Dr. Pashaura Singh’s ‘review essay’, advances several problematic assertions and mischaracterizations concerning my paper, ‘Memory and Pedagogy of Gurbān ī San gīta: An Autoethnographic Udāsī,’ that warrant a direct response. Specifically, Pashaura Singh asperses the veracity of my being descended from Bhai Sadharan, a close disciple of Guru Nanak, thereby impugning the historical credibility of the oral Sikh knowledge stream I represent. He suggests knowledge ‘solely based upon memory’ is in contradistinction to ‘certain traces of historical evidence,’ and that it is inadequate to establish ‘claims of family lineage.’ However, prior to this statement, Pashaura Singh asserts in the same review, ‘In fact, the family has kept alive the memory of their ancestor Sahib Singh, who received Khalsa initiation directly from Guru Gobind Singh.’ Here, he accepts familial memory from a personal interview he conducted with Bhai Avtar Singh (1926–2006) ‘in the late 1990s on his visit to my [his] home in Ann Arbor’ as sufficient to establish claims of familial lineage. Clearly, accepting oral history as evidence must be either insufficient or sufficient in both cases, regardless of whether or not the interview takes place in Pashaura Singh’s home. Pashaura Singh’s insinuation that my paper baselessly ‘extend[s] the family lineage,’ belies inattentive study of the timelines and dynamics of memory transmission I document. My fieldwork introduced me to information unknown tomy grand uncles, Bhai Avtar Singh and Bhai Gurcharan Singh (1915–2017). Indeed, it was my grand uncles who referred my queries about familial histories to my grandmother, Bibi Sant Kaur (1900–2000), for she had the greatest opportunity to glean familial narratives from her mother-in-law, and my great grandmother, Bibi Attar Kaur (c.1865–1951). Bibi Sant Kaur was like a second mother to Bhai Avtar Singh, who was three months older than her first child, Hardip Singh PCS (1926–1975). She was the one who, between 1990 and 1993, taught me about our connection to Bhai Sadharan and Bhai Sahib Singh. Unfortunately, the disregard Sikh academics like Pashaura Singh have for the historical value of oral evidence may hamper the community’s receptivity to the intangible wealth that centuries of imperial persecution, communal violence, and the state’s stranglehold failed to eradicate. I must also express bewilderment at the astonishing – and contradictory – causal inferences Pashaura Singh draws in the following two sentences.

中文翻译：

---

反思2：理顺记录：听觉记忆是历史证据

帕沙乌拉·辛格（Pashaura Singh）博士的“评论论文”提出了关于我的论文《古尔班纳·桑·古吉塔的记忆和教育学：自传民族志》的几个有争议的主张和错误定性，这些都需要得到直接回应。具体来说，帕夏乌拉·辛格（Pashaura Singh）夸大了我是古纳·纳纳克（Guru Nanak）亲密门徒拜·萨达拉恩（Bhai Sadharan）后裔的真实性，从而削弱了我所代表的口头锡克教徒知识流的历史信誉。他认为，“仅基于记忆”的知识与“某些历史证据的痕迹”是矛盾的，并且不足以建立“家族血统”。但是，在发表这一声明之前，Pashaura Singh在同一篇评论中断言：“事实上，这个家庭一直保留着其祖先Sahib Singh的记忆，而Sahib Singh是直接从Guru Gobind Singh接受Khalsa创始的。” 这里，他接受Bhai Avtar Singh（1926-2006）的个人采访时接受了家族记忆，“在1990年代末访问我在安阿伯的家中”足以证明其家族血统。显然，无论是在帕沙乌拉·辛格的家中进行采访，在两种情况下接受口述史作为证据都必须是充分或不足的。帕夏拉·辛格（Pashaura Singh）的暗示是，我的论文毫无根据地“扩展了家族谱系”，掩盖了我对记忆传递的时间轴和动态变化的不专心的研究。我的野外工作使我了解了叔叔Bhai Avtar Singh和Bhai Gurcharan Singh（1915–2017）所不知道的信息。的确，正是我的叔叔将我对家族史的询问转交给了祖母Bibi Sant Kaur（1900-2000），因为她有最大的机会从婆婆和我的曾祖母Bibi Attar Kaur（约1865年至1951年）那里收集家族故事。Bibi Sant Kaur就像Bhai Avtar Singh的第二个母亲一样，她比第一个孩子Hardip Singh PCS（1926–1975年）大三个月。她是1990年至1993年期间教我有关我们与拜德·萨达拉恩（Bhai Sadharan）和拜伊·萨希布·辛格（Bhai Sahib Singh）的人之一。不幸的是，像帕夏拉·辛格（Pashaura Singh）这样无视锡克教的学者对于口头证据的历史价值可能会阻碍社区对无形财富的接受，因为数百年来的帝国迫害，社区暴力以及国家的束缚未能根除。我还必须对Pashaura Singh在以下两个句子中得出的令人惊讶且矛盾的因果推论感到困惑。