• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
 
An
Assessment
of
the Report
of
the
Sodhak
Committee
In some vocal quarters, great reliance is placed on the document beingexamined here. It is regarded as proof of the authenticity of the dasamgranth,and it is used to determine the Guru's authorship of the volume. The exercise itdescribes is presented as undertaken by the Akal Takhat and is supposed
to
have resulted in the emergence of an original volume of the book. It is thereforenecessary to examine it with a view to determining the nature of the evidenceit presents. Unless the document is thoroughly analysed, its final worth insupport of the above propositions cannot be fairly and accurately assessed.The aim of the present exercise is simply to determine the evidentiary value ofthe report under discussion.Bhai Manna Singh's Report: Sodhak Committee, New Anglo GurmukhiPress, Arnritsar, 1897, pp. 27 is a detailed account ostensibly a work ofreconciliation of the text of thirty-two volumes of the dasamgranth conductedin 1897
CE.
t is alleged that the Akal Takhat sponsored the work'. Inspirationfor undertaking the exercise supposedly came when it was noticed that oneBhai
Hari
Singh, a proof reader, had not only left many discrepancies in thevolume of the dasamgranth printed by him, but had also inserted into it hisown compositions as the original text2.The Khalsa Diwan Arnritsar, is reportedto have became disturbed about the matter and directed the publisher and also(perhaps the author) Bhai Manna Singh who was the secretary to a GurmatParcharak Sabha of Amritsd, to undertake the work of reconciliation.Bhai Manna Singh is the key figure in the entire process described in the
Report.
This also becomes apparent when we notice that
the
entire expensesfrom the beginning of the exercise to its ending in publication of the end product,came to some six hundred and three rupees and of this Manna Singh alonecontributed more than five hundred rupees. He was the overall in-charge ofthe exercise, the collection of volumes for reconciliation of text was done athis havcli, which was near Darbar Sahib and he supervised the actual exercise.He controlled all the finances and kept a meticulous account, which he
has
appended to the present booklet. He organised
all
the pyppcity required,
he
paid the remuneration to those who worked and he eventually received custodyof one of the two reconciled master volumes and so on4. Since, he also compiled
*
742,
Sector-8, Chandigarh
 
and published the present Report, we must take his opinion to be an authenticrecord of the entire process and on all matters concerning the comparisonwork and why the exercise was at all undertaken. One is prompted to observethat besides deeming it emotionally satisfying; he also considered it to be asound business proposition. According to the Report itself, it is an interimdocument on the subject.
A
final decision on the subject was still
to
be takenas is apparent from the advertisement printed at the end of the present work.It needs
to
be asserted about the finances that in spite of the worldwideappeal made for funds5, he general public contributed only fifty-three rupeesfor the purpose. The opening ceremony and the concluding one were madeinto spectacular events and much publicity for the events was done, but it doesnot appear to have generated much public enthusiasm. The Akal Takhat didnot contribute even a pice towards the expenses, so much so Manna Singh meteven the cost of the customary and ceremonial krah prasad from the fundscollected by him.It appears from the description, that the workplace was not actually theAkal Takhat but the drawing room (hoondi) of the Malwai Bunga adjoiningthe Takhat Akal Bunga6. For the first eight months, the work continued thereand the finishing touches were also given in the Malwai Bunga. The formalclosing ceremony was performed in the open space between the darshanideodhi and the Akal Takhat. On the occasion of the formal inauguration,
as
well as the formal completion of the work, Bhai Multana Singh who was thecustodian of the weapons at the Akal Takhat, recited the ardas. He alsoparticipated in comparing the text and received some monetary compensationfor his services7.Bhai Arjan Singh SarbrL& of the Gurdwaras atAmritsar was approachedto make available some volumes for the reconciliation work. He was also thePresident of the Gurmat Granth Parchar Sabha. He talked to thepujaris underhim and they agreed to lend the volumes available with them. The list of volumesused has been provided in the Report. It appears that the copies were collectedat random and all of them had originated from Amritsar and its vicinity. It isclear from the Report that no original volume of
the
dasamgranth existed atthe time of undertaking the reconciliation work. This also became the rationalefor the exercise.One copy contributed by an unspecified source was well decorated witha painting each of the Sixth and the Tenth Masters, also contained ahukamnamah bound into the volume and it contained some pages in handwriting 'perhaps that of the Tenth G~ru'~.lmost all the formulae utilis'edsince 1745
CE
to establish the book as written by the Guru himself were usedin this particular volume. Internal evidence ascribed its writing to two copyists,Darbari Singh (the elder) and Darbari Singh (the younger). The names werepresumed, without any scrutiny, to indicate that the scribes belonged to theGuru'scourt.Itwasreadily"assumed"
to
havebeencorrectedbytheGuru himself.Thisvolumecontainedasmanyoldpagesasreplacednewonesspread alloverthetext.IthadnoChandi-di-varandthepauriwithwhichthedaily ardasbeginshadbeeninsertedinoneofthereplacedornewpages.Italso variedmateriallyfromtheversionfinallyadoptedasaccurate.Nevertheless,it was'takentobe'the'presiding'orprimaryvolume.Itwasthiskindofuncritical approachthattheforgersanddasmgranth pushersoftheeighteenthandthe nineteenthcenturyhadplacedtheirrelianceon.MannaSinghdoesnotsuggest eveninwhisper,thatwhileexaminingthevolume,areferencewasmadeto anyknownstandardsofobjectivity.Strangely,itisalsonotexplainedwhyit wasnotadoptedintotosinceitwaspresumedtohavebeencoktedbythe Guruhimself.Thisishoweasyithadbeenfortheunscrupulousforgersto vendtheirwarestotheunsuspectingSirdarsoftheage(1745to1897
CE).
Apparentlybesidesaninkpotandpaper,apersonrequiredonlyunusual handwritingtoestablishadocumentaswrittenbytheGuru.,Tochallengeorto criticallyexamineadocumentwastantamounttocastingaspersionsonthe Guruandwasavoidedlikeplague.WhenLivysaid'godsmadethecowsspeak,' challengingthepropositionwasdeemeddoubtingtheabilityofgodstomake cowsspeak.Livy'sljeremainedun-nailed. BhaiMannaSinghappearstohavebeenalearnedmaninthetraditional sensetheninvogue.Itisclear thathehadconversed withthemostwellknown scholarsofhistime.He(aidedbySardulSingh?)hascarefullygiventhehistory ofthedasamgranthinthebooklet.Itcanbesafelyassumedthatthis wasall thatwasavailablebyw?yofopinionaboutthedasmgranthprevalentashistory ofthevolumeatthetimeofwritingtheReport. ItwasbelievedthattheTenthKinghadcomposedallthecontentsofthe book.However,because oflaterwarsandtumultuoustimes,theoriginalvolume wasdestroyedg.Incredibleasitmayseem,suchanassumptionisusedto establishboththeauthenticityandidentityoftheoriginalvolumeaswellas theGuru'sauthorshipofit.Incidentally,thistheoryalsosuitedthecommercial ventureMannaSinghwasundertakingnow.WhenauthorshipoftheGuruhad beendecidedupon,theonlyrequirementwhichremained,wastopresentthe argumentsinamannernottooobviouslyuntenabletoanuncriticalmind.This methodwasextensivelyused.Severalanonymouscompositionswereassigned tothe
Guru
ustbecause theywereanonymous.MentionofpoetShyam
as
authorintheChaubisavtarbookalsoposednoproblem.TheKr'ishanavtar portionadvertiseshimastheauthoratleastattwenty-fiveplaces(actually,his name asauthoroccursineverydefinablecompositioncontainedintheextensive text).MannaSinghgetsovertheobviousdifficultybyanotherassumption.He takesittobethelegitimatepoeticnameoftheTenth
Gum,
ho
according
to
oneversionofhisdateofbirth,wasborninthesecond(dark)phaseofthe satbhikhaplanet1".Thisexplanationpresentedadifficultywhenthedateof
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...