☀️ JOIN SPN MOBILE
Forums
New posts
Guru Granth Sahib
Composition, Arrangement & Layout
ਜਪੁ | Jup
ਸੋ ਦਰੁ | So Dar
ਸੋਹਿਲਾ | Sohilaa
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਿਰੀਰਾਗੁ | Raag Siree-Raag
Gurbani (14-53)
Ashtpadiyan (53-71)
Gurbani (71-74)
Pahre (74-78)
Chhant (78-81)
Vanjara (81-82)
Vaar Siri Raag (83-91)
Bhagat Bani (91-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਝ | Raag Maajh
Gurbani (94-109)
Ashtpadi (109)
Ashtpadiyan (110-129)
Ashtpadi (129-130)
Ashtpadiyan (130-133)
Bara Maha (133-136)
Din Raen (136-137)
Vaar Maajh Ki (137-150)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗਉੜੀ | Raag Gauree
Gurbani (151-185)
Quartets/Couplets (185-220)
Ashtpadiyan (220-234)
Karhalei (234-235)
Ashtpadiyan (235-242)
Chhant (242-249)
Baavan Akhari (250-262)
Sukhmani (262-296)
Thittee (296-300)
Gauree kii Vaar (300-323)
Gurbani (323-330)
Ashtpadiyan (330-340)
Baavan Akhari (340-343)
Thintteen (343-344)
Vaar Kabir (344-345)
Bhagat Bani (345-346)
ਰਾਗੁ ਆਸਾ | Raag Aasaa
Gurbani (347-348)
Chaupaday (348-364)
Panchpadde (364-365)
Kaafee (365-409)
Aasaavaree (409-411)
Ashtpadiyan (411-432)
Patee (432-435)
Chhant (435-462)
Vaar Aasaa (462-475)
Bhagat Bani (475-488)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੂਜਰੀ | Raag Goojaree
Gurbani (489-503)
Ashtpadiyan (503-508)
Vaar Gujari (508-517)
Vaar Gujari (517-526)
ਰਾਗੁ ਦੇਵਗੰਧਾਰੀ | Raag Dayv-Gandhaaree
Gurbani (527-536)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਹਾਗੜਾ | Raag Bihaagraa
Gurbani (537-556)
Chhant (538-548)
Vaar Bihaagraa (548-556)
ਰਾਗੁ ਵਡਹੰਸ | Raag Wadhans
Gurbani (557-564)
Ashtpadiyan (564-565)
Chhant (565-575)
Ghoriaan (575-578)
Alaahaniiaa (578-582)
Vaar Wadhans (582-594)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੋਰਠਿ | Raag Sorath
Gurbani (595-634)
Asatpadhiya (634-642)
Vaar Sorath (642-659)
ਰਾਗੁ ਧਨਾਸਰੀ | Raag Dhanasaree
Gurbani (660-685)
Astpadhiya (685-687)
Chhant (687-691)
Bhagat Bani (691-695)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਤਸਰੀ | Raag Jaitsree
Gurbani (696-703)
Chhant (703-705)
Vaar Jaitsaree (705-710)
Bhagat Bani (710)
ਰਾਗੁ ਟੋਡੀ | Raag Todee
ਰਾਗੁ ਬੈਰਾੜੀ | Raag Bairaaree
ਰਾਗੁ ਤਿਲੰਗ | Raag Tilang
Gurbani (721-727)
Bhagat Bani (727)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੂਹੀ | Raag Suhi
Gurbani (728-750)
Ashtpadiyan (750-761)
Kaafee (761-762)
Suchajee (762)
Gunvantee (763)
Chhant (763-785)
Vaar Soohee (785-792)
Bhagat Bani (792-794)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਲਾਵਲੁ | Raag Bilaaval
Gurbani (795-831)
Ashtpadiyan (831-838)
Thitteen (838-840)
Vaar Sat (841-843)
Chhant (843-848)
Vaar Bilaaval (849-855)
Bhagat Bani (855-858)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੋਂਡ | Raag Gond
Gurbani (859-869)
Ashtpadiyan (869)
Bhagat Bani (870-875)
ਰਾਗੁ ਰਾਮਕਲੀ | Raag Ramkalee
Ashtpadiyan (902-916)
Gurbani (876-902)
Anand (917-922)
Sadd (923-924)
Chhant (924-929)
Dakhnee (929-938)
Sidh Gosat (938-946)
Vaar Ramkalee (947-968)
ਰਾਗੁ ਨਟ ਨਾਰਾਇਨ | Raag Nat Narayan
Gurbani (975-980)
Ashtpadiyan (980-983)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਲੀ ਗਉੜਾ | Raag Maalee Gauraa
Gurbani (984-988)
Bhagat Bani (988)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਰੂ | Raag Maaroo
Gurbani (889-1008)
Ashtpadiyan (1008-1014)
Kaafee (1014-1016)
Ashtpadiyan (1016-1019)
Anjulian (1019-1020)
Solhe (1020-1033)
Dakhni (1033-1043)
ਰਾਗੁ ਤੁਖਾਰੀ | Raag Tukhaari
Bara Maha (1107-1110)
Chhant (1110-1117)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕੇਦਾਰਾ | Raag Kedara
Gurbani (1118-1123)
Bhagat Bani (1123-1124)
ਰਾਗੁ ਭੈਰਉ | Raag Bhairo
Gurbani (1125-1152)
Partaal (1153)
Ashtpadiyan (1153-1167)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਸੰਤੁ | Raag Basant
Gurbani (1168-1187)
Ashtpadiyan (1187-1193)
Vaar Basant (1193-1196)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਾਰਗ | Raag Saarag
Gurbani (1197-1200)
Partaal (1200-1231)
Ashtpadiyan (1232-1236)
Chhant (1236-1237)
Vaar Saarang (1237-1253)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਲਾਰ | Raag Malaar
Gurbani (1254-1293)
Partaal (1265-1273)
Ashtpadiyan (1273-1278)
Chhant (1278)
Vaar Malaar (1278-91)
Bhagat Bani (1292-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਾਨੜਾ | Raag Kaanraa
Gurbani (1294-96)
Partaal (1296-1318)
Ashtpadiyan (1308-1312)
Chhant (1312)
Vaar Kaanraa
Bhagat Bani (1318)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਲਿਆਨ | Raag Kalyaan
Gurbani (1319-23)
Ashtpadiyan (1323-26)
ਰਾਗੁ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਤੀ | Raag Prabhaatee
Gurbani (1327-1341)
Ashtpadiyan (1342-51)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਜਾਵੰਤੀ | Raag Jaijaiwanti
Gurbani (1352-53)
Salok | Gatha | Phunahe | Chaubole | Swayiye
Sehskritee Mahala 1
Sehskritee Mahala 5
Gaathaa Mahala 5
Phunhay Mahala 5
Chaubolae Mahala 5
Shaloks Bhagat Kabir
Shaloks Sheikh Farid
Swaiyyae Mahala 5
Swaiyyae in Praise of Gurus
Shaloks in Addition To Vaars
Shalok Ninth Mehl
Mundavanee Mehl 5
ਰਾਗ ਮਾਲਾ, Raag Maalaa
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Videos
New media
New comments
Library
Latest reviews
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
Sign up
Log in
Discussions
Hard Talk
How McLeod Became “one Of The Foremost Scholars” Of Sikh Studies?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="dalsingh" data-source="post: 84037" data-attributes="member: 2883"><p><strong>Re: How McLeod became “one of the foremost scholars” of Sikh Studies?</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I agree that as a positive, his controversial writing forces "adhay soohtay" (half asleep) Sikh scholars to wake up. No one can deny McLeod is intelligent and can write in an extremely readable fashion, but using passive voice to present opinions as if they are irrefutable facts is an old trick. I'm not one of those knee jerk reactionaries who totally discount McLeod but he is not without his own flaws.</p><p></p><p>I actually read his work and own a fair few of his books. If there is truth in the way he got his PhD thesis from SOAS then I'm not surprised eyebrows are raised. I don't remember such a slack approach being taken on my undergraduate degree dissertation, let alone a PhD thesis no less! Also his own background of being a Christian missionary who had lied to this own church about his loss of faith is also a tad bit controversial in itself. The question of projecting his own angst on SIkhi is valid. </p><p></p><p>Regarding McLeod's scholarly approach. </p><p></p><p>Firstly he has only very recently started to respond to other scholar's critiques of his work, whereas he previously adopted an obnoxious "better than thou" attitude towards Sikhs who questioned his work. Even now his responses are what I would term "lazy."</p><p></p><p>His claim that he is treading "sensitively" on the matter of a living faith is rubbish. The amount of people upset by his work is testimony to that. </p><p></p><p>He has a strange habit of trying to create a sort of "gang" of scholars with the same view and who are often his own protege. I read Lou Fennech's work on Martyrdom in Sikhi (it was a PhD thesis, heavily supervised by McLeod). How such a work could be passed as serious and of quality surprises me. </p><p></p><p>For a community such as Sikhs, whose ranks, lets be honest, were/are largely made up of illiterate or semi literate peasants, his insistence on relying on "textual analysis" to establish norms of the past is seriously flawed. Although some of these texts may have been influential with the literate elite minority, their importance to the village based masses are very likely to have been over represented by him. </p><p></p><p>He sticks to theories when other scholars have totally discredited them. Jagjit Singh's work on his "Jatt theory" coupled with his own close friends (J.S. Grewal's) comments that his theory is "not even well informed conjecture" are an example. </p><p></p><p>Grewal, also points out that in the recent past, western academia used "research" to justify imperialism/colonialism by portraying the would be "subjects" in a particular (and largely negative) way, he makes a point that McLeod fails to realise the link between such institutes and the activity of their modern day equivalents when he claims he is researching for the sake of learning.</p><p></p><p>So lets put it in balance. What exactly are McLeod's motivations for studying Sikhs? I personally don't know? I read his work, but take large parts with a pinch of loon.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="dalsingh, post: 84037, member: 2883"] [b]Re: How McLeod became “one of the foremost scholars” of Sikh Studies?[/b] I agree that as a positive, his controversial writing forces "adhay soohtay" (half asleep) Sikh scholars to wake up. No one can deny McLeod is intelligent and can write in an extremely readable fashion, but using passive voice to present opinions as if they are irrefutable facts is an old trick. I'm not one of those knee jerk reactionaries who totally discount McLeod but he is not without his own flaws. I actually read his work and own a fair few of his books. If there is truth in the way he got his PhD thesis from SOAS then I'm not surprised eyebrows are raised. I don't remember such a slack approach being taken on my undergraduate degree dissertation, let alone a PhD thesis no less! Also his own background of being a Christian missionary who had lied to this own church about his loss of faith is also a tad bit controversial in itself. The question of projecting his own angst on SIkhi is valid. Regarding McLeod's scholarly approach. Firstly he has only very recently started to respond to other scholar's critiques of his work, whereas he previously adopted an obnoxious "better than thou" attitude towards Sikhs who questioned his work. Even now his responses are what I would term "lazy." His claim that he is treading "sensitively" on the matter of a living faith is rubbish. The amount of people upset by his work is testimony to that. He has a strange habit of trying to create a sort of "gang" of scholars with the same view and who are often his own protege. I read Lou Fennech's work on Martyrdom in Sikhi (it was a PhD thesis, heavily supervised by McLeod). How such a work could be passed as serious and of quality surprises me. For a community such as Sikhs, whose ranks, lets be honest, were/are largely made up of illiterate or semi literate peasants, his insistence on relying on "textual analysis" to establish norms of the past is seriously flawed. Although some of these texts may have been influential with the literate elite minority, their importance to the village based masses are very likely to have been over represented by him. He sticks to theories when other scholars have totally discredited them. Jagjit Singh's work on his "Jatt theory" coupled with his own close friends (J.S. Grewal's) comments that his theory is "not even well informed conjecture" are an example. Grewal, also points out that in the recent past, western academia used "research" to justify imperialism/colonialism by portraying the would be "subjects" in a particular (and largely negative) way, he makes a point that McLeod fails to realise the link between such institutes and the activity of their modern day equivalents when he claims he is researching for the sake of learning. So lets put it in balance. What exactly are McLeod's motivations for studying Sikhs? I personally don't know? I read his work, but take large parts with a pinch of loon. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Hard Talk
How McLeod Became “one Of The Foremost Scholars” Of Sikh Studies?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top