Gurinder Singh MannRecensioni

And here is another sordid example of a stultified Sikh academic in action regurgitating already available material all under the name of historic research.

The British & the Sikhs is a medium-sized reiteration of European/British observations of the Sikhs in varying contexts from the 18th through to the early 20th century. It adds nothing new to the fields of Sikh studies or Sikh history. Most of the material referenced has already been analyzed by prior trailblazing historians such as Dr. Ganda Singh, Dr. Balwant Singh Dhillon, Professor Noel King, Professor James Lewis, Dr. Jasbir Singh Mann and Surjit Singh Gandhi being the most prominent.

Mann's opening chapter deals with the mythic Dr. Cole. Much of his analysis sets the tone for the rest of the book and evinces that he is not an astute historian but rather what we might call a Prima facie observer i.e. someone who accepts what exists or is referenced without studying it in detail.

Mann references Dhian Singh's Dasme Patshah Ka Antam Kautak an hitherto unknown text without providing any viable basis to why he believes it to be authentic and worthy of practical use in studying Sikh history. More ludicrously, he fails to provide any analysis of:

(a) Who Dhian Singh was.
(b)When he lived and what were his times.
(c) Whether the internal evidence of the text is authentic, has been fully studied, has been authenticated.
(d) When the text was written.

His primary approach to invoking this text is based on a similar narrative of a certain European named Cole being at Guru Gobind Singh Ji's bedside after a failed assassination attempt related by Sukha Singh in his hagiographical Gurbilas Patshahi 10th written in 1797. What he fails to take into account is that:

1.) A majority of Sikh histories make no mention of Cole.
2.) Sukha Singh's Gurbilas in itself is inconsistent and does not mention any sources from which the author derived his information.
3.) Mann's referencing of Sikh oral tradition fails to take into account when this tradition was commenced; the alterations it underwent and whether the texts in questions inspired it or vice versa with there having been no attempt to authenticate its authenticity.

The rest of the book follows the same pattern of:

(i) Accept without authentication.
(ii) Invoke some vague Sikh tradition in an attempt to verify.
(iii) Provide no comprehensive analysis of the mentioned accounts and its internal consistency/inconsistency.

There is no textual analysis here but only regurgitations. A sad state of affairs.