He had done his homework so thoroughly that his Paper did not leave any loop-hole on the basis of which one could question and denounce him.

Except, however, that he had referred to Dr. McLeod's findings as erroneous and contradictory. When it was pointed out to him that Dr. McLeod already had a change of thought, and had reversed his opinion on Kartarpuri Bir, Dr.Pashaura Singh expressed his ignorance. Dr. McLeod's article, conceding to the originality of Kartarpuri Bir, was printed in the book `Studying the Sikhs' by John Stratton Hawley and Gurinder Singh Mann. It was published in 1993. It is hard to believe that the ardent disciple had no knowledge of his revered guru's work.

A few questions were raised after the exposition of Prof. Magee (Toronto) on Early Manuscripts and Textual Criticism. With long anecdotes he tried to establish that textual alterations have been quite frequent in Christianity. Mr. Gurinder Singh Mann's Paper (read by Dr. McLeod in his absence) had established the validity of other recensions of Guru Granth Sahib. The question was raised to the obscured intentions of the academics reared in the West. The Guru Granth Sahib given to the Sikh Nation by Guru Gobind Singh has been revered for the last over two hundred years. Before that all the volumes were just Pothis, the books. Why were academics stressing on the validity of Goindwal Bir, Jallander Bir or Guru Har Sai Bir as Granth Sahibs? There was no specific answer.

When Dr. Pashaura Singh stood up to support Prof. Magee (Toronto) regarding a point in the Sikh Scriptures, he was pressed (although out of context) to let the Sikhs know if he was going to Akal Takht for pardon. His reply was very vigorous, `Yes', he was a Sikh and was going there as a Sikh... he was not going there as an academic... (and) he had always stood by what he had written.... I have not read Dr. Pashaura Singh's dissertation, all I know what Dr. S.S.Sodhi (Halifax) has interpreted in his articles. Either Dr. Pashaura Singh is too confident of his findings (to convince Singh Sahibans at Akal Takht, Amritsar of the truthfulness of his thesis) or he is living in a fools' paradise. Only the time will tell.

Dr. Jaswant Singh Neki, who was specially flown from Delhi for the Conference spoke on the Poetry and Music of Guru Granth Sahib. With due respect I would say that his Paper was not more than an essay by an under-graduate. However, his summing up after a few speakers, was impressive. Particularly his comments on the need of `disciplined empathy' rather than `sympathy' in the academic study of religion were imposing. But his suggestion that the Language of Guru Granth Sahib was `Sant Bhasha', caused considerable commotion next day when the same delineation was used by Dr. McLeod. Mr. Tarlochan Singh Gill infuriatingly requested for the abandonment of this analogy, and stressed that it was Classical Punjabi and not Sant Bhasha. Unfortunately, Dr. Neki had already left.

A number of other prominent academics presented their Papers too. They were very informative, and devoid of controversies. But I must mention that the contents and presentation of Prof. Nikky Gurinder Kaur Singh (Colby) were outstanding. The subject of her discourse was `Bridle Symbol in Sikh Religion'. It was pleasure listening to her. She put herself, both body and soul, into the text. Her exposition, whether in Punjabi or in English, was through out melodious, lyrical, and romantic. Though herself small in stature, her eloquence was sky high, lofty, and celestial.

In conclusion I would again refer to:

1. Prof. Peter Bilaniiuk (Toronto)'s advice to finance the

establishment of the Department of Sikh studies,

2. Dr. McLeod's reversal and his advice to the non-Panth

Scholars, (his statement of regret published in the Sikh

Review, Calcutta, January 1994 cannot be overlooked),

3. Dr. Pashaura Singh's adherence to the established Sikh

Decorum,

4. the remarks of the officially sponsored readers of the Papers (mostly from the Toronto University itself)

supporting the insider-outsider collaboration, and

5. Dr.Dhillon's contention specified in the quotation from

his Paper mentioned above.

From the foregoing (ignoring the bigoted attitude of Dr. Spellman, and inadvertent remark of Mr.Fenech) it becomes obvious that the Conference was an exercise on the part of the University to re-establish its credibility in Sikh Studies.

I was impressed by the keen interest the students, both Sikhs and non-Sikhs, have been taking in the Studies of Sikhism. It would be a travesty of the circumstances if the facility of imparting the Sikh History, Ethics and Scriptures is snatched away from our coming generation. If the University authorities are prepared to undertake that the insider views and feelings will be honoured, and no infringement of the faith tolerated, I would advise that the Sikh Community should endow full support to help Sikh Studies to flourish not only in Toronto but also in all the Universities in the West.