Vaisakhi and the debate about the nativity of Guru Nanak
I discuss the issue of dating the birth of Guru Nanak and the day of Vaisakhi. A translation of a letter between Giani Gian Singh and Karam Singh ‘Historian’ is included.
Today is the day of Vaisakhi. A lesser known event attached to this would be the day of Guru Nanak’s birth.
I endeavour to translate a letter exchanged between Giani Gian Singh and Karam Singh ‘Historian’ talking about the latter’s publication of ‘Kattak ki Vaisakh’, a book focusing on the debate around the birth date of the founder of the Sikh tradition, Guru Nanak. The earliest sources give the date as the 1st of Vaisakh whereas later ones denote the month of Kattak. The debate had already ranged for centuries among the Sikh Panth and there is an interesting anecdote associated with it that favoured the Kattak dating:
In the 18th century, Bhai Harbhagat Singh, a devout Sikh from Lahore, was unable to decide whether to accept the month of Vaisakh (in spring) or Kattak (in autumn) as the month of Guru Nanak's Birth. To find an answer he wrote "ਵੈਸਾਖ" (Vaisakh) on one slip of paper and "ਕੱਤਕ" (Kattak) on another, then placed the two before the (Adi) Guru Granth Sahib.
A boy who had just performed ishnān (ablution) in the sarōvar of Harimandir Sahib in Amritsar was asked to remove one slip.
He chose the one with "ਕੱਤਕ" (Kattak) recorded on it.
Henceforth, according to tradition, the autumn month of Kattak was accepted as the month of Guru Nanak's nativity.
Although we can assess that the Kattak dating was more acceptable to tradition, Karam Singh sought to challenge it with deep study of archeology, textual research and a general modern scientific approach.
Giani Gian Singh being a widely known author of Sikh history, having produced a huge wealth of literature was asked by a certain Karam Singh for his thoughts on his findings.
Below is the translated letter that resulted from this exchange between two of the greatest authors of Sikh history in their time:
ੴ Ākāl Sāhāi
Srimān Sārbgunkhān Bhāi Karam Singh, please accept the Fatēh of Srī Wāhēgūrū jī. The book “Kāttāk Vaisākh” has successfully reached to me. You asked for my views on it and therefore I am letting you know that my views are on par with the views of the rest of the Pānth. Your endeavour is very praiseworthy indeed; although there are concerns that the absolute refutation of a widely respected classical source book of the Pānth will cause commotion and confusion and there does not seem to be any far sighted advantage to it. If any rationalist non-Sikh tries to prove the Jānāmsākhī stories as baseless gossip tales then they must also analyse the Hindu Purānas, Islamic Hadiths, Christian Gospels, Torah etc; there is darkness in every house and therefore (the factors of) proving and disproving (them) need to be examined by all sides. If the fact that Bhai Bālā’s name not appearing in the writings of Bhai Gūrdās is to be considered, then there are many other widely recognised Sikhs in the Sikh tradition like Bhai Bhāghtū Bēhlō Bhūndārh and others that do not feature in those writings as well; there are notable mentions of lesser-known Sikhs and not everyone is clearly named (“Gūrmūkh Bāl Sūbhāyē Ūdāsī”, Vār 11 Pāurī 13). In the poetic meters of Chhānds, long and short vowel forms are both used. Additionally, if only those with children can be considered Sikhs then none of the Pānj Pyāre reputedly have offspring; but are still respected as Sikhs. Whenever trying to win an argument many pros and cons can be found. The māsānds were (well) established at the time of the Third Guru Sahib too. Now the conclusion is that if the Pānth sees benefit in the refutation of the Jānāmsākhī then whatever you have written is all cogent and correct; I accept it too.
Yours Thankfully,
Giani Gian Singh
5 Chet Sāmbāt 1967 Bīkrāmī (19 March 1909)
This paper reproduces an exchange between two well-known Sikh academics, Giani Gian Singh and Karam Singh, in which the former draws a false equivalence of authenticity between the janamsakhis and hadith literature:
"If any rationalist non-Sikh tries to prove the Jānāmsākhī stories as baseless gossip tales then they must also analyse the Hindu Purānas, Islamic Hadiths..."
Of course, anyone who knows anything about the two subjects will know that while the entire hadith corpus is based on isnad (chain of transmission), the janamsakhis have nothing that comes remotely close. It would be an insult to historical analysis to claim that questioning one could undermine the other. Such a claim can only stem from ignorance of the science of hadith literature.