Understanding Sikh History-1

Locked
Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by Agnimitra »

Sushupti wrote:But Shivaji wasn't in communication with God. He was just a king or a wannabe king.
Right. So? Not everyone wears the "Indic atheist" badge with pride. Most Indians prefer the God-centered type of school and mission. Granted, there are a lot of charlatans around, precisely because its a subtle subject. But that's no reason to bring in those insinuations here based on flimsy and mischievous mis-readings. Nor is it a reason to be dismissive. Rather, we can use this recent history as a genuine study to increase understanding and prevent charlatanism.
Sushupti
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5198
Joined: 22 Dec 2010 21:24

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by Sushupti »

Sanku wrote:Sushupti-ji

does not need to be given any credence what so ever on a forum like BRF.
Sanku Ji Agree only with above quoted part.My original question was regarding the concept of Akal Purukh of Guru Nanak Vs Guru GoVind (Gobind) Singh to SBajwa. This was in relation to his mention of "Hindu like" practices.
Sushupti
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5198
Joined: 22 Dec 2010 21:24

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by Sushupti »

Carl cool down!. When SBajwa mentioned "Hindu like" practices i didn't resort to chest beating. If you don't have facts just accept it. And your personal interpretations doesn't mean anything. Just check your first post after you decided to butt in and your ad-hominem on Adi Sankara.
Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by Agnimitra »

Sushupti ji, I'm cool onlee. I don't know why you see an "ad hominem" in everything. FYI - I deeply revere Adi Shankara, and received my mantra from his spiritual line, amongst a million other gifts. But I happen to prefer Madhva's philosophical clarification, that's all.

Do you accept or not that the slanted reference you posted about Guru Gobind Singh ji is mischievous, misleading and false? If yes, you could in future inform your khalistani friends as well as Koenraad Elst ji, etc that it is not to be interpreted that way.
surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1464
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by surinder »

Sushupati, you are quoting some of the most misguided and confused set of people. I used to go the VOI site. I thought they were reasonable people who believed in Hindu revival, but they are like an auto-immune disease who are attaching their own.

They managed to put off a supporter like me. Incredibly stupid and ill informed. Talk about a a complete Self goal.

Intelligent wise people make allies out of enemies, foolish people make enemies out of friends. Sikhs have been the biggest allies and friends of the Hindus.

If you have personal points to argue, put forth. Don't ask us to contradict the swill from that site, it is not just not worth that respect.
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by Prem »

Crazy Sql Error spolied my hard work.

Ik Chuup , Sau Sukh
Dharma is like Rukh
One root ,Many Branches
And Counless Shubh Mukh
Sarre Akhan apni Mutt
But all point to Ek Such
Khatri, Bahman,Baaniya Jutt
Saarya da ek Indic Satt=Essence
Jubb bhi ayya sakhat wakt
Ditta hai sabb ne rakt =blood
Phir bhi nahi samjhe moormatt
Apno pei hi karte hai shukk
Hum Desi hain aise Kambhakht. :shock:
Last edited by Prem on 25 Jan 2012 02:02, edited 1 time in total.
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by Prem »

Carl wrote:Sushupti ji, I'm cool onlee. I don't know why you see an "ad hominem" in everything. FYI - I deeply revere Adi Shankara, and received my mantra from his spiritual line, amongst a million other gifts. But I happen to prefer Madhva's philosophical clarification, that's all.Do you accept or not that the slanted reference you posted about Guru Gobind Singh ji is mischievous, misleading and false? If yes, you could in future inform your khalistani friends as well as Koenraad Elst ji, etc that it is not to be interpreted that way.
Khalistani are dead and long gone. Hindu numbers beat any Sikh numbers in going to Gurudwaras. No fun in beating the Lalkir when Sarp long gone after causing much Peer to both Zaamir and Sharrir.
SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5777
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by SBajwa »

Are you sure about Guru Arjan Dev writing each and every letter of Adi Granth? and even if he did how can you be sure that it has remained intact over the centuries?.
Few Facts to ponder!

Guru Arjan Dev ji compiled the book (wrote or dictated/corrected each letter with his own hand ) along with his Sikh named Bhai Gurdas ji, sitting under the tree (Dukh Bhanjani Beri) where he was also supervising the construction of Golden Temple. Then he installed this book in the center of the Golden Temple and appointed Baba Buddha ji as the first Granthi (Reading of the Granth).

Guru Arjan Dev ji read the poems/writings of his previous gurus and many saints of India.
Guru Arjan Dev ji decided/thought about the Ragas and Tala of these writings.
Guru Arjan Dev ji compiled it in a consistent format for example before bani starts it says

Bani of Namdev, Raag Dhanasari,
and then the bani of Bhagat Namdev
and so forth (separately for each guru). for example the Anand Karaj "Lavan" bani is written by the fourth Guru.

Guru Arjan gave the volume to a follower Bhai Bano for binding. The later took it for binding to Lahore and on the way prepared a copy of the original volume. That first copy of the original is known as Bhai Bano's copy. Guru Arjan Dev installed the original Holy Book in 1604 at the Sikh temple (Harmandir Sahib) that he had got constructed at Amritsar. A famous Sikh follower by the name Baba Buddha was appointed as the first Granthi or keeper of the scripture. After the Martyrdom of Guru Arjan Dev in the hands of King Jahangir, Guru Hargobind became the sixth Sikh Guru in 1606. Subsequently Bhai Dhirmal, son of Guru Hargobind got hold of the scripture and refused to give it to the Guru.

The descendants of Dhirmal now living at Kartarpur still own that original copy!! people bow to it everyday.
svenkat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4727
Joined: 19 May 2009 17:23

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by svenkat »

"jhujhar" ji,
Nice one.
Last edited by svenkat on 25 Jan 2012 08:41, edited 1 time in total.
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by Prem »

Svekant ji,
' Naam is Jhujhar, Please edit. :)
paramu
BRFite
Posts: 669
Joined: 20 May 2008 11:38

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by paramu »

Interesting read. So, the Sikh Gurus and Maharaja Ranjit Singh never considered themselves to be different from Hindus. Separate Sikh identity is a latter day creation.
surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1464
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by surinder »

^^^
Crap conclusion from crap historians.
Sushupti
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5198
Joined: 22 Dec 2010 21:24

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by Sushupti »

Jhujar wrote:
Carl wrote:Sushupti ji, I'm cool onlee. I don't know why you see an "ad hominem" in everything. FYI - I deeply revere Adi Shankara, and received my mantra from his spiritual line, amongst a million other gifts. But I happen to prefer Madhva's philosophical clarification, that's all.Do you accept or not that the slanted reference you posted about Guru Gobind Singh ji is mischievous, misleading and false? If yes, you could in future inform your khalistani friends as well as Koenraad Elst ji, etc that it is not to be interpreted that way.
Khalistani are dead and long gone. Hindu numbers beat any Sikh numbers in going to Gurudwaras. No fun in beating the Lalkir when Sarp long gone after causing much Peer to both Zaamir and Sharrir.
http://www.sarbloh.info/htmls/articles_ ... intro.html

Distortions of Sikh History
Introduction

Before As knowledge of Sanatan Sikhism and Akali Nihang ideology spreads across the world, a small handful of individuals, influenced by their inherent xenophobia, have accused the creators of http://www.shastarvidiya.org and http://www.sarbloh.info of inventing terms such as ‘Sanatan’, ‘Shastar Vidiya’, ‘Chatka’, etc. Some have even claimed that one goes against the principles of Sikhism because an individual refers to the Sikh Gurus by the prefix ‘Akali’.

These ignorant individuals, some preferring to remain anonymous, have ignored the tremendous amount of scriptural, historical and literary evidence that corroborates the facts presented on these websites. The transcripts of numerous interviews carried out with respected Sanatan Sikhs that further substantiate the information, also appears to glide over the intellect of such characters. On considering the wealth of wisdom in existence, one has to ask why these people are so blind to it all?

Applying ‘tark’ and ‘nijaj’ (logic and reason), we can arrive at the conclusion that Sanatan Sikhism represents a world that is too deep, too varied and pluralistic, for such individuals to comprehend. Years of brainwashing under Tat Khalsa Singh Sabia-influenced Sikhism has destroyed their ability to accept or respect any philosophy that does not adhere to their own beliefs.

In addition, the form of Sikhism followed today in the modern world has been challenged and refuted by the evidence presented here.

The British Raj left a legacy in Punjab, the cancerous Tat Khalsa Singh Sabhia Sikhism that today eats away at the intellect and character of humanity. Akali Nihang Singhs term this form of Sikhism as ‘Angrez Sikhi’ (European Sikhism) or ‘Malesh Sikhi’ (Sikhism of the filthy foreigner). This ‘Angrez Sikhi’ is currently squealing under the heavy boot of the revitalized Sanatan Sikhism.

To recap, Sanatan Sikhism, with all its glorious traditions such as ‘Shastar Vidiya’, ‘Ayurveda’, ‘Gurmat Sangeet’, ‘Arth Vidiya’, etc. was displaced by the Tat Khalsa Singh Sabhias during the course of the late 19th century and early 20th century.

After over a century, Sanatan Sikhism is now making a spirited return to its former prosperity. The truth is that Sanatan Sikhism cannot be held back by terrorist threats, false accusations, slander or false propaganda.

Sanatan Sikh Shastar Vidiya Gurdev Nihang Niddar Singh wishes to state the following:


“Even if these fanatical extremists kill myself and/or Nihang Teja Singh (the webmaster), the glory of Sanatan Sikhism cannot be held back by terrorist threats, slander, fallacious accusations, or spurious propaganda. Should these narrow-minded fanatics succeed in killing myself and/or Nihang Teja Singh as they have promised to do in their numerous threats, they should be aware that the Sanatan Sikh revivalism will not be stifled.

It is not I, Nihang Niddar Singh of my ‘Shagirds’ (students) who are distorting Sikh history, or inventing misleading traditions or false martial arts. It is my detractors, who having being brought up on Tat Khalsa Singh Sabhia-influenced Sikhism, are ignorant to the legacy of lies and deceit perpetuated by the followers of this form of Sikhism. Individuals who played major roles as both originators and propagators of Tat Khalsa Singh Sabhia Sikhism include well-known authors such as Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha, M.A. Macauliffe, Bhai Vir Singh, Teja Singh Bhasauria, Bhai Randhir Singh Narangwal, Prof. Sahib Singh, etc.’

Tat Khalsa Singh Sabhia Distortions of History

Once this foundation of deception was built by the Tat Khalsa Singh Sabhia progeny, such as the Shromani Gurdwara Parbandak Committee (S.G.P.C.), Panch Khalsa Diwan, Akhand Kirtani Jatha (A.K.J.), Nirankaris, etc. modern Sikhs built their houses of falsehood upon it. These prophets of doom, nurtured on narrow-minded puritanical Victorian ideals established by the British Raj, began to label Guru-ordained Sanatan Sikhism as being false.

As the Tat Khalsa Singh Sabhia movement emerged from the womb of the ‘Malesh’ (filthy foreigner) in 1879, it began to radically alter Sikhism as it existed so as ensure it conformed to their new British Raj-accommodating perception. In fact, one of the leading figures of this movement was an Irishman, Max Arthur Macauliffe. He is regarded today by many modern Sikhs as being a great scholar and historian.

In 1882, Macauliffe achieved the position of Deputy Commissioner in Punjab. With the help of Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha, Macauliffe wrote the popular Tat Khalsa Singh Sabhia-sanctioned text that outlined Sikh history according to the views of the Tat Khalsa scholars of the time. In it, he states the reasons for writing his extensive work on the Sikhs:

‘It is admitted that a knowledge of the religions of the people of India is a desideratum for the British officials who administer its affairs and indirectly for the people who are governed by them so that mutual sympathy may be produced. It seems, at any rate politic to place before the Sikh soldiery their Guru’s prophecies in favor of the English and the texts of their sacred writings which foster their loyalty.’
‘The Sikh Religion’,1909, M.A. Macauliffe, Preface xxii

From the above quote, it is clear that one of the main objectives for Macauliffe was to inculcate loyalty within Sikhs for the British Raj. At the time, the Sanatan Sikh Raj had been displaced by the British Raj, and as such, Sanatan Sikhs, especially the Akali Nihangs, were naturally very hostile towards the British.

The British Raj utilized the Tat Khalsa Singh Sabhia Sikhs to apply their ‘divide and rule’ policy sought to negate Sanatan Sikhism in the name of ‘reform’

Bhai Vir Singh

During the late 19th century and early 20th century, scholars such as Bhai Vir Singh came across numerous practices within Sanatan Sikhism such as ‘Chandi’ worship, use of intoxicants (such as alcohol, cannabis, opium), ‘Chatka’, polygamy, and references to topics such as adultery, homosexuality, lesbianism, ‘napumsak’ (the third gender), etc. Considering such issues as being products of either ‘Hindu’ influence, ‘impure’ thoughts, or ‘manmat’ (practices that go against the teachings of the Sikh Gurus), the Tat Khalsa Singh Sabhia-sponsored scholars began to dismiss, or expunge, or destroy, or alter any text/manuscript that mentioned such subjects

In the early 20th century, the surreptitious Bhai Vir Singh decided to publish Rattan Singh Bhangu’s ‘Pracheen Panth Prakash’. He systematically expunged this great text and altered some portions of the original text, but still deviously presented it as an ‘edited’ version. He sought to remove all mention of ‘Chandi Pooja’ and alcohol and from it for such practices, were deemed as being too ‘Hindu’ for the insecure Tat Khalsa Singhs.

The former S.G.P.C.-elected Jathedar of the Akal Takht, Giani Kirpal Singh and editor of ‘Naveen Panth Prakash’ commented on the advice given him by some modern Sikhs:

When I was just transliterating the invocatory verses, then many Sikh gentlemen advised me to:
‘Erase those portions of it, which were against Guru’s thinking and Sikh history and in their place insert your own new verses. Like how, from Rattan Singh Bhangu’s work, ‘Panth Prakash’, Bhai Vir Singh removed some portions. In some places [Bhai Vir Singh] changed the wording such as that with regards to the invocation of ‘Chandi’ (NB. Chandi Pooja was carried out by Akali Nihang Guru Gobind Singh before the before creation of the Khalsa), etc., and, replacing the word ‘Sura’ (alcohol) with ‘Suda’ (Ambrosia/Khalsa initiation)’
I did not agree with those gentlemen’s above-said thinking, and I said that to cut out some writers original text and insert in new text of your own is a great injustice with the author and in the literary world is considered a great sin. Yes, regards the text the editor in foot notes can give his own views
.

‘Siri Guru Panth Prakash’, editor Giani Kirpal Singh, 1970, Vol.1, Pa.3

The corruption of Rattan Singh’s ‘Pracheen Panth Prakash’ was not the only heinous literary crime committed by Bhai Vir Singh. The champion scholar of the Tat Khalsa also violated Kavi Santokh Singh’s great work, ‘Siri Gur Partap Suraj Granth’ (also known as ‘Suraj Prakash’/’Suraj Granth’) in a similar manner. Swami Harnam Das Udhasi, a one time Budha Dal Akali Nihang named Nurang Singh, and a great scholar of Sikh scriptures, wrote in his Budha Dal-published transliteration of Sarbloh Guru Durbar:

The invocatory discourse from Suraj Prakash were started by having invocatory verses in the beginning of texts pertaining to praise of Chandi; they were broken up and altered. In writing against Chandi Pooja, Doctor Vir Singh etc., in place of the original invocatory verses found in Suraj Prakash, replaced them with self-manufactured invocatory verses. In this way Kavi Santokh Singh’s true intentions were damaged. In fact, in places it was written even against Bhai Santokh Singh’s original text. For example the first ‘Dohra’ (stanza) of Siri Nanak Prakash.’

‘Siri Sarbloh Granth Sahib Stik’, published by Akali Nihang Baba Santa Singh, Volume 1, Pa.185

In 1894, Bhai Vir Singh had formed the Khalsa Tract Society in Amritsar along with Charan Singh (his father), Vjir Singh (his elder brother), Sirdar Trilochan Singh and Sirdar Surjan Singh. Along with his newspaper, the ‘Khalsa Samachaar’, the aim of the Khalsa Tract Society was to promote the ideals of the Tat Khalsa Singh Sabhias and remove the influence of Sanatan Sikhism. Bhai Vir Singh would later participate in campaigns for the extremist Panth Khalsa Diwan, the Sikh Educational Society, and the Punjab and Sindh Bank.

A far more nefarious deed was to follow the desecration of Rattan Singh Bhangu’s and Kavi Santokh Singh’s works by the lumpenproletariats of the Khalsa Tract Society. Bhai Vir Singh and his associates stole the works of the great Sanatan Sikh scholar, poet, and historian, Giani Gian Singh Nirmala.

Bhai Vir Singh, accompanied by his associates visited Giani Gian Singh who was very ill, and on his deathbed. They managed to persuade the delirious and elderly Giani Ji to sign over his life’s entire unpublished works to the society.

Ironically, on the day Giani Gian Singh signed his works over, he miraculously began to recover. However, he had lost his entire life’s work to the devious Bhai Vir Singh. After pledging to publish Giani Gian Singh’s works, the Khalsa Tract Society failed to do so, nor did they give him his lifetime pension, which had been promised to him.

Instead, Bhai Vir Singh published expunged portions of Giani Gian Singh’s works under the name of the Khalsa Tract Society, ensuring the articles conformed to Tat Khalsa Singh Sabha ideology. Giani Gian Singh attempted for a further 17 years to regain possession of his works from Bhai Vir Singh, but the greater portion of his works was either lost, or destroyed. In despair, Giani Gian Singh wrote about his anguish, as quoted in Giani Kirpal Singh’s introduction:

‘Then they [Bhai Vir Singh et al] had a pledge made to me. Whatever they desired they wrote down, I signed it. For my upkeep, they promised 12 Rupees a month. They also wrote down a special ‘Gurmata’ (Guru’s pledge): “Whatever Giani Ji writes, we will publish it”. These pledges they made, they kept none. Great injustice, great atrocity they did to me. Nor did they give back my scripts, nor themselves published them. 17 years has passed since I wrote and gave them. They kept them and kept putting me off. May the Guru himself, bless such Sikhs with right thinking. May they not do to others, as they have deceived me. The hard work of this old man done in 30 years. These unappreciative, unthankful have kept wasting. The service, which I had done for the Panth forsake of its good, [they have ruined] as hail destroys a ripened crop field. The benefit that the Khalsa would have had from my works, the society did not let it be - the Panth remained without benefit. From my ocean-like (immense) work, the society published tracts. Money and fame they gained [from the works] these [so-called Tat Khalsa] leaders of the Panth.’

‘Ripudaman Prakash’, edited by Giani Kirpal Singh, Pa. 9-10
Giani Gian Singh further summed up Bhai Vir Singh and his associates of the Tat Khalsa Singh Sabhias thus:

‘Their name is ‘Singh’ but they are thieves at heart. They deceive, feigning sweet intentions. Taking up the banner of Panth’s service. They steal from your pockets. They exclaim aloud of doing ‘Panthik Seva’. This way, deceiving the people they eat. Then, I explained to my mind - Oh mind you have been greatly deceived by them...Then I became greatly disheartened, I stopped singing glory of the Panth. I indulged myself in but ‘Sas Abhias’ (meditation on God). My mind I fixed on God.’

Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha

Another famous Tat Khalsa Singh Sabhia Sikh, Bhai Kahn Singh, also tried to defame the great Sanatan Sikh scholar Giani Gian Singh Nirmala. He claimed in his ‘Mahan Kosh’ that Giani Ji had stolen the works of another Nirmala, Nihal Singh of Lahore, and had put his name to it.

Kahn Singh Nabha, like Vir Singh, is considered today as being a man of great character and wisdom by modern Sikhs. He has been hailed as a savior of the Sikh cause, fighting the insurmountable attacks by the Hindu masses that attempted to drown Sikhism in the early 20th Century. The sad fact is that had as much integrity as Bhai Vir Singh and other Tat Khalsa Singh Sabhia Sikhs.

In 1899, Kahn Singh published ‘Gurmat Sudhakar’, an anthology of Sikh historical and scriptural texts that became the first Tat Khalsa Singh Sabhia authorized‘Rehit Nama’ (code of conduct). Hew Mcleod, a prominent western scholar of Sikhism speaking of Bhai Kahn’s publication writes:

‘In 1901 Kahn Singh Nabha moved a step closer to an authorised rahit-nama when he published Gurmat Sudhakar, a compendium of works relating to the person and period of Guru Gobind Singh. This included a selection from the existing rahitnamas, and in editing the materials available to him Kahn Singh implicitly expressed a particular interpretation of them. Although his selections were presented as abridged versions of extant rahits-namas, they are more accurately described as expurgated versions. In other words, Kahn Singh had cut items that he believed ought not be there. What this implied was that the pure Rahit enunciated by the tenth Guru had subsequently been corrupted by ignorant or malicious transmitters of the tradition. By eliminating all that conflicted with reason and sound tradition (as understood by such men as Kahn Singh) one might hope to restore the pristine Rahit, the uncorrupted original Rahit as the Guru had delivered it.’

‘Sikhism’, by Hew Mcleod, 1997, P.122
‘Ripudaman Prakash’, edited by Giani Kirpal Singh, Pa.6-13

In 25th February 2001, Nihang Niddar Singh spoke to the elderly Giani Baba Daya Singh of Samparda Bhindra. According to Baba Daya Singh, Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha was the person originally approached by the British agents, to flare up the issue regarding the authenticity of the ‘Raagmala’. The ‘Raagmala’ is the final page of Adi Guru Durbar, believed by some such as the British Raj-influenced Akhand Kirtani Jatha (A.K.J.) as being the work of individual(s) other than the Sikh Gurus. Even today, the legacy of the British Raj remains within mainstream Tat Khalsa-nurtured Sikhism, as the Raagmala’s authenticity is still under debate and has not been resolved by the S.G.P.C.

Bhai Kahn Singh in turn instigated Teja Singh Bhasauria (also known as ‘Babu Teja Singh’), one of the leaders of the fanatical Panch Khalsa Diwan, to fuel the ‘Raagmala’ issue further. In 1909, Babu Teja Singh, like his close friend Kahn Singh, produced an expunged version of Khalsa codes, ‘Khalsa Rehit Prakash’.

Giani Gurdev Singh, a veteran of Samparda Bhindra now residing in England, spoke of the ignominious death of Bhai Kahn Singh over the ‘Raagmala’ issue. Giani Ji contends that the King of Patiala had discovered Bhai Kahn Singh’s role in promoting the ‘Raagmala’ controversy, and summoned him to his court. Giani Ji continues:

‘He too became misled with regards to ‘Raagmala’. He [Kahn Singh] found out that the King had summoned him. [The King] summoned him, and he realized“I will be dishonored”. Then they say, at night he took an overdose of opium and committed suicide out of fear.’
Giani Gurdev Singh, transcript of interview on October 2001
Giani Ji’s account is contrary to what has been written in ‘Mahan Kosh’ which states that Bhai Kahn Singh passed away peacefully on 23rd November 1938. During the interview, the grandson of Sant Giani Baba Gurbachan Singh Khalsa ‘Bhindrawaley’, Giani Avtar Singh was also present and confirmed Giani Gurdev Singh’s story. They both contend that Kahn Singh’s suicide was common knowledge amongst the ‘Parcharaks’ (missionaries) and ‘Granthis’ (preachers and scholars) of Sikhism in Punjab at that time.

However, one questions whether the suicide was only down to the ‘Raagmala’ issue. Kahn Singh Nabha no doubt had bigger skeletons in his cupboard. Prior to his death, Kahn Singh at one time had been responsible for also promoting the practice of the belief in ‘Dehdhari Gurus’ (individuals worshiped as Gurus, most often in place of Adi Guru Durbar, see Articles section for more information)

In May 1916, Kahn Singh wrote an article named ‘Ithihas Deh Unlikhey Patreh’ (The Unwritten History) which was published in the Punjabi monthly magazine, ‘Punjabi Bahen’. In it, he claimed that Akali Nihang Guru Gobind Singh did not die at Nanded in Maharashtra. Instead, as the Namdhari sect believed, the Guru had come to Nabha, and lived there under the alias ‘Ajaypal Singh’.

Kahn Singh vouched this story by stating that he had heard it from his father, ‘Mahant’ (caretaker) Narain Singh, who, in turn had heard it from his grandfather, Baba Saroop Singh. Baba Saroop Singh was once the Mahant of Baba Ajaypal Singh’s ‘Samaad’ (shrine/tomb) and had personally attended to Baba Ajaypal Singh. In a booklet written by Narain Singh in which Saroop Singh narrated his story, he stated he had seen the scars of wounds inflicted by daggers on the back of ‘Ajaypal Singh’. These dagger wounds were supposed to be the result of the attack by the Pathan brothers on Akali Nihang Guru Gobind Singh in Nanded. This, according to Svaroop Singh, confirmed that ‘Ajaypal Singh’, and Akali Nihang Guru Gobind Singh was indeed the same individual.

The editor of ‘Punjabi Bahen’ was Master Bir Singh, and was, according to the Tat Khalsa Singh Sabhias, an adept and accomplished scholar in his own right. He regarded Kahn Singh as the elite amongst Sikh historians. This time, Teja Singh Bhasauria, a one time friend and now enemy of Kahn Singh Nabha, took exception to the stance of Kahn Singh. He eventually made Kahn Singh retract the article, and formally apologize for writing it.

At the time, the Tat Khalsa Singh Sabhias, with the help of the British Raj, were ensuring that all Sikhs would see only Adi Guru Durbar as Guru. This conflicted with Sanatan Sikhs, who had a much wider definition for the term ‘Guru’

Conclusion

The Tat Khalsa Singh Sabias scholars such as Bhai Vir Singh, Kahn Singh Nabha, etc., like their masters before them, the imperialist British Raj, believed in all sincerity that is was righteous to be economical with the truth when required, manipulate it, or dismiss it entirely.

Another classical example of such contortions of historical truths is exemplified by Bhai Randhir Singh, the protégé of Teja Singh Bhasauria, who founded the ‘Bhai Randhir Singh da Jatha’ (later known as the Akhand Kirtani Jatha, A.K.J.). Bhai Randhir Singh’s views with regards to ‘Chatka’, and many other issues were based on the premonition that their interpretation is the truest above all others. The promotion of such fraud and deception is a trademark of Tat Khalsa Singh Sabhia-authorised scholars and historians.

A more recent series of events involves the Sikh historical text ‘Gurblias Patshahi Shemi’. The latest version of this text, is the 1998 reprint edited by the present S.G.P.C.-elected Jathedar of the Akal Takht, Giani Joginder Singh Vedanti. A Canadian-based Sikh named Gurbakhsh Singh Kala Afghana published a series of 10 books named ‘Bipran Ki Reet Sach Da Marg’ in which he accused Vedanti of tampering with the historical work. He also made may other blasphamous statements which lead Kala Afghana being declared a ‘Tankhaiya’ (apostate) by the S.G.P.C. Interestingly, this text was immediately declared as being ‘banned’ by Vedanti and was withdrawn from all bookshelves in Punjab. According to news reports, Kala Afghana wrote a letter to Vedanti calling him a ‘liar’ and a ‘maha pappi’ (great sinner), which lead Vedanti to state that this act was unpardonable.

Even today, as Giani Kirpal Singh found out, there are many Sikhs who prescribe to the thinking of expunging and rewriting ancient Sikh texts. Some even believe in writing their own version of events from scratch. One such Sikh, is the A.K.J.-approved author, J.P. Sangat Singh who writes:

‘There is no doubt in this, that we at present have no ancient history, but, due to the foresight of Siri Guru Arjan Dev Patshah, we do have the pure scripture (Siri Guru Granth Sahib) available in original form, under the guidance of who’s light, if we today tried, we can write our ancient history.’
‘Sikh Dharm Teh Mas Sharab’, by J.P. Sangat Singh, 1977, P190

What these Tat Khalsa Singh Sabhia-nurtured institutions such as the S.G.P.C., A.K.J., etc. do not appreciate is that history refers to events that have occurred in the past, be they good, bad, or unacceptable. History is not what one wanted, or wished to have happened. Thus, the Tat Khalsa Singh Sabhias, and the S.G.P.C. after them, by forsaking the truth have re-written, and re-orientated Sikh history to suit their perception of Sikhism itself. This process is still continuing to this very day within Sikhism as shown in the example of Vedanti and 'Gurblias Patshahi Shemi'.

The vast majority of modern-day Sikh scholars, having imbibed the norms of the Tat Khalsa Singh Sabhias from early childhood and without being conscious of where and under which circumstances these norms originated, have carried on the Tat Khalsa Singh Sabhia programs. This has resulted in most Sikhs having a distorted picture of Sikh history and Sikhism.

Learned Akali Nihangs accept that, in certain cases, some of these texts were corrupted by hostile elements. One case involves the Janam Sakhis being tampered with by the Sikh schismatic sect know as the ‘Handalieh’ in order to substantiate their founder, ‘Handal’. This was vouched by Ratan Singh Bhangu in ‘Pracheen Panth Prakash’.

If we cross-reference the following:
a) the ancient Sikh historical texts
b) non-Sikh (Persian, English, Maratha etc.) sources regarding Sikhism
c) Sikh oral traditions contained within the traditional Sikh schools of Udasis, Nirmalas, Seva Panthi and Akali Nihangs etc.

We can get a good picture of Sanatan Sikhism, a traditional Sikhism which Nihang Niddar Singh and the Sanatan Sikhs are endeavoring to revive in, all its glory.

Before the detractors of Sanatan Sikhism accuse anyone of inventing Sanatan Sikhism and its rich traditions, they should take into account the overwhelming evidence presented. For the sake of their own personal development, they should further investigate the fact that they themselves are victims of Tat Khalsa Singh Sabhia ideological fraud
.

In short history is always evolutionary and current narrative is that of Tat Khalsa Singh Sabhia. In future, if power equation changes, and Sanatan Sikhi gets support their narrative will be dominant.

Or

"Goel’s general position is that modern Sikh self-historiography is full of concoction, starting with insertions and changes in 19th-century editions of older texts, all of it in unsubtle appropriation of the latest ideological fashions. He argues that Sikh history was magnified both by Anglo-secularist authors (Sikhism as a “proto-secular” religion of “Hindu-Muslim synthesis” free of “Brahminical superstition”) and by Hindu nationalists (Sikhism as the “sword-arm of Hinduism”) simply because the Sikhs were a privileged and prosperous community. As often, the present power equation determines the relative importance of individuals and groups in the history books"

http://voiceofdharma.org/books/wiah/ch8.htm
Last edited by Sushupti on 25 Jan 2012 21:36, edited 1 time in total.
SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5777
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by SBajwa »

So, the Sikh Gurus and Maharaja Ranjit Singh never considered themselves to be different from Hindus. Separate Sikh identity is a latter day creation.
1. Sikhism is a reform movement and a specific reform is to stop some old practices.
2. Thus it becomes essential to distinguish from the parent culture otherwise reform goes bad.

So!! thus emphasis on a separation.

Saying that! modern day Sikhs are actually just like the current hindus (polarised along the caste lines).

Modern day Sikhs are just like the current day hindus replacing the idols with a book (whom they don't understand) and listen to the fake "Babas" rather than reading/understanding the SGGS.

Guru Gobind Singh told the congregation on the Visakhi day of 1699 that "Devi or Shiva won't come down to protect you from tyrants you have to militarize yourself and fight" This message still stands in 2012. Guru Gobind Singh created the Khalsa so that people can become fit with strong character and fight for their dharmic beliefs.
In modern context you donot have to become a Khalsa or a Sikh just be physically fit and help protect
the Dharmic beliefs for the next generation.
Sushupti
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5198
Joined: 22 Dec 2010 21:24

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by Sushupti »

Carl wrote: Do you accept or not that the slanted reference you posted about Guru Gobind Singh ji is mischievous, misleading and false?
No, i don't accept. I am not quoting out of context, read the whole letter and I agree (after reading ) with Elst's assessment of " In spite of its title and its sometimes defiant wording, this “victory letter” (Zafar Nâma) to Aurangzeb is fundamentally submissive".
SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5777
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by SBajwa »

The only question I have to Mr. Sushupati is why don't Nirmalai "Saints" become or try to become a Khalsa?

BTW. Nirmalai Sikhs are those people who were sent by Guru Gobind Singh himself to Haridwar and Benaras to learn Vedas.
SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5777
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by SBajwa »

In spite of its title and its sometimes defiant wording, this “victory letter” (Zafar Nâma) to Aurangzeb is fundamentally submissive".
You are again missing the point!! Sri Guru Gobind Singh (after massacre of many of his devotees) was converting people for mass uprising against tyranny and thus he was traveled all over Punjab, Rajasthan, Gujarat and Maharashtra. So if you have no army and you are raising one!! would you shoot off a letter to your enemy asking him to come fight? (especially when you just survived)

Elst is idiot as he does not understand the basics of Indian Dharma and probably is as good Authority on Sikhism as I am on Bible.
surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1464
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by surinder »

Sushupati, the you are posting long articles, web citations and expect us to argue against them. I for one will not take that bait. If you have a point, make it yourself, do not throw references, links and ask us to battle them.
Yayavar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4832
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 10:55

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by Yayavar »

Gobind Singh continued to be defiant till the end and did continue his message. I am always impressed, and re-impressed, by his leadership - the idea of Panj Pyaare and inspiring the people is phenomenal. At the same time I find it odd that the hill Rajas are being condemned - what was their point of view? Was it that they feared he was taking away their land? Why would they appreciate someone who 'broke their idols'?

Coming to present times, the reason I asked about the 'issues' with the earlier article is because it seemed a good summary of recent times - the politics of religion in Punjab. After all Akali Dal is a religious party. Do you expect a non-Khalsa and un-connected to SGPC becoming the CM of Punjab? That does seem to be the fallout of the 'tat khalsa' movement that the article linked by Sushupti and the earlier article have described.

Independent of that I like this:
SBajwa wrote: Guru Gobind Singh told the congregation on the Visakhi day of 1699 that "Devi or Shiva won't come down to protect you from tyrants you have to militarize yourself and fight" This message still stands in 2012. Guru Gobind Singh created the Khalsa so that people can become fit with strong character and fight for their dharmic beliefs.
In modern context you donot have to become a Khalsa or a Sikh just be physically fit and help protect
the Dharmic beliefs for the next generation.
paramu
BRFite
Posts: 669
Joined: 20 May 2008 11:38

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by paramu »

SBajwa wrote:
So, the Sikh Gurus and Maharaja Ranjit Singh never considered themselves to be different from Hindus. Separate Sikh identity is a latter day creation.
1. Sikhism is a reform movement and a specific reform is to stop some old practices.
2. Thus it becomes essential to distinguish from the parent culture otherwise reform goes bad.

So!! thus emphasis on a separation.

Saying that! modern day Sikhs are actually just like the current hindus (polarised along the caste lines).
Based on your analysis, would you say that Sikhism is also falling into the same trap Hinduism had few centuries ago, and something new has to evolve? Khalistanis, terrorism, popularity of daru/nasha in Punjab etc. are indication of that.
Airavat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2326
Joined: 29 Jul 2003 11:31
Location: dishum-bishum
Contact:

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by Airavat »

The Khalistani distortion of SIkh history has tended to make it anti-Hindu. Like their depiction of hill-rajas as some sort of club that jointly attacked the guru :lol: . But that was never the case. These states were independent of Mughal control and waged war on each other....their population base and wealth were too insignificant to have an impact on the plains. Their main achievement in Indian History was keeping the Himalayan belt Hindu dominated throughout the medieval era:
The last, and in many respects the most interesting group of Rajput tribes that I have to discuss, are those of the Kangra and Simla Hills and the sub-montane tract at their foot between the Beas and the Jamuna. Not only are the Hill Rajputs probably those among all the peoples of the Panjab who have occupied from the most remote date their present abodes, but they have also retained their independence longest.

Often invaded, often defeated, the Rajas of Kangra Hills never really became subjects of the Musalman; and it was reserved to Ranjit Singh to annex to his dominions the most ancient principalities in Northern India. Thus the Kangra Hills are that portion of the Panjab which is most wholly Hindu, not merely by the proportion which the number of real or nominal Hindus bears to the total population, but still more because there has never been any Musalman domination, which should either loosen the bonds of caste by introducing among the converted people the absolute freedom of Islam in its purity, or tighten them by throwing the still Hindu population, deprived of their Rajput rulers, more wholly into the hands of their priests. It is here then that we may expect to find caste existing most nearly in the same state as that in which the first Musalman invaders found it when they entered the Panjab, It is certainly here that the Brahman and Kshatriya occupy positions most nearly resembling those assigned them by Manu.

Panjab castes
SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5777
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by SBajwa »

by Paramu
SBajwa wrote:
Quote:
So, the Sikh Gurus and Maharaja Ranjit Singh never considered themselves to be different from Hindus. Separate Sikh identity is a latter day creation.



1. Sikhism is a reform movement and a specific reform is to stop some old practices.
2. Thus it becomes essential to distinguish from the parent culture otherwise reform goes bad.

So!! thus emphasis on a separation.

Saying that! modern day Sikhs are actually just like the current hindus (polarised along the caste lines).

Based on your analysis, would you say that Sikhism is also falling into the same trap Hinduism had few centuries ago, and something new has to evolve? Khalistanis, terrorism, popularity of daru/nasha in Punjab etc. are indication of that.
Sikhi is garbage but Hindus will and have become garbage time and again from last 10000 years. even today temple of Tendulkar (idiocacy of the worst kind) is the reason that india never became a world power (despite being the oldest civilization in world).

You will rather think of Ramchandara as a Christian/Islamic/Judaiaic god who descended from heaven and protected you!! but never comprehend the greatness of Ramachandra when he goes to fight Ravana of Sri Lanka becase he is GOD for you!! Ramchandara and Krishnana wanted you (average Indian) to be like them!!! who can do their Karma and protect their Dharma!! CAN YOU DO IT? is what my Guru says!!!


Indan ethics only want you to stop fighting and do your Karma for your dharma!! how many of you can do it is the bottom line!!!
Airavat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2326
Joined: 29 Jul 2003 11:31
Location: dishum-bishum
Contact:

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by Airavat »

Another interesting book for understanding the history of the hill states:

Image
Inhabitants of ‘Duggar’, or ‘Dogra land’ are a handsome race who hail from the Jammu region and the hill tracts of erstwhile Punjab Hill states with names like Jamwal, Mankotia, Jasrotia, Sambial, Katoch, Guleria, Dadwal and Pathania, among others.

Historically, the Dogra soldier goes back to over 3000 years ago (as early as 1200 BC). The main invasion route for centuries was across the Hindukush mountains through the Khyber Pass to reach Delhi via Punjab. The hilly region on the eastern and north-eastern flanks of this route inhabited by the Dogras disallowed penetration for centuries due to their steadfastness and tenacity.

The Gallant Dogras: Lt Gen(Retd) Shankar Prasad
SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5777
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by SBajwa »

Dogra's of Jammu were not fighting sri Guru Gobind Singh!!! and in any case they have been a failure to protect the knowledge of the land in their own land (Kashmir and Jammu whom Sikhs protected) . Dogras were paying tribute to Mughals/Afghans and Persians and whoever was therr mai baap!!! before taking the refuge of Ranjit Singh and taking over his kingdom by deceit.

Dogras of Jammu are responsible for conversion of Kashmiri hindus to islam.
Saying this!!! I would reiterate Jujhar statement to not fight among ourselves!!
Yayavar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4832
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 10:55

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by Yayavar »

SBajwa: give it a rest. It is the same people. You cannot call some people names and then ask that there should be 'no fight among ourselves'.
surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1464
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by surinder »

Sushupti wrote:I agree (after reading ) with Elst's assessment of " In spite of its title and its sometimes defiant wording, this “victory letter” (Zafar Nâma) to Aurangzeb is fundamentally submissive".
How can you be defiant and also submissive at the same time? Can you or your Elst make up his mind?

If you find the following submissive, I would like to see who in your world view is not:
If anyone trusts (you, Aurangzeb) on your oath on Koran, that person is
bound to be doomed in the end.

...

Stop shedding the blood of people without any reason. Remember,
the heavenly sword will also fall upon you for your blood

...

What happened that you have killed four children (my sons), the
coiled snake (in the form of my Khalsa) still remains.

...

Aurangzeb! Stop torturing the weak and the timid with your
military might. Do not oppress these hapless people on (false)
oaths

...

When all other methods fail, it is proper to hold the sword in hand.

...

I have no faith at all in such a person for whom the oath of the Quran has no significance.
Even if you swear a hundred times in the name of the Quran, I shall not trust you any more.
If you have even a little of faith in God, come in the battlefield fully armed
...

I am not sure if your post is sincere or is merely a ploy to get others riled up, or are you venting due to anger or prejudice. I cannot make up my mind, I could, I could give a more cogent answer.
surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1464
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by surinder »

Airavat wrote:The Khalistani distortion of SIkh history has tended to make it anti-Hindu. Like their depiction of hill-rajas as some sort of club that jointly attacked the guru :lol: . But that was never the case. These states were independent of Mughal control and waged war on each other....their population base and wealth were too insignificant to have an impact on the plains. Their main achievement in Indian History was keeping the Himalayan belt Hindu dominated throughout the medieval era:
They were vassal states that pledged loyalty to the Mughals to have an appearance of governance. This was achieved by giving daughters in marriage, joining their army, and turning the other way when the Hindus were forcibly converted. All because they could continue to call themselves Rajas, Maharajas, without any sovereigenty. The last one who defied the Turaks was Maharana Partap, and with him the last remaining of the true Rajputs died.

But hey, why stop that from peddling false history.
svenkat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4727
Joined: 19 May 2009 17:23

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by svenkat »

This is just blue on blue.Getting nastier.Calling names.

Bahu Raajanya Kritaha.Its Baahu bala that determines Rajanya.But to continue as Rajanya one needs dharma.The Rajput,Khatri,Jat Sikh are all kshatriyas by the above criteria.

Surinderji,
Your accusation is unfair.Once someone(anyone) acquires power,he seeks to retain it.The Sikhs(or Brahmanas) too will be under scrutiny for the match between ideals and professions.At the dawn of history,Vishvamitras wantonity was checked by Vashishta.You must not forget there is a long history in Brahmavarta before Guru Nanak.There is no doubt whatsoever that Guru Nanak did something which mohyals and saraswats failed to do.But the Hindus who are accustomed to yugas will not accept any received thinking just as the Sikh panth has challenged orthodoxy.Bajwajis views seem to me to reflect reality better given that sikhism since khalsa influenced jutts the most and in turn they have influenced the panth most.

You should not underrate the role of british in creating identities/divisions.
Sushupti
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5198
Joined: 22 Dec 2010 21:24

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by Sushupti »

surinder wrote:
Sushupti wrote:I agree (after reading ) with Elst's assessment of " In spite of its title and its sometimes defiant wording, this “victory letter” (Zafar Nâma) to Aurangzeb is fundamentally submissive".
How can you be defiant and also submissive at the same time? Can you or your Elst make up his mind?
"In spite of its title and its sometimes defiant wording, this “victory letter” (Zafar Nâma) to Aurangzeb is fundamentally submissive."

See here if you need more to convince yourself:

ਤੂ ਗਰ ਜ਼ਬਰ ਆਜਜ਼ ਖ਼ਰਾਸ਼ੀ ਮਕੁਨ ॥ ਕਸਮ ਰਾ ਬ ਤੇਸ਼ਹ ਤਰਾਸ਼ੀ ਮਕੁਨ ॥੧੦੯॥
तू गर ज़बर आजज़ ख़राशी मकुन ॥ कसम रा ब तेशह तराशी मकुन ॥१०९॥
Do not oppose the lowly and helpless; do not break the oaths taken on the Quran.109.

http://www.sridasam.org/dasam?Action=Page&p=2272
Last edited by Sushupti on 25 Jan 2012 21:47, edited 1 time in total.
Abhi_G
BRFite
Posts: 715
Joined: 13 Aug 2008 21:42

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by Abhi_G »

I am sorry to say that Martial Race theory is creating a havoc here. It is the same sort of accusations and counter accusations that dominate arguments between various regions - who has been more valiant in the fight against invaders.
niran
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5535
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 16:01

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by niran »

Sushupti wrote:
"In spite of its title and its sometimes defiant wording, this “victory letter” (Zafar Nâma) to Aurangzeb is fundamentally submissive."
lets say, Raja Jagrit has just beaten and killed all of Raja Neendra relatives, Raja Neendra escaped
the same fate by a whisker, now Raja Neendra knows his crown jewels are in Raja Jagrit hands
raja Nendra need to protect his remaining subjects from torture and conversion, while raja nendra
needed time to rebuild, what would raja neendra do? shoots off a letter to raja Jagrit

Dear Raja Jagrit,
ye faking moron, ye sit all day #@$ on yer @#$# bums while i toil,
if yer is so smart come get me.
your's @#$# Raja Neendra.

or write something like what the Guruji wrote.
Yayavar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4832
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 10:55

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by Yayavar »

SBajwa wrote:"


Punjab regiment for Punjabis (hair cut sikhs and hindus)
Sikh regiment for Khalsa
Baloch regiment for Balochis
and so forth.
Maybe this is what the article meant by British interference through Army. In effect you are saying that the Sikh = Khalsa in the Army, but other Sikhs were not in Sikh regiment.
shyam
BRFite
Posts: 1453
Joined: 29 Jul 2003 11:31

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by shyam »

I would take the writings by Elst with a pinch of salt. He seem to have certain agenda.
Airavat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2326
Joined: 29 Jul 2003 11:31
Location: dishum-bishum
Contact:

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by Airavat »

The hill-state of Sirmur provided refuge to Guru Gobind Singh, and provided him the land now called Paonta Sahib as his residence. Sirmur's main enemy was the state of Garhwal (in Uttarakhand) and the Guru helped his host against this enemy. But only a generation earlier Sirmur was found assisting the Mughals in their attack on Garhwal! Two generation later you find Sirmur helping Garhwal against the Rohilla invaders........there are no permanent enemies or allies. And as the Imperial Gazetteer narrates, all such episodes are mere footnotes in the history of that state:
The early history of Sirmur is almost a blank. Tradition says that its ancient capital was Sirmur, now a mere hamlet surrounded by extensive ruins, in the Kiarda Dun, whose king was of Surajbansi or Solar race........Eventually in 1621 Karm Parkash founded Nahan, the modern capital. His successor, Mandhata, was called upon to aid Khalll-ullah, the general of the emperor Shah Jahan, in his invasion of Garhwal, and his successor, Sobhag Parkash, received a grant of Kotaha in reward for this service. Under Aurangzeb this Raja again joined in operations against Garhwal.

Raja Mit Parkash gave an asylum to the Sikh Guru, Gobind Singh, permitting him to fortify Paonta in the Kiarda Dun; and it was at Bhangani in the Dun that the Guru defeated the Rajas of Kahlur and Garhwal in 1688. But in 1750 Kirat Parkash, after defeating the Raja of Garhwal, captured Naraingarh, Morni, Pinjaur, and other territories from the Sikhs, and concluded an alliance with Amar Singh, Raja of Patiala, whom he aided in suppressing his rebellious Wazir; and he also fought in alliance with the Raja of Kahlur when Ghulam Kadir Khan, Rohilla, invaded that State. He supported the Raja of Garhwal in his resistance to the Gurkha invasion, and, though deserted by his ally, was able to compel the Gurkhas to agree to the Ganges as the boundary of their dominions.

His son, Dharm Parkash, repulsed the encroachments of the chief of Nalagarh and an invasion by the Raja of Garhwal, only to fall fighting in single combat with Raja Sansar Chand of Kangra, who had invaded Kahlur, in 1793. He was succeeded by his brother, Karm Parkash, a weak ruler, whose misconduct caused a serious revolt. To suppress this he rashly invoked the aid of the Gurkhas, who promptly seized their opportunity and invaded Sirmur, expelled Ratn Parkash, whom the rebels had placed on the throne, and then refused to restore Kami Parkash. Fortunately his queen, a princess of Goler and a lady of courage and resource, took matters into her own hands and invoked British aid. Her appeal coincided with the declaration of war against Nepal, and a force was sent to expel the Gurkhas from Sirmur. On the conclusion of the Gurkha War the British Government placed Fateh Parkash, the minor son of Karm Parkash, on the throne, annexing all the territories east of the Jumna with Kotaha and the Kiarda Dun.
Atri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4152
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 21:07

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by Atri »

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 18#p944618
Atri wrote:1. There is no term for "religion" in Indian world-view. One can say there was no religion before Islam came.

2. We have dharma-shastras (law-books dealing with societal, judicial, administrative matters etc) , Artha-shaastras (dealing with power, economics, politics, warfare etc), Kaamshastras (dealing with creative faculties of mind - finearts and performing arts), Moksha-shaastras (philosophical schools dealing with nirvana/moksha).

There were many schools of thought, ideologies, philosophies which were constantly arguing and debating with each other. Every ideology (religion in modern terms) was called as "mat" by our seers.

Buddhism was called Bauddha-mat (बौद्धमत) - Opinion of Buddhaa
Jainism was called Jaaina-mat -(जैनमत) - Opinion of Jinendra
Vaishnavism was Vaishnava-mat - (वैष्णवमत)- Opinion of vaishnavas
Shaivism was called Shaiva-mat - (शैवमत) - Opinion of Shaivas

so on and so forth for all the ideological schools.

Even Sikhism follows this nomenclature.
Sikh school of thought is called Guru-mat -(गुरुमत) - Opinion of Guru
Stop considering Sikh, Hindu as religion please... This is the gangotri of all problems. These are "Moksha-Maargas"... The right word is path or panth..

IN opinion of Sikh gurus, if Idol worship is prohibited, so be it. All other dharmiks have right to criticize this "opinion".. And vice-versa, of course..

This is Dharma. If a letter by a historical person, who also happened to be Adhyatmik Guru refers to being a proud Moorti-Bhanjak, so be it.. He was also a politician. A man has many dimensions. There are legends where shivaji too was getting instructions from Bhavani maata. true or false, its individual's perception. But the long term effect of shivaji's work lead to salvage and restoration of Dharma. same is case with Guru Govind Singh ji..

In dharma, dharma-shastra, artha-shastra, kaam-shastra and moksha-shastra are merely opinions.

A person can be Manusmriti vaadi in dharma, chanakya-vaadi in artha, vatsayan-vadi in kaama and Gurumat-vaadi in moksha..

OTOH, another one, can be a yagnavalkya vaadi in dharma, vidura-vaadi in artha, osho-vaadi in kaama and chaarvaaka-vaadi in moksha..

Any relation of any dharmik with respect to non-dharmik power or person can never be on the moksha-level because islamic operating system does not segregate these 4. Dharmik system does. The interaction of guru, shivaji, ramdas swami, etc with mlechhas is on Dharmaarthik level (socio-politico-economic) not on Moksha and kaama level (personal and spiritual).. The dharmaarthik decisions are taken with reference to the time and place we are in. Moksha related discussions and opinions are usually timeless.

I personally criticize guru mat on various counts. But I also criticize Advaita and charvaka and jaina. They criticize saankhya-yoga too. But on dharmaarthik level, I always criticize islam (as a system) and support any dharmik system poised against it. The upholder of dharma may belong to any moksha-marga (including a muslim like APJ). There is no Kaama in Islam except appropriating women and there definitely no Moksha in Islam. Its purely and solely a dharmaarthik system like communism.

Shubham astu.
SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5777
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by SBajwa »

Atri!! excellent post!
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by Sanku »

Sadhu Atri-ji. Sadhu
Sushupti
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5198
Joined: 22 Dec 2010 21:24

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by Sushupti »

Atri wrote:http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 18#p944618
Atri wrote:1. There is no term for "religion" in Indian world-view. One can say there was no religion before Islam came.

2. We have dharma-shastras (law-books dealing with societal, judicial, administrative matters etc) , Artha-shaastras (dealing with power, economics, politics, warfare etc), Kaamshastras (dealing with creative faculties of mind - finearts and performing arts), Moksha-shaastras (philosophical schools dealing with nirvana/moksha).

There were many schools of thought, ideologies, philosophies which were constantly arguing and debating with each other. Every ideology (religion in modern terms) was called as "mat" by our seers.

Buddhism was called Bauddha-mat (बौद्धमत) - Opinion of Buddhaa
Jainism was called Jaaina-mat -(जैनमत) - Opinion of Jinendra
Vaishnavism was Vaishnava-mat - (वैष्णवमत)- Opinion of vaishnavas
Shaivism was called Shaiva-mat - (शैवमत) - Opinion of Shaivas

so on and so forth for all the ideological schools.

Even Sikhism follows this nomenclature.
Sikh school of thought is called Guru-mat -(गुरुमत) - Opinion of Guru
Stop considering Sikh, Hindu as religion please... This is the gangotri of all problems. These are "Moksha-Maargas"... The right word is path or panth..

IN opinion of Sikh gurus, if Idol worship is prohibited, so be it. All other dharmiks have right to criticize this "opinion".. And vice-versa, of course..

This is Dharma. If a letter by a historical person, who also happened to be Adhyatmik Guru refers to being a proud Moorti-Bhanjak, so be it.. He was also a politician. A man has many dimensions. There are legends where shivaji too was getting instructions from Bhavani maata. true or false, its individual's perception. But the long term effect of shivaji's work lead to salvage and restoration of Dharma. same is case with Guru Govind Singh ji..

In dharma, dharma-shastra, artha-shastra, kaam-shastra and moksha-shastra are merely opinions.

A person can be Manusmriti vaadi in dharma, chanakya-vaadi in artha, vatsayan-vadi in kaama and Gurumat-vaadi in moksha..

OTOH, another one, can be a yagnavalkya vaadi in dharma, vidura-vaadi in artha, osho-vaadi in kaama and chaarvaaka-vaadi in moksha..

Any relation of any dharmik with respect to non-dharmik power or person can never be on the moksha-level because islamic operating system does not segregate these 4. Dharmik system does. The interaction of guru, shivaji, ramdas swami, etc with mlechhas is on Dharmaarthik level (socio-politico-economic) not on Moksha and kaama level (personal and spiritual).. The dharmaarthik decisions are taken with reference to the time and place we are in. Moksha related discussions and opinions are usually timeless.

I personally criticize guru mat on various counts. But I also criticize Advaita and charvaka and jaina. They criticize saankhya-yoga too. But on dharmaarthik level, I always criticize islam (as a system) and support any dharmik system poised against it. The upholder of dharma may belong to any moksha-marga (including a muslim like APJ). There is no Kaama in Islam except appropriating women and there definitely no Moksha in Islam. Its purely and solely a dharmaarthik system like communism.

Shubham astu.
Atri Ji, i have no problem with one Dharmic panth criticizing other. This has been an age old tradition of ours. Who can be more fierce opponent of "Murti Puja" than Arya Samaj but i have no problem with their criticism. I have no problem with any genuine, sincere criticism of Hinduism from any one (even Abrahamics). Read the posts carefully , there is mention of "Hindu like" practices, as if these things are inherent and fundamental to Hinduism. In that context i asked a question and then as usual many posts based on prejudices and assumptions about me.

Any body who has cared to study the work of Tulsi, Sur, Mira, Nanak, Raidas, Tukaram, Namdev, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu etc will know that there exist an integral unity among them. In word's of Goel "Guru Nanak was by no means greater than other Sants like Garibdas (to whose panth Goel’s own family belonged) and I agree with that. All these Bhakti Saints were more less equivalent from the "Sadhaka" perspective. My probelm is with this ‘Malesh Sikhi’ (Sikhism of the filthy foreigner) or Tat Khalsa Singh Sabhia Sikhism which reminds me of exclusivism of Abrahamic cults who claim as if Guru Nanak found something which nobody had it before and hence he is unique and superior to all and others are lowly,inferior and invalid.
Last edited by Sushupti on 25 Jan 2012 21:44, edited 3 times in total.
SwamyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16265
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 09:22

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by SwamyG »

As a general rule, when a system preaches monotheism and exclusivity; hated towards other paths is not far behind. It is one thing to believe a particular path is supreme and argue passionately and document how other paths are less, but it is altogether another thing to consider other subjects with dwesham and grna. Any system that exhibits such thinking pattern - be of domestic or foreign origin, tends to introduce friction in the society. Is that friction good or bad? Can that friction be used to reform other systems? The answers lie on a case to case basis.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by Sanku »

SwamyG wrote:As a general rule, when a system preaches monotheism and exclusivity; hated towards other paths is not far behind. .
Except that Sikhism does neither.
Locked