European visitors to the Indian sub-continent have been writing about Sikhs for four centuries now. All of them encountered Sikhs; some of them witnessed landmark events in Sikh history; others met or observed key figures.

But here's what I find most puzzling about European reportage on us:

The word "Sikh" is a simple word, isn't it? It has a single syllable. It has a simple, straight-forward pronunciation, with little room for much variation. It has a mere four letters in it - in the script shared by all of the European languages. And a mere two letters in the Punjabi language or the Gurmukhi script. Same in Hindi and the other languages of the sub-continent.

Yet, these visitors - scholars, bureaucrats, missionaries, travelers, soldiers, administrators, historians - all seem to have had this incredible difficulty in spelling this simple name, "Sikh". Or rather, in spelling it correctly.

There are, we are told, 52 ways to leave a lover.

Well, how many ways are there to screw up the spelling of this uncomplicated, mono-syllabic word, if you happen to be a European and want to record your observations or findings or opinions about Sikhs?

21 ways. Yes, TWENTY-ONE ways. I'm not making this up. You count them! Here's what the late and much respected scholar, Dr. Ganda Singh, listed in his review of the various accounts of the Sikhs by European writers:

Seck [de Lauriston]

Seeck [Griffith, Palmer]

Seek [Polier]

Seick [Griffith]

Seikh [Forrest]

Seyque [de Lauriston]

Sic [Forrest]

Sic'hs [Wilkins]

Sick [Browne, James]

Sicke [Mouton]

Sicque [Forester, George]

Sik [Scot]

Sike [Bristow]

Sique [Polier]

Syc [Raymond]

Syck [Raymond]

The official records of the British Raj were able to find even more novel ways of mis-spelling "Sikh":

Seik, Siek, Siekh.

British newspapers, not to be outdone, invented their own versions:

Shik. Shikh.

These good souls who couldn't spell this one simple word straight - which, I'm sure you'll agree, would unequivocally have to be the most important word if you had set out to write on the subject of Sikhs - were even brighter than you can imagine.

Jean Law de Lauriston, you will note, managed to mis-spell the same word in two different ways. Griffith too, in two different ways. Forrest, also in two ways, Polier: in two ways. Raymond: in two ways.

Would you please forgive me if I asked the obvious question? Did these fellas have no standards that they had to meet, or did they merely drop the standards when writing on the history and faith other than their own?

One error, or two, even three, would be understandable. But TWENTY-ONE? An error by one historian, or two travelers, or three bureaucrats, could be explained. But by this entire bunch, over and over and over ...?

It reveals a problem somewhere of a serious nature. I'm no psychologist or an expert of any kind on the subject. But doesn't it disclose a problem in the very mindset, in the training, in the motivation, in the degree of objectivity (or the lack of it)? A sort of a pattern embedded in their very thought processes.

After all, form and substance are interlinked, aren't they? One shapes the other.

If you think this is trivial or doesn't point to a deep-seated and fundamental problem, here's a challenge:

Take any four-letter word in the English language. The first letter remains constant. The sole vowel sound remains the same, except you can shorten or elongate it. The third and only remaining sound, you can play around a bit - such as the range between "k" and "kh".

Now, sit down and try and mis-spell the words as many times as you can. See how far you can get.

Then think about how much you can rely on the "historical" accounts on the Sikhs published in Europe and the West during the last few centuries for their accuracy, maturity, objectivity, judgement ...

How much credibility would be given, for example, to a treatise or an account of life in Europe by an Eastern scholar who, in writing in his own language, repeatedly mis-spells key names and terms, and does so in a variety of ways?

All is not gloomy, though.

We have had some wonderful historians from Europe. Max Macauliffe, to whom we owe so much. Then, there was J.D. Cunningham before him. And today, our contemporary - the New Zealander, Hew McLeod.

We may agree or disagree with these giants in the area of Sikh scholarship, on some issues. But they have, haven't they, brought Sikh studies a long way from the distortions - careless or willful, who knows - of yesteryear.

For now, we won't even go into how the same brains of yore who tripped and stumbled on a single mono-syllabic word, of how they then took the easy way out and labeled us "Hindoos". Maybe it was easier to spell!

Dr. T. Sher Singh is a Barrister & Solicitor in Guelph, Canada. He is also a regular newspaper columnist and a TV/Radio commentator on current affairs. As well, he writes a weekly column for a Canadian newspaper syndicate.