Max Arthur Macauliffe, famously known as Macauliffe, is a big name in the Sikh history and translation. The history of Sikhs won’t be completed in the English world without reading Macauliffe’s work. He is hated and loved by the people; there is no middle ground. He is loved because of his comprehensive books on the Sikh History and his assertion of non-association of the Sikhs or the Sikh Gurus with the Hindu Thought/Hinduism; in simple words, he said Sikhs aren’t Hindus. He is hated by right-wing Hindus, who want to encompass everyone in the Hindu fold, especially the Sikh Gurus. It has been thoroughly discussed in Sikh ik vakhra dharam.
Macauliffe arrived in Punjab in 1864. His first writing appeared in the Calcutta Review of 1875, and then 1880 and 1881. These articles were different in many regards from what he wrote in his 1909 The Sikh Religion. The earlier articles were written based on his observations or what he had learned or told by his guides. If you compare both the writings, you will see the right-wing Hindus loving him for his earlier articles. They would be appealing to their agenda. So, the accusations levelled against him, like he was writing the books because of the British, or they asked him, is completely false. His narration was based on who he was living with and what he was reading.
His 19th century articles were written by looking through the lenses of a non-Sikh. Nobody can deny that. He fell in the pits here and there throughout the articles. Later, when he started living with the members of Singh Sabha, his perspective changed. Now, instead of relying on Siyar-ul-Mutakhrin[1], he was using the Sikh scriptures written by Sikhs. Most of the western scholars faced the same situation in the beginning of their writing. They chose to rely on the Persian or the English books written in the 18th and 19th centuries. We can’t ignore the possibility of them not knowing the Gurmukhi script or the Punjabi language. In this case, they don’t have any other alternative, but the raw materials based on the observations than facts.
Should these writers, of the present and future, switch to the Sikh writers of that period or deny them? In my opinion, you can’t understand the religion without talking to the folks of the religion. You can have the opinions of others, but that can’t be accumulated in the historical work as facts, which some writers have done. What they have given us is a distorted history of Sikhs, maligned with the anti-Sikh thought, and called the Sikh scriptures as the fantasy of the writers who had taken the liberty to write the poems. On the other hand, the English writers who heard the stories of the Sikhs back in 18th and 19th century are taken at the face value.
Pyara Singh Padam summarised it perfectly when he said:
We know our history is based on poems, miracles, utmost trust (in the Gurus), and some wrong conclusions, but this was according to the customs of the time, and the parameters of analysis were limited. Our Janamsakhis have different style, analysing it based on 20th century historical parameters is either stupid or mischievous. If a Christian missionary like McLeod makes fun of our Janamsakhis, then our professors feel happy. They don’t realize that our writers wrote the praises of the Guru in their own way. This is not history entirely, this includes the literature style, culture, and folklore too. Consider if we reject the Janamsakhis, then which source will we be left with to introduce Guru Nanak Sahib? Similarly, if our Gurbilases, Path Parkash, Suraj Parkash are criticised (unnecessarily), then from where will we find the history of the Gurus? From where Macauliffe got the material? We are ready to believe what Macauliffe or Cunningham has written in English, but we don’t like Bhai Santokh Singh or Giani Gian Singh’s vernacular writing. This is (very) unfortunate that we are on the path to hate ourselves.[2]
One more point that I observed was that it is generally believed that the idols were placed around the sarovar of Harmandir Sahib after the annexation of Punjab in 1849 AD; and the Brahminization of the Sikh religion started before that[3]. Bhai Santokh Singh had travelled to Amritsar numerous times[4] but didn’t mention the presence of idols anywhere. Similarly, when Macauliffe visited Amritsar, and Harmandir Sahib, nowhere he mentioned their presence around sarovar. It made me think: were the idols placed even after 1880 AD then?
It's impossible to imagine a person like Macauliffe, who gazed upon the weapons of Guru’s period, and named the weapons present in Akal Takhat[5], would miss the idols around sarovar. Not only was it the Akal Takhat, but also Harmandir Sahib he saw when he met a Sikh who said the Guru appeared in his dream[6]. He elaborated how Harmandir Sahib was built and the parkash of Guru Granth Sahib inside it in the 1881 article[7], which was the continuation of his article in 1880 but with a changed name.
In both the scenarios the theory of the presence of the idols around the sarovar is rejected. First, if the guides or the Sikhs he met in Harmandir Sahib were Brahminized Sikhs, they would surely have discussed the adoration of the idols there. Second, if the guides or the Sikhs he met were the pure Sikhs who were following Sikhi in its pristine form, they would have disgusted the malpractices in Darbar Sahib. But none of this sort we see in Macauliffe’s articles.
There is no doubt though that the idols were present at a particular time but pushing that period back to the period of the Gurus is very dishonest. Macauliffe knew the Sikhs had started following the non-Sikh traditions because of the effect of Brahmins, and the Sikhs let the Brahmins do their religious tasks, including birth and last rites, but the Sikhs in the south (Nanded), and in Patna, were unaffected by the Brahmins. Even when they joined the Khalsa, irrespective of their so-called earlier castes, they all were equal and married without the limits of the castes. But some priests from Amritsar settled in Patna, where they preached their diluted practices[8].
Macauliffe was aware of the Brahmins and their ceremonies[9], but he didn’t mention how they influenced the lifestyle of Sikhs in his 1880 article named The Diwali at Amritsar. Was it missed unconsciously, or his curiosity was piqued after visiting Amritsar and he read about the Sikhs in detail later? The latter seems to be correct, as many suggest.
So his visitation to Harmandir Sahib, along with the knowledge of Hinduism or Brahmins, should have made him write about the anti-Sikh practices in Darbar Sahib. He wrote in detail the Sikhs going astray and visit the Hindu temples which’s against their religion. Knowing that much and still not able to write about the idols in Darbar Sahib makes one doubt the presence of idols before 1880.
The similar incident of the idols can be seen in 1905 when a Brahmin installed an idol in the Gurudwara, built in the memory of Guru Har Rai, in Afghanistan. The Sikhs protested, but nothing beyond that. When the Brahmin died, the Sikhs asked his relations to remove the idol. Case moved to the court. The court decided in the favour of Hindus, but the Amir saw it himself and observed[10]:
“I, Abdur Rahman, Amir of Kabul, am King of Afghanistan. In our reign has occurred a suit between certain men who worship God and others who worship idols. There is a temple called the Dharamsala of Guru Har Rai in this city. The idol-worshippers claim that in that Dharamsala they possess a room in which they worship idols.
The God-worshippers contend that the old servant who was a Brahmin used to keep idols in the Dharamsala secretly in a niche. After the Brahmin's death the Sikhs handed over the images to another Brahmin. The contention of the God-worshippers is reasonable and is supported by evidence.
In our view idol-worshippers have got nothing to do with a place called Dharamsala. This Dharamsala is named after Guru Har Rai, the seventh successor of Baba Nanak Sahib, who was the greatest Unitarian and was opposed to idol worship. Similarly Sikhs have got no concern with a place called Thakurdwara or Shivdwara, which must belong to Hindus. As this particular place is a Dharamsala, the only people interested in it are the God-worshippers.
I, as King, order that the suit of the idol-worshippers be dismissed.”
Similarly, I won’t be shocked if the idols of 1905 at Darbar Sahib turns out to be present for few months or weeks or days, instead of decades. The writers have just given the year 1905 rather than the concrete year, based on some observation of an author/traveller, when he or she seemed to witness the placement of idols. However, the interested readers can read Chapter IX, which wholly talks about the earlier Darbar Sahib and the later malpractices of the mahants, of Teja Singh’s book The Gurdwara reform movement and the Sikh Awakening. It’s still better than just a year, i.e., 1905.
Sikhi, its literature, and Macauliffe
He had read about the Sikhs in the books of John Malcolm, Davey Cunningham, McGregor, and Ernest Trumpp, before wording his article in 1880-81. But exactly when he got his hands on the Sikh history is a little hard to tell. But I consider it after this arrival in Punjab in 1864. Some believe his curiosity about Sikhi piqued when he saw the Diwali in Amritsar. He wrote an article on it in the Calcutta Review 1880, starting with the narration of Ramchandra, kidnapping of Sita and how Sita became to be associated with Lakshmi Puja when she knocked the door of a bania at night for the fire to light the lamp (diya).
Throughout his article in 1880, he didn’t mention how the Sikhs started celebrating Bandi Chhor Diwas on the same day of Diwali. Didn’t even include Guru Hargobind Sahib’s incarceration and its link to Bandi Chhor Diwas. His narration of the activities done by the Hindus on the day of Diwali are explicitly mentioned, from cleaning the houses to buying the sweets to calling a Brahmin at home for the recital of the Sanskrit scriptures[11]. From his article in 1880, he seems to suggest the Sikhs celebrate Diwali because the tenth Sikh Guru ordered them during his last days to gather at Amritsar for Diwali and Baisakhi[12]. Maybe he learned very less until then, and, later, during his days with the Sikhs, he mastered many things about the Sikh History. Although in 1881, the incarceration of the Guru appeared in his work[13], but no association of his release with the name Bandi Chorr.
It should be noted that he had the Panth Parkash of Bhangu[14] at his disposal for his 1881 article on Banda Singh Bahadur. It’s a manuscript, not translation, which was given by Sirdar Attar Singh of Bhadaur. I believe he could read and write Gurmukhi to some extent. Also, one Janamsakhi is also on his name; Hafzabad wali Janamsakhi, which is also known as Macauliffe wali Janamsakhi, was published in 1885 AD.
Was Macauliffe a Sikh?
All the pictures of Macauliffe available on the Internet don’t have him pictured with a beard and a turban. Although, he has a picture with a turban on his head, with no beard. Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha didn’t mention in Mahan Kosh about him being a Sikh. The compilation of Mahan Kosh completed in 1930, after the death of Macauliffe in 1913. Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha wouldn’t miss such a thing if he had adopted Sikhi in either Sehajdhari or Amritdhari form. Wikipedia says he’d adopted Sikhism in 1860s. His writing doesn’t agree to that. His article in 1881 talks about ‘our Saviour’, which is for Jesus Christ. If he had been a Sikh at that time, he wouldn’t have used that word to describe Jesus Christ.
For a long time it was maintained by the Christian Church, that our Saviour was unable to read or write, but Dr. Farrar has recently admitted that Christ was an accomplished linguist[15].
Secondly, his work – The Sikh Religion, published in 1909 – has his picture without a turban but with a grown beard and moustache. If he didn’t choose that picture to suggest his Irish or non-native Indian look, then we can conclude that he wasn’t a Sikh till 1909.
But the British people shunned him because he was turned a Sikh. Did he really adopt Sikhism, maybe after publishing his work? If it is true, how did Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha not notice this? Or the Britishers supposed him to be a Sikh because he’d been with the Sikhs for long and had been writing about them and delivering lectures on their faith? That is still an open question for me which might be closed in future.
Many anti-Sikh people alleged that Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha was guided by Macauliffe. In reality, it’s the opposite. Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha himself said that Macauliffe asked Maharaja Hira Singh of Nabha to ask Bhai Kahn Singh to help him read Guru Granth Sahib. It’s agreed, and Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha stayed with Macauliffe for two years. Macauliffe also visited him in Nabha on a number of occasions after that[16].
How he got to know about Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha and his first interaction with him will be very delightful to read, if available somewhere.
Transformation of his thoughts
We will see now how his thoughts were transformed since he started writing about Sikhism (in 1880s) till his magnum opus (in 1909.) Nearly in three decades, he learned much more than what any other 20th century non-Sikh writers achieved in the matters of the Sikhs and their religion. His earlier articles published in 1880s were based on one or two scriptures, without Gurmatt, without much further analysis. But after he took the work of Sikh History in his hands, we saw him discussing a number of books to prove something, rejecting the books or translations that he relied on earlier either for Guru Hargobind Sahib[17] ji or Guru Teg Bahadur[18] ji.
Following are some of the points where we see him changing his opinions:
1. Bhai Bala was a real person for him as he enunciated his story in his 1880 article[19]. Later, he declined his existence in his 1909 work[20].
2. Guru Gobind Singh ji worshipped the Hindu goddess at Naina Devi with the help of a Brahmin[21]. In the same page, he mentioned the Guru wrote his own granth so that his Sikhs wouldn’t associate with the Brahmins[22]. If the Guru possessed the knowledge, why he had to consult the Vedas[23] and Brahmins for the worshipping of the Hindu goddess?
He also stated that the Akalis (not to be confused with Shromani Akali Dal, but the Sikhs who are baptised. This article of his was written way back before SAD was formed.) don’t associate themselves with the Hindu temples and rituals. If the revealed Khalsa Panth’s founder is consulting the Brahmins and the Hindu holy scriptures, why would he stop his followers to do so? This contradicting writing is prevailed throughout the 19th century and the English authors had made numerous mistakes while writing about the Sikh History.
In the 20th century, with the ‘critical thinking’ they were going a step further and wrote more contradictions than their predecessors. This occurs when you have already made your mind to make a point, and then, in the later chapters/articles, you contradict your earlier statements. Dr Trilochan Singh and Fauja Singh describe the work of McLeod in the following words:
He says one thing in a part and then contradicts it on the same page qualifying his self-contradiction with “possibly, probably”. Through this method of a chain of assaults, he spreads a net work of conjectural theories based on false premises leading to what Shakespeare might call, “lame and impotent conclusions” based on “a network of empty words.”[24]
For the present they are mostly based on conjecturing and some of them may not even serve as good hypothesis. At any rate, they demand thorough investigation from scholars. On the face of it, there is substantial ground to regard them as ill-founded, and known historical evidence contradicts them. Dr McLeod has done well to underscore the role of cultural and social factors in the evolution of the Sikhs but has underestimated the role of ideas in the historical process.[25]
In his 1909 work, Macauliffe’s enunciation was inclined towards no-show of the goddess[26]. The Brahmin ran away after not producing the goddess, and the Guru put everything in the fire, and ‘a great flame shot up’ which the people had called the goddess because of the firelight.
3. There were no orders left by the tenth Sikh Guru about the baptism of the women[27]. But in 1909 he tells the baptism of Mata Sahib Kaur[28].
4. Santokhsar sarovar was abandoned by the fourth Guru and completed by the Sikhs[29]. With more knowledge of the Sikh scriptures, he said in his 1909 work that what the fourth Guru had undertaken should be finished up by his successor[30].
5. The name Harmandir was compared with Vishnu/Krishna in the literal translation[31]. In The Sikh Religion, he describes it as the temple of God[32].
6. One very interesting point to look upon is that Guru Arjan Dev ji ‘imitated’ the Hindu fair at Hardwar in the beginning of Baisakh and established the similar gathering of the Sikhs at Amritsar. Same is true during the festival of Diwali[33]. In his earlier article of 1880, he suggested the last Sikh Guru ordered the Sikhs to go to those places, contradicting himself, unless he meant both the Gurus had the same thoughts, which isn’t explicitly mentioned.
While writing his magnum opus in 1909, he used the similar story for Giani Sant Singh ji, the vidhya-dataa of Bhai Santokh Singh ji, that he changed the celebration of the parkash of Guru Nanak Dev ji on the full-moon of the month Kattak to stop the Sikhs visiting the Hindu place of pilgrimage at the same time in Ram Tirath[34].
7. Sikhs were allowed to invoke Vishnu, Brahma and Shivji at the time of Guru Hargobind Sahib ji[35]. In the fourth volume of The Sikh History, he brings the work of Bhai Gurdas ji to show the ‘helplessness of the Hindu gods’ and unavailing of the ten avatars of Vishnu[36]. It should be noted that Bhai Gurdas ji was alive at the time of Guru Hargobind Sahib ji.
8. Guru Gobind Singh ji sent the Sikhs to bring Guru Granth Sahib so that he can alter it to ‘suit his own views and ambition.’ When the Sodhis refused, he produced his own granth (Dasam Granth) as he didn’t have the original material[37]. In 1909, he talked about the different editions of the bir of Guru Granth Sahib,[38] i.e., Bhai Gurdas’, Bhai Banno’s, and Bhai Mani Singh’s (the one that the Guru uttered when Sodhis refused to give the earlier bir.)
9. The last Sikh Guru’s practices seemed to be derived from the Quran and Muslims, including rejecting other prophets, revealing his own scripture, stop female foeticide, forbidding gambling, blue dress, etc[39]. Later, nothing that sort was invoked by Macauliffe[40].
The transformation of his thoughts about the Sikhi is clear in the abovementioned points. If one had devoted half of his life to read about the history, it is evident that he would have his opinions changed. In the starting of any religious studies, the opinions are generally based on one or two books, or the general talk of the crowd. With more and more books at one’s disposal, he comprehends the religion in more detail.
I have seen people writing the world history but miserably fail to elevate it to the truth. One can’t write the whole history of a nation or world based on few incidents. You have to thoroughly dig to get hold of truth. And then there are numerous opinions on the same topics. The writer has to take the side, and sometimes he/she chooses the wrong one.
I hope the students of the Sikh History will find this article helpful and read the earlier articles of Macauliffe in detail and compare it with his later books on the Sikh History.
[1] The Calcutta Review, Volume LXXII 1881, Page 74
[2] ਤੇਗ ਬਹਾਦਰ ਸਿਮਰਿਐ, ਪਿਆਰਾ ਸਿੰਘ ਪਦਮ, ਪੰਨਾ 13, 1994
[3] ਸ੍ਰੀ ਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਤਾਪ ਸੂਰਜ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ, ਜਿਲਦ ਛੇਵੀਂ, ਸੰਪਾਦਕ ਭਾਈ ਵੀਰ ਸਿੰਘ, ਰਾਸਿ 3, ਅੰਸੂ 28, ਪੰਨਾ 2025, 2011
[4] ਸ੍ਰੀ ਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਤਾਪ ਸੂਰਜ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ, ਜਿਲਦ ਪਹਿਲੀ, ਸੰਪਾਦਕ ਭਾਈ ਵੀਰ ਸਿੰਘ, ਪੰਨਾ 153, 2011
[5] The Calcutta Review, Volume LXXII 1881, Page 65
[6] The Calcutta Review, Volume LXX 1880, Page 628
[7] The Calcutta Review, Vol LXXII, 1881, Page 60
[8] The Calcutta Review, Vol LXXIII 1881, Page 163
[9] The Calcutta Review, Vol LXX 1880, Page 620
[10] The Gurdwara Reform Movement and the Sikh Awakening, Teja Singh, Page 89, 1922
The death of the Amir is mentioned in 1901 in the Chambers Biographical Dictionary, published in 1990. Either the dictionary has wrongly mentioned the date of death, or the incident happened earlier.
[11] The Calcutta Review, Vol LXX 1880, Page 622
[12] The Calcutta Review, Vol LXX 1880, Page 623
[13] The Calcutta Review, Vol LXXII 1881, Page 65, footnote
[14] The Calcutta Review, Vol LXXIII 1881, Page 155, footnote
[15] The Calcutta Review, Vol LXXII 1881, Page 69, footnote
[16] Mahan Kosh
[17] The Sikh Religion Vol IV, Max Arthur Macauliffe, page 21 footnote, 1909
[18] The Sikh Religion Vol IV, Max Arthur Macauliffe, page 391-92, 1909
[19] The Calcutta Review, Vol LXX, 1880, Page 636
[20] The Sikh Religion Vol I, Max Arthur Macauliffe, page lxxix, 1909
[21] The Calcutta Review, Vol LXX, 1880, Page 630, The Calcutta Review, Vol LXXII, 1881, Page 70
[22] The Calcutta Review, Vol LXXII, 1881, Page 70, footnote
[23] The Calcutta Review, Vol LXXII, 1881, Page 69, footnote
[24] Ernest Trumpp and W. H. McLeod as scholars of Sikh History Religion and Culture, Trilochan Singh, Page 81, 1994
[25] The Panjab Past and Present, Volume XI Part I-II 1993, Page 184
[26] The Sikh Religion Vol V, Max Arthur Macauliffe, page 63-65, 1909
[27] The Calcutta Review, Vol LXX, 1880, Page 634
[28] The Sikh Religion Vol V, Max Arthur Macauliffe, page 143, 1909
[29] The Calcutta Review, Vol LXXII, 1881, Page 58
[30] The Sikh Religion Vol II, Max Arthur Macauliffe, page 270, 1909
[31] The Calcutta Review, Vol LXXII, 1881, Page 60
[32] The Sikh Religion Vol III, Max Arthur Macauliffe, page 9, 1909
[33] The Calcutta Review, Vol LXXII, 1881, Page 60
[34] The Sikh Religion Part I, Max Arthur Macauliffe, page lxxxiv, 1909
[35] The Calcutta Review, Vol LXXII, 1881, Page 63
[36] The Sikh Religion Vol IV, Max Arthur Macauliffe, page 254, 1909
[37] The Calcutta Review, Vol LXXII, 1881, Page 70
[38] The Sikh Religion Part V, Max Arthur Macauliffe, page 223, 1909
[39] The Calcutta Review, Vol LXXII, 1881, Page 72-775
[40] The Sikh Religion Part V, Max Arthur Macauliffe, page 95-96, 1909
