It was Akal Takht that issued it... not SGPC
Here is an article published in The Sikh Bulletin in 2003 which highlights MUCH of the issues.
The Dasam Granth And The Sikh Consciousness
The Sikh Bulletin mwiG 534 January 2003
The Sikh Center Roseville, 201 Berkeley Ave, Roseville, CA. 95678 14
http://sikhbulletin.com/Bulletins/Bulletin_1_2003.pdf (starts on page 12)
While talking of the ‘dasamgranth’, which has been steeped
in controversy ever since its inception one is treading on
slippery soil. It was more slippery a decade ago, before the
Institute of Sikh Studies (IOSS) commenced its enquiry into
its mystique. Even though fortified by the hard work of the
founders of the IOSS, one can never be too responsible while
discussing this particular matter. Restraint has to be the
watchword. In concrete terms this means taking up only
those concepts for discussion, which have evolved as a result
of the discussion of centuries and which are widely accepted
as true and unassailable. This category could legitimately
include those arguments regarding its contents, which are
logically sustainable. These have been presented wisely and
at length in a number of volumes by a true gursikh
Gurbakhsh Singh of Kala Afghana. His humility is
limitless and his logic is as unassailable as his deep faith in
the Guru (which today means the Gurbani) is unfathomable.
As a measure of abundant precaution, these wholesome and
very valid arguments are not being made a part of today’s
discussion.
Of the many tricks played upon the Sikh consciousness by
history, the most enduring has been the legacy of the socalled
dasamgranth. There are no nine books that precede
it; it is not the book of the Tenth (Dasam) King. Though
attributed, very cleverly to the Tenth Master, there is not a
single composition in it, which bears his name. This is in
stark contrast to Guru Granth, which clearly bears the ‘guru
imprint’ in the form of the name Nanak. This reality is as
old as Sikh theology itself. Authorship of every verse is
clearly indicated to the extent that Nanak is perhaps the
most common proper noun and the most commonly used of
words in the entire Guru Granth. In the ‘dasamgranth’ it
occurs absolutely nowhere with the implication of
authorship. Names of the authors, which occur in it, are
‘Ram, Shyam, Kaal, Raj, Nanua’ and such others.
Strangely, even after these poets are located and made
known, it is assumed by the ignorantly devout that these are
still the pseudonyms of the Tenth King. It is totally
disregarded that no other Guru before him bothered to adopt
any pseudonym and all called themselves Nanak. Apart
from being doctrinally correct in the context of the Sikh
concept of guruship, this truth is historically verifiable and
is asserted by contemporary historians like Mohsan Fani,
Bhai Gurdas, the celebrated bards of the Guru Granth and
Bhai Mani Singh. Nobody tries to explain to us how, when
and why the Tenth King abandoned the tradition of two and
a quarter centuries and nine predecessors, refused to call
himself Nanak and why in complete reversal of this
hallowed tradition he adopted strange pseudonyms. The
best that our scholars have been able to muster is that the
Mata was shy of calling him Gobind because his
grandfather’s name was Hargobind. Being only an
explanation, the mock modesty theory has no history and
surfaces in the middle of the twentieth century, a decade
after British de-colonization. It also holds no clue to why
Mataji named him Gobind to begin with. There is also no
elaboration of the process by which words of endearment
used by the exalted mother came to be converted into
pseudonyms. This is a rare occurrence in Indian literature
where pet names have been transformed into pseudonyms.
No attempt is also made to explain why the Guru had to
adopt half a dozen of them when all medieval and modern
poets could do with one. For Rumi, Hafiz, Shirazi,
Firadausi, coming right down to Zauq, Ghalib, Zafar, Naaz,
Mahir, Diwana, Tir, Bhaia, Safeer, and Mirgind only one
pseudonym was considered sufficient. One also sufficed
wherever else the tradition was in vogue.
The name of the granth itself has a history of sorts. To begin
with it was in the form of separate books and had no
collective name. Mercifully, even the most diehard of
dasamgranth fans admits this as true. When put together in
one volume around 1748 CE or so, it was christened
Bachittar-natak-granth. This was quite logical also.
According to an estimate, eight times in the chandichariter,
its name is given as Bachittar-natak-granth.The author of the
Krishanavtar uses the same nomenclature for the book no
less than sixty-seven times and the Ramavtar nineteen times.
In spite of it the real title of the granth is changed so as to
facilitate its attribution to the Tenth King. Overwhelming
and oft-repeated internal evidence is completely disregarded
and variety of scholars and motley of believers maintain the
fiction that it is actually named after the Tenth Nanak.
More needs to be said about the name of the granth of which
some people are greatly enamored. As time passed it came
to be successively and variously called Bachittar-natakgranth,
dasween patshah ka granth, dasamgranth, dasam
granth sahib, eventually evolving into dasam Sri Guru
Granth Sahib by the courtesy of booksellers doing
business in Bazaar Mai Sewan of Amritsar. In the latest
incarnation, the word dasam is printed in very small print and
for all intents and purposes it is the rest, that is ‘Sri Guru
Granth Sahib’, by clever and mean deception. Shakespeare
would have been shocked to realize what all is there in a
name and only in a name. What fragrance a wild bush flower
can come to acquire when it is named a rose! This granth
came to acquire prestige and reputation that is wholly and
solely traceable to its name being associated with the Tenth
King. The name arouses passions even today. Those who
have not read a word of it are the most insistent that it
must be regarded as the composition of the Tenth Guru.
The title and the widely prevalent ignorance about its
contents are the potent sources of its veneration amongst
a couple of Sikh sects, at Hazur Sahib and Patna Sahib.
The main inspiration of undue veneration is also traceable to
the utter neglect of the Sikh doctrine by its true custodian, the
Khalsa. It can equally be blamed on the failure of the Sikh
intellectuals to call a spade a spade and can be traced to the
covert encouragement of those who maintain the controllers
of Sikh affairs in power in regions far away from the Punjab
(now also in the Punjab). It is not strange that nearer
home and in the recent past, those who revere this granth
also constructed the destroyed Akal Takhat in defiance of
the people’s will. Generally, these very people support
the most Hindu of all organizations at elections and are
perceived to be the vanguard of re-assimilation process -
the blue-eyed baby of Hindutava forces.
At no time the authorship of the charitropakhyan part of this
granth was attributed to the Guru except in a crudely forged
document, which could not stand even a cursory scholarly
scrutiny. Several times, eminent scholars have confirmed
this assessment.
Once even the Akal Takhat has decreed
that the Guru has not written it. That needed no learning or
sensational dedication, for the author’s name is mentioned
in chariter number 195 as Kaal. This portion consists of
923 pages of a recension having 2276 pages in all. Another
494 pages are in honor of Krishanavtar authorship of which
is claimed by a poet named Shyam. Thus according to
internal evidence, the authorship of 2205 pages is claimed
by poets known to history. The rest of the seventy-one
pages mention no clues to authorship and are widely
accepted as the genuine writings of the guru. This is an
exceptional case in literature where a book is named after a
person to whom only seventy-one pages of it are attributable
(with a few reservations) and the 2205 cannot be. Others,
who have superior claims by the sheer bulk of their
contribution, are completely ignored.
Of these seventy-one pages the Guru’s authorship is
regarded as certain, except for the four notorious verses.
There is also unanimity about the status of the Guru’s
compositions included in the dasamgranth. It is recorded
by a fairly reliable (for this purpose) sources that some
Sikhs approached the Guru with a request to include his
bani in the Guru Granth. They were told that it was to be
retained in a separate volume and was not to be treated at
par with the bani of the Guru Granth. He twice confirmed
the doctrine again by very fundamental decisions that he
took later. Around 1697 CE he had the final version of the
Guru Granth prepared. In this volume, he included the bani
of the Ninth King and not his own. Both decisions indicate
that he consciously and deliberately did not claim a
status equal to the Gurbani for his writings. He
eventually put the seal of finality on his decision by
conferring the status of Guru on the Granth from which his
bani was excluded. Thus he settled for all time to come
and made it an article of faith for his Sikhs that his own
utterances were irrelevant to the Sikh canon, which
comprised of the Guru Granth and the Guru Granth
alone. In defiance of his own command, we have gone to
the extent of conferring high reverential status on even the
poetry which preached antagonistic doctrines or which is
purely hedonistic in character but is included in the same
volume by some sinister scribe.
A careful study of dasamgranth has yielded that the desire
to stultify and destroy the absolutely pure and spiritually
edifying image of the Tenth King is the main motivation
behind its creation. The ultimate aim being the dismantling
of the wholly ameliorating spiritual order erected by the
striving of the Ten Masters and manifested by the
martyrdom of tens of thousands of the purest minded, the
most motivated and the most devoted of Sikhs. All this is
absolutely clear from the spate of books that have emerged
on the subject during the last few decades. Yet when
objective analysis of the ‘dasamgranth’ is proposed to be
undertaken, those who protest most vociferously are the
very persons who consider themselves to be good Sikhs.
These ‘good Sikhs’ try to break their own fall on the cushion
of wishful nomenclatures. They seem to believe that rough
granite will become soft and comfortable once they decide to
call it a pillow. For them dictionaries and the context in
which the words are used have no meaning and they assume
the absolute sovereign right to assign vastly different
connotations to proper nouns although neither the words nor
the context permits such use. ‘Shiva’ when used in a
particular verse for them is One Supreme Lord, although the
word is used six or seven times more in the same
chandichariter (ukat bilas) and every time it connotes the
Devi Chandi. Yet it is insisted that when it is used once
again in the popular verse (number 231) it means Akal
Purakh. The words Mahakal and Bhagauti are also similarly
misinterpreted to read convenient meanings in them. How
great a blind spot the dasamgranth can be becomes
apparent when kabiovach benti chaupai, a part of the
charitropakhyan is recited as part of the evening prayer
although the Akal Takhat accepts Chritropakhyan
composition to be no part of the Guru’s bani.
The Institute of Sikh Studies has been patiently analyzing the
various aspects of this work and has been promoting its
proper understanding for almost a decade now. It has ever
sought the promotion of a scholarly debate on the issue of
authorship. And yet when the issue breaks into the
headlines of the motivated Press, we are invariably asked
to be patient, to not to rush matters and to try and work
out a consensus. The very attempts made for arriving at a
consensus are criticized as ‘impositions’ on the entire panth
by one organization. Counsel of patience and of working out
a consensus itself is nothing new: it has been suggested for
centuries and periodically extended without any follow up.
It has become a euphemism for indefinite postponement
and for no action ever. Perhaps things will change now
because, besides the Institute of Sikh Studies, the Akal
Takhat and the World Sikh Council, the two premier Sikh
institutions are both urgently and seriously seized of the
matter.
