Skip to content
← CatalogueTheology300 levelCreated by AI

Theology

Authenticity, Scholarly Debates, and Khalsa Practice Today

Professor: Sikhi University Source: SikhLibrary

This course examines the contemporary state of scholarly and community debates about the Sarbloh Granth's authenticity, considers what is at stake in these debates for the living Khalsa community, and offers students tools for engaging responsibly with contested sacred texts. It bridges historical-critical methodology with honest theological engagement, modeling the kind of integrative scholarship that Sikh studies needs.

Begin course12 lessons · 10-question test · 80% to pass
Created by AI. Drafted with AI and reviewed for accuracy. Spotted an error? Tell us.
Prerequisite recommended. This is a 300-level course. We recommend completing 200-level courses before diving in — they build the foundation this course assumes.

What you'll learn

  • Summarize the current state of scholarly debate about the Sarbloh Granth's historical authenticity
  • Evaluate the different methodological approaches scholars bring to the question of Sikh scriptural attribution
  • Analyze the implications of the authenticity debate for Nihang Sikh identity and practice
  • Articulate the difference between historical authenticity questions and the question of a text's spiritual value
  • Apply lessons from the Sarbloh Granth debate to broader questions about contested sacred texts
  • Develop a personal scholarly and devotional posture toward the Sarbloh Granth grounded in intellectual honesty and spiritual respect

Key terms — ਸ਼ਬਦਾਵਲੀ

ਮਰਿਆਦਾ

Maryada; established code of conduct; the Sikh Rehat Maryada is the official code of Khalsa conduct — its relationship to the Sarbloh Granth is a contested question

ਸ਼੍ਰੋਮਣੀ ਗੁਰਦੁਆਰਾ ਪ੍ਰਬੰਧਕ ਕਮੇਟੀ

SGPC; Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee; the central Sikh religious institution whose official positions differ from Nihang traditional practice

ਤਖ਼ਤ

Takht; throne of temporal authority; the five Takhts are the supreme temporal seats of the Sikh Panth (Akal Takht, Patna Sahib, Hazur Sahib, Damdama Sahib, Anandpur Sahib) — Nihang Singhs accord the Sarbloh Granth supreme scriptural authority alongside the Guru Granth Sahib Ji and maintain that its recitation is obligatory Khalsa practice

ਪੰਥ

Panth; the Sikh community as a whole; the diversity within the Panth includes both those who accept and those who question the Sarbloh Granth

ਪ੍ਰਮਾਣਿਕਤਾ

Pramanikta; authenticity; the scholarly and community question of whether a text is genuinely what it claims to be

ਗੁਰਮਤਿ

Gurmat; the Guru's teaching or way; the standard against which all Sikh theology and practice is measured

ਨਿਤਨੇਮ

Nitnem; daily liturgy; the set of banis recited daily by Sikhs — the Nihang Nitnem includes sections of the Sarbloh Granth not in the mainstream Nitnem

ਸਿੱਖ ਰਹਿਤ ਮਰਿਆਦਾ

Sikh Rehat Maryada; the official Sikh code of conduct published by the SGPC in 1950 — the primary reference document for mainstream Sikh practice

ਸਿੱਖ ਵਿਦਵਾਨ

Sikh scholars; the community of scholars, both traditional and academic, who engage in critical study of Sikh texts and history

ਇਤਿਹਾਸਕ ਸਮੀਖਿਆ

Historical criticism; the academic methodology of examining texts in their historical context using primary source evidence

Lessons

1. The Stakes of the Debate

Full course contents
  1. The Stakes of the Debate
  2. Methodological Approaches to Sikh Scriptural Attribution
  3. The Historical-Critical School: McLeod and His Legacy
  4. Traditional and Devotional Responses to Historical Criticism
  5. The Nihang Community's Position
  6. The SGPC and Mainstream Institutional Positions
  7. Kamalroop Singh and Recent Scholarship
  8. What the Absence of 18th-Century Evidence Actually Proves (and Does Not Prove)
  9. The Question of Canonical Status
  10. Authentic Praxis as Evidence
  11. How to Hold Both Positions with Integrity
  12. Looking Forward: What Future Scholarship Needs

Real Communities, Real Stakes

Debates about the authenticity of sacred texts are never merely academic. They are debates about identity, authority, and community. For the Nihang Singhs, the Sarbloh Granth is not a historical curiosity but the living scripture that shapes their daily practice, their ceremonies, their understanding of the divine, and their sense of who they are as a community. A conclusion that the Sarbloh Granth is not authentic Guru Bani would be, for them, an assault on the foundations of their religious identity. This is not a reason to dismiss the historical questions; it is a reason to engage them with appropriate seriousness and care (Oberoi 1994, 12).

For the Broader Panth

For Sikhs outside the Nihang tradition, the Sarbloh Granth debate raises questions about the boundaries of the Sikh canon, the criteria for scriptural authority, and the diversity of practice within the ਪੰਥ. If the Sarbloh Granth is authentic Guru Bani, what does that mean for the Sikh Rehat Maryada that does not include its recitation in the standard Nitnem? If it is not, what does that mean for the Nihang tradition's legitimacy? These questions do not have easy answers, and a course that pretends otherwise would not be serving its students honestly.

For Academic Scholarship

For academic scholars of Sikhism, the Sarbloh Granth represents a methodological test case. How do scholars of religion engage with contested sacred texts when the communities that hold them sacred are living, politically engaged communities with real stakes in the conclusions? The methodological choices scholars make in approaching the Sarbloh Granth have implications for how the broader field approaches contested scriptures across all religious traditions.

2. Methodological Approaches to Sikh Scriptural Attribution

Historical-Critical Method

The historical-critical method, as applied to sacred texts, involves examining the external evidence for a text's composition — manuscript witnesses, independent references in other literature, physical dating of manuscripts, paleographic analysis — to determine when and by whom a text was likely composed. Applied to the Sarbloh Granth, this method asks: what is the earliest independent reference to this text as a standalone composition? What is the earliest dated manuscript? What do these tell us about the text's composition date? According to scholars using this method, the answers are less clear than for other Sikh canonical texts (Fenech and McLeod 2014, 21).

Traditional Attribution Method

The traditional attribution method takes the authoritative claims of a living religious community as the primary evidence for a text's origin. Applied to the Sarbloh Granth, this method asks: what does the community that has preserved and practiced this text consistently claim about its origin? What is the internal evidence of the text itself (its language, theology, style)? This approach treats the living tradition as a form of historical evidence in its own right — the continuous practice of a community represents a form of transmission that is not always captured in written documents (Singh and Mann 2015, 5).

Critical Faithful Scholarship

A third approach — which this course advocates — might be called critical faithful scholarship. It brings the rigor of historical-critical method to bear on the text while maintaining genuine respect for the living tradition and genuine openness to the possibility that the traditional attribution is correct. This approach acknowledges uncertainty honestly, engages the primary sources directly, and refuses to substitute either dogmatic acceptance or dogmatic rejection for careful, ongoing scholarly engagement. It is the approach most consistent with both academic integrity and genuine spiritual seriousness.

3. The Historical-Critical School: McLeod and His Legacy

McLeod's Methodology

W. H. McLeod, the New Zealand scholar who spent decades studying Sikh history and scripture, applied historical-critical methodology to Sikh texts with results that generated significant controversy within the Sikh community. His approach insisted that texts attributed to the Gurus must be tested against available historical evidence rather than simply accepted on the basis of tradition. His work raised important questions about the composition history of the Dasam Granth and other texts, and implicitly about the Sarbloh Granth as well (Fenech and McLeod 2014, introduction).

Criticisms of McLeod's Approach

McLeod's methodology has been criticized on several grounds. Sikh scholars have argued that his framework imported Western historical assumptions inappropriate to the study of South Asian religious texts, that his standards of evidence were applied asymmetrically, and that his conclusions were sometimes treated as more settled than the evidence warranted. Arvind-Pal Singh Mandair has argued that the entire framework of Western academic study of Sikhism carries ideological assumptions that need to be examined critically (Mandair 2009, 34). These critiques do not invalidate historical-critical method but they call for a more self-aware, contextualized application of it.

The Legacy for Sarbloh Granth Study

McLeod's legacy for the Sarbloh Granth is this: he established that historical-critical methodology is a legitimate tool for approaching Sikh scriptural questions, and that questions about the composition history of texts associated with the Gurus are academically legitimate. Future scholars of the Sarbloh Granth cannot simply appeal to tradition; they must engage the historical evidence. At the same time, scholars who follow McLeod's approach must take seriously the critiques of that approach and apply it with greater cultural sensitivity and methodological self-awareness than was sometimes evident in his own work.

4. Traditional and Devotional Responses to Historical Criticism

The Devotional Response

For many Sikhs — particularly within the Nihang tradition — historical-critical methodology, when applied to sacred scripture, is experienced as inappropriate and spiritually harmful. From this perspective, the attempt to use external historical evidence to evaluate the authenticity of ਗੁਰਮਤਿ texts represents a category error: applying a secular methodology to a sacred domain for which it was not designed and which it cannot properly evaluate. The spiritual truth of the Sarbloh Granth is not a matter to be settled by manuscript dating; it is a matter of the living relationship between the community and the divine as encountered through the text (Singh and Mann 2015, 8).

Internal Evidence Arguments

Traditional scholars who defend the Sarbloh Granth's attribution typically argue from internal evidence: the text's language, theology, and literary style are consistent with what is known of Guru Gobind Singh Ji's other compositions. The theological vision of iron sovereignty is coherent with the Guru's broader project of constructing the Khalsa identity. The metrical sophistication and the breadth of learning evidenced in the text are consistent with the scholarly court that Guru Gobind Singh Ji maintained at Anandpur Sahib. These arguments do not resolve the historical question, but they establish plausibility and make the attribution reasonable.

The Legitimacy of Tradition as Evidence

One important point that historical-critical scholars sometimes underweight is the evidential status of living tradition itself. A community of Khalsa Sikhs whose lineage traces directly to the time of Guru Gobind Singh Ji, who have continuously maintained and practiced a text as Guru Bani — this tradition is itself a form of historical evidence. It does not prove the text's composition date, but it does prove the text's religious significance within a real historical community, which is itself a historically verifiable fact.

5. The Nihang Community's Position

The Unambiguous Claim

The Nihang Singh community's position on the Sarbloh Granth's authenticity is unambiguous: it is ਬਾਣੀ of Guru Gobind Singh Ji, the sacred word of the Tenth Guru, and is to be received with the same reverence as the Guru Granth Sahib Ji within the Nihang ceremonial and spiritual context. This position is not a recent apologetic development but the consistent teaching of the Nihang tradition since at least the published Buddha Dal edition in the twentieth century, and the Nihang claim is that this teaching has been maintained continuously since the time of the Guru himself (Baba Santa Singh 1973, preface).

The Fifth Takht Claim

The Nihang tradition's claim that the Sarbloh Granth functions as a "Fifth Takht" — a fifth seat of Khalsa temporal authority — is theologically significant. The mainstream Sikh Panth recognizes five Takhts: Akal Takht (Amritsar), Takht Keshgarh Sahib (Anandpur), Takht Damdama Sahib (Talwandi Sabo), Takht Patna Sahib (Patna), and Takht Hazur Sahib (Nanded). The Nihang claim to a fifth Takht centered on the Sarbloh Granth represents a theological position about the text's authority that goes significantly beyond merely including it in their Nitnem. This is a claim that the broader ਪੰਥ has not formally accepted, but which reveals the depth of the Nihang community's investment in the text's sacred status.

The Living Proof

Perhaps the strongest element of the Nihang community's case is the living proof of their own community: a community of Khalsa Sikhs who have maintained rigorous discipline, brave martial readiness, historical memory, and deep devotion to the Guru's teachings over centuries — and whose entire way of life is grounded in and shaped by the theology of the Sarbloh Granth. Whatever one concludes about the text's composition date, this living community is real, its depth is evident, and its testimony deserves serious respect.

6. The SGPC and Mainstream Institutional Positions

The Sikh Rehat Maryada

The Sikh Rehat Maryada — the official code of Sikh conduct published by the SGPC in 1950 after years of committee work — does not include recitation of the Sarbloh Granth in its prescribed Nitnem. The Nitnem as specified in the Sikh Rehat Maryada consists of: Japji Sahib, Jaap Sahib, Tav-Prasad Savaiye, Chaupai Sahib, and Anand Sahib for the morning; Rehras Sahib for the evening; and Kirtan Sohila for the night. The absence of the Sarbloh Granth from this list reflects a formal institutional decision that the text, whatever its merits, is not part of the standardized mainstream Khalsa observance (Singh, Pashaura 2000, 23).

Institutional-Community Tension

The tension between the SGPC's institutional position and the Nihang community's traditional practice is one instance of a broader tension within the Sikh Panth between centralized institutional standardization and the diversity of living traditions. The SGPC's authority to standardize Sikh practice was itself a product of the twentieth-century reform movements and does not necessarily reflect the full diversity of what the Khalsa community has been across its history. Scholars like Harjot Oberoi have argued that the attempt to create a single uniform Sikh identity through institutional standardization necessarily marginalized significant traditional communities, including the Nihang Singhs (Oberoi 1994, 15).

Multiple Legitimate Streams

The course does not advocate for a single institutional resolution to this tension. Rather, it suggests that the Sikh Panth has historically been a diverse community with multiple streams of practice, theology, and devotion — and that this diversity is a strength, not a weakness. The Nihang tradition's preservation of the Sarbloh Granth is a legitimate stream within this diversity, and the mainstream Panth would be intellectually and spiritually poorer for dismissing it without serious engagement.

7. Kamalroop Singh and Recent Scholarship

A Different Scholarly Voice

Dr. Kamalroop Singh, a Sikh scholar who has engaged directly with primary sources including manuscripts, represents a scholarly voice defending the traditional attribution of texts like the Sarbloh Granth against the skepticism of the McLeod school. His work with Gurinder Singh Mann on the Granth of the Tenth King brings scholarly rigor to the defense of the traditional attribution, engaging primary sources directly rather than relying on tradition alone (Singh and Mann 2015, preface). This work demonstrates that defense of traditional attribution is not merely a devotional position but can be a scholarly one, grounded in careful primary source analysis.

The Argument from Literary Consistency

Singh and Mann's approach to attribution questions emphasizes literary and theological consistency: does the text under examination exhibit the same language, metres, themes, and theological vision as texts whose attribution is well-established? For the Sarbloh Granth, the argument is that its literary features are highly consistent with the Dasam Granth compositions attributed directly to Guru Gobind Singh Ji. The same classical metres, the same Braj Bhasha literary language, the same theological vision of divine sovereignty and warrior manifestation — these constitute a coherent literary profile that supports the attribution (Singh and Mann 2015, 43).

Limitations and Open Questions

Even within sympathetic scholarship, important questions remain open. The absence of early independent references to the Sarbloh Granth as a standalone composition is acknowledged as a challenge that defenders of the attribution have not fully resolved. A full manuscript study — examining multiple manuscript witnesses with paleographic analysis to establish dates — has not been published. These gaps do not disprove the traditional attribution, but they mean that the scholarly case for it, however compelling in its literary and theological dimensions, cannot yet be considered fully established by the standards of historical-critical scholarship.

8. What the Absence of 18th-Century Evidence Actually Proves (and Does Not Prove)

Argument from Silence

The argument that the Sarbloh Granth cannot be authentic Guru Bani because there are no independent 18th-century references to it is, methodologically, an argument from silence. Historians are trained to treat arguments from silence with caution: the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. A text can exist without being referenced in surviving documents, particularly when the documents that might have referenced it were themselves not systematically preserved. The 18th century was a period of enormous instability and violence for the Sikh community; the question of what texts and records survived is itself historically contingent (Grewal 1990, 89).

What the Silence Does Establish

At the same time, the absence of early independent references is not irrelevant. It means that the Sarbloh Granth cannot be placed within the well-documented textual history of the late Guru period with the same confidence as, for example, the Guru Granth Sahib Ji or the core compositions of the Dasam Granth. It means that the evidential case for the traditional attribution rests primarily on the internal evidence of the text itself and on the authority of the Nihang tradition — both of which are real evidence, but neither of which can definitively establish composition date in the way that independent historical documentation could.

The Responsible Conclusion

The responsible conclusion from the current state of evidence is: the attribution of the Sarbloh Granth to Guru Gobind Singh Ji cannot be confirmed by historical-critical methodology with current evidence, nor can it be disproved. The question remains genuinely open. This is an intellectually uncomfortable position — both devoted traditionalists and skeptical academics tend to prefer definitive answers — but it is the honest position, and honesty is the fundamental requirement of both good scholarship and good ਗੁਰਮਤਿ.

9. The Question of Canonical Status

What Is Canon?

The concept of canon — a fixed list of authoritative sacred texts — has a specific history in each religious tradition. In Sikhism, the canonical status of the Guru Granth Sahib Ji is clear: it was established as the eternal living Guru by Guru Gobind Singh Ji at Nanded, and its authority is not disputed within the Sikh Panth. The Dasam Granth's canonical status is more contested — it is revered in many traditions but not treated as the living Guru. The Sarbloh Granth's canonical status is the most contested of all: fully canonical for the Nihang tradition, not officially recognized by the SGPC (Pashaura Singh 2000, 45).

Multiple Canons within the Panth

The existence of multiple canons within a single religious tradition is not unusual. The Christian canon varies between Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant traditions. The Jewish canon differs between the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint. The fact that the Sikh Panth includes communities with different canonical boundaries is itself historically and theologically significant: it reflects the genuine diversity of the Khalsa tradition across its history. Rather than treating this diversity as a problem to be resolved by institutional fiat, students of Sikhism might treat it as an invitation to deeper understanding of how living religious traditions actually work.

Authority and Practice

Ultimately, the question of canonical status is inseparable from the question of community practice: a text is canonical for a community when that community treats it as authoritative in its liturgy, theology, and ethical guidance. By this functional definition, the Sarbloh Granth is canonical for the Nihang Singh community regardless of institutional decisions by the SGPC. Acknowledging this functional canonicity does not require endorsing any particular historical claim about the text's composition; it simply acknowledges the real role the text plays in the real life of a real community.

10. Authentic Praxis as Evidence

Praxis as Historical Evidence

In the study of religion, living praxis — the actual practices of a living community — is a form of historical evidence that academic historical-critical methodology sometimes undervalues. When a community maintains a specific set of practices over centuries, with consistent theological grounding in a specific text, this continuity is historically significant. It suggests that the practices and the text have been genuinely integrated rather than artificially imposed; it suggests a depth of engagement that casual or recent adoption would not produce (Fenech 2008, 12). The Nihang Singhs' integration of Sarbloh Granth theology into their food practices, their ceremonies, their Amrit Sanchar, and their daily Nitnem represents this kind of deep integration.

The Body as Archive

The Nihang community's embodied practice — wearing iron, eating from iron, wielding iron weapons with reverence — is a form of living archive that preserves the Sarbloh theology in material practice rather than merely in text. This embodied archive may in some respects be more reliable than written archives, which can be produced, copied, and transmitted far from the community they claim to represent. The Nihang body — disciplined, ironed, practiced — is a direct expression of the tradition it preserves. No amount of document study can substitute for this kind of primary encounter with the living tradition.

The Scholarly Obligation

Scholars of Sikhism who wish to understand the Sarbloh Granth fully have an obligation that goes beyond textual and historical study: they must engage with the living Nihang community whose practice is the most direct evidence available for what the Sarbloh Granth means and how it functions. This engagement requires cultural sensitivity, genuine respect, and a willingness to have one's scholarly preconceptions challenged by the encounter with a living tradition that does not conform to academic categories.

11. How to Hold Both Positions with Integrity

The Temptation of Easy Resolution

The human mind tends to prefer resolution over ambiguity, and the temptation in approaching the Sarbloh Granth is to resolve the tension quickly in one of two ways: either accept the traditional attribution without engaging the historical questions (devotional bypass), or dismiss the text as inauthentic on the basis of historical-critical concerns without engaging the living tradition seriously (academic bypass). Both bypasses are forms of intellectual dishonesty, and both fail to honor either the text or the community that holds it (Mandair 2009, 45).

The Practice of Holding Tension

The alternative is what might be called the practice of holding tension — maintaining the uncertainty of the historical question while simultaneously engaging fully with the text's spiritual and theological content. This requires intellectual humility (acknowledging that the historical question is not resolved), spiritual openness (being genuinely receptive to what the text offers regardless of its composition history), and relational respect (honoring the living community whose practice gives the text its context and meaning). None of these three qualities is easy, and all three together require real discipline.

A Model for Approaching Contested Sacred Texts

The approach developed in this course is intended not only for the Sarbloh Granth but as a model for approaching any contested sacred text — whether the Dasam Granth, the Pran Sangli, or any other text whose historical status is disputed but whose devotional significance is real. The basic posture is: engage the historical evidence honestly, engage the theological content seriously, engage the living community respectfully, and refuse to let any one of these three forms of engagement crowd out the others. This is the posture of a genuinely educated, genuinely spiritual student of sacred tradition.

12. Looking Forward: What Future Scholarship Needs

The Critical Edition Project

The single most important scholarly need for the Sarbloh Granth is a full critical edition: a systematic comparison of all available manuscript witnesses, with paleographic analysis to establish dates, identification of variant readings, and a scholarly apparatus that traces the text's transmission history. No such edition currently exists. The production of a critical edition would not resolve the attribution debate definitively — as discussed in earlier lessons, manuscript dating cannot establish original composition date — but it would provide a far more solid evidential foundation than currently exists (Fenech and McLeod 2014, 288).

Community-Academic Partnership

Future scholarship on the Sarbloh Granth requires genuine partnership between academic scholars and the Nihang Singh community. The community holds knowledge — oral traditions, ceremonial practices, manuscript holdings — that academic scholars cannot access through library research alone. Academic scholars bring methodological tools and comparative knowledge that can complement the community's internal expertise. The history of Sikh studies has sometimes been marked by mutual suspicion between the academic and the devotional; the Sarbloh Granth offers an opportunity to model a more constructive relationship.

The Place of the Sarbloh Granth in Sikh Studies

As Sikh studies matures as an academic field, the Sarbloh Granth deserves dedicated scholarly attention proportionate to its significance for a substantial stream of the living Khalsa community. Currently, the text receives only passing treatment in most academic surveys of Sikh literature. A field that claims to study the full range of Sikh tradition cannot responsibly continue to marginalize a text that is central to one of the oldest and most historically significant Khalsa orders. The future of Sikh studies includes serious, respectful, rigorous engagement with the Sarbloh Granth — and this course is one small step in that direction.

References & further reading

  1. Fenech, Louis E., and W. H. McLeod. Historical Dictionary of Sikhism. 3rd ed. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2014.
  2. Singh, Kamalroop, and Gurinder Singh Mann. The Granth of the Tenth King. Amritsar: Singh Brothers, 2015.
  3. Oberoi, Harjot. The Construction of Religious Boundaries: Culture, Identity, and Diversity in the Sikh Tradition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.
  4. Mandair, Arvind-Pal Singh. Religion and the Specter of the West: Sikhism, India, Postcoloniality, and the Politics of Translation. New York: Columbia University Press, 2009.
  5. Singh, Pashaura. The Guru Granth Sahib: Canon, Meaning and Authority. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2000.
  6. Grewal, J. S. The Sikhs of the Punjab. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
  7. Shackle, Christopher, and Arvind Mandair, eds. Teachings of the Sikh Gurus: Selections from the Sikh Scriptures. London: Routledge, 2005.

Flashcards — ਕਾਰਡ ਅਭਿਆਸ

Click a card to flip it and reveal the definition.

Click to reveal

Course test

Pass with 80% or higher to complete the course and unlock the next one.

1. What is the 'argument from silence' as applied to the Sarbloh Granth debate?
2. Why is the argument from silence treated with caution by historians?
3. What does the Sikh Rehat Maryada (1950 SGPC publication) say about the Sarbloh Granth?
4. What does the Nihang community's claim to a 'Fifth Takht' connected to the Sarbloh Granth represent?
5. What is the 'responsible conclusion' about the Sarbloh Granth's attribution according to the course?
6. What is 'critical faithful scholarship' as defined in this course?
7. According to the course, how should living praxis be treated as evidence?
8. What does the course identify as the most important scholarly need for the Sarbloh Granth?
9. How does the course characterize the diversity of canonical practice within the Sikh Panth?
10. What does the course mean by 'the practice of holding tension' in relation to the Sarbloh Granth?

Read the source texts

Read the primary sources for yourself — the Gurbani in our read-along reader, and the original works in the source library.

Read Gurbani (reader)SikhLibrary dataset ↗Dig deeper in the Sikh Archive →

Rate this course

…

Discussion & Q&A

Sign in to post.