Leaderboard

'Why are there so many moderate Sikhs against Khalistan'? Firstly there is no point talking about 'moderate' Sikhs or 'extremist' Sikhs or 'fundamentalist' Sikhs. The whole 'moderate - fundamentalist' dichotomy is a misleading attempt to use pejorative language to push the debate in one direction or the other. Some describe Khalistanis as fundamentalists or extremists in order to create a false equivalence between the movement and Islamic extremism*. Others (including many in this discussion) describe non-Khalistanis as 'moderate Sikhs' in order to cast aspersions against their religious discipline or orthodoxy. One can be an extremist about any issue, from politics to religion and even to 'frivolous' things like football or music. An extremist Socialist is a person who takes Socialism to the extreme. An extremist Muslim takes Islam to the extreme. An 'extremist' metal fan appreciates heavy metal in an extreme way. In the same sense, an extremist Sikh is a Sikh who is extreme about Sikhi. Now, what is or is not considered to be 'extreme' largely depends upon context and upon the opinion of the beholder. I'd consider a Christian who thought it was mandatory to pray five times a day and fast for a month each year to be pretty extreme, but that's perfectly normal for a Muslim. In the UK there is an NHS and a full ban on guns, but in the US someone who advocated either of those things might easily be called an extremist. An extremist Sikh, in my opinion, is someone who is in favour of unusual and radical stances like beating 'blasphemers' or imposing Sikh religious norms (not drinking alcohol, keeping kesh etc) upon unwilling people. And in the same sense, what is or is not 'moderate' is also highly subjective. The fact remains though that being a Sikh and being a Khalistani are two different things. It's possible to be someone who practices the Sikh religion in an extreme manner who does not support Khalistan at all, whilst there are non-Sikhs do do advocate Khalistan. This was brought up earlier in the thread with the post pointing out that many fervent Khalistanis are in fact clean-shaven 'mona' Sikhs rather than religious fundamentalists (as is frequently asserted by critics of Khalistan). This fact also has the implication (a very unwelcome implication to some) that just as it is possible to be either a moderate Sikh or an extremist Sikh, there are also moderate and extremist Khalistanis, ie those who hold extreme stances on Khalistan (for example that Haryana etc should be included, that it should be run as a theocracy directly by the Sikh religious institutions or that non-Hindus should be expelled) and those who hold more moderate views and are more amenable to compromise. This contradicts the Indian 'patriotic' narrative that being a Khalistani makes one an extremist by definition. And it also contradicts the usual Khalistani narrative as well, since it implies that Khalistan is not some unstoppably popular, monolithic, unified movement. So, why are some Sikhs against Khalistan? Well, the first place to look is at this 'moderate - extremist' dichotomy that I've just examined. This little trick which conflates Khalistan with religious fanaticism has been so utterly successful that not only Indians but vast percentages of the western public have readily fallen for it. Nobody wants to challenge it. Obviously it is very useful for the Indian establishment, clearly they have no interest in breaking down the most important factor they have in their favour. But, rather paradoxically, it also helps self-confessed 'Khalistanis' as well: what better way to get people onto your side and shore up your core support than to imply that if you are a good Sikh you should support Khalistan, and that if you do not support it you are a cowardly irreligious 'moderate' hypocrite? This factor turns the little misleading sentence 'moderate Sikhs oppose Khalistan, only extremists support it' into a powerful self-fulfilling prophecy. Those who don't want to be seen as extremists or extremist sympathisers are driven away from Khalistan. Those who don't want to see themselves as 'weak' moderates who are 'adulterating their Sikhi' in some way are driven towards Khalistan, which in turn makes the movement appear more and more like something for fanatical fundamentalists from the outside. It's this vicious circle of polarisation that has made the Khalistan movement a pariah at a time when Kurdish, Scottish and Catalan aspirations have made separatism trendy. Of course there are many other reasons not to support Khalistan. Some are emotional and personal, nobody in their right mind would support Khalistan if one of their friends or relatives had been killed in a Khalistani attack for instance. Others stem from patriotism and a desire not to harm 'Mother India'. There are many rational and logical arguments against Khalistan as well regarding economic security or the lack of a real plan of how to achieve it. All of these though are small fry compared to what I've described above, in fact many of them are just secondary factors that play into the overarching popular perception that Khalistan and Sikh fundamentalism are the same thing. How can this be fixed? It can't really. The very name 'Khalistan' implies a Sikh state, and the idea of a state devoted to representing the will of a specific religious community will always provoke subconscious fears of religious totalitarianism. Some people here seem to understand this fact and instead are latching on to more secular 'Punjabiyat' nationalism, but the decades of vicious polarisation ever since 1947 have made sure that any Punjabi nationalist movement will end up becoming Sikh-centric and seen as a front for a religious agenda. The idea of Punjab separating from India will only become tolerable to the Indian public and the wider world when 'Punjabi-ness' and 'Sikh-ness' are utterly and irrevocably separated. That means two things: either Sikhi stops existing in Punjab (which would clearly be an even less desirable outcome than the present situation) or Sikhi reforms itself and separates itself from the Punjabi identity (as was once the case). The only future of Sikhi lies in becoming a universal world religion with many followers from different backgrounds (including but not limited to Punjabis) and a strong social agenda beyond petty communalism. The Jews are often used as a positive example and in some ways they are, but in reality in order to survive Sikhi must become just as widespread and adaptable as Christianity and Buddhism rather than becoming an insular minority like the Jews. This does not mean abandoning our religious beliefs or traditions or throwing away the Panj Kakkars or anything, in fact the opposite: we must follow Sikhi as our Guru Sahibs actually instructed rather than adopting backward mindsets and waiting to go extinct. It's almost as if Sikhs have gone into retirement these days, we sit back reminiscing about our glorious history and all the good we've accomplished, mouring what might have been, whilst not actually trying to create any more history. As long as we can wear our turbans and follow our religion peacefully we can just sit and quietly wait for oblivion. People didn't follow the Guru Sahibs just because, they joined the Sikh movement because Guruji actually had interesting and relevant things to say. And Guruji still does today, but the trouble is we mostly aren't actually spreading the word because the active youth who should be going out and doing things are busy pontificating about the merits of a state which never existed. * radical Islam has also been subjected to a similar word-trick. Westerners came up with the misleading phrase 'Islamic fundamentalism' to describe any and all radical strains of Islamic thought, in an attempt to liken it to hardline interpretations of Christianity. This has had a similar polarising effect, with Islamic radicals able to catagorise their opponents as lax irreligious heretics who don't follow the 'fundamentals' of their faith, and non-Muslims able to dismiss legitimate grievances as the ravings of madmen. Just a bit of info about my position so that you can take bias into account: I'm a western Sikh who isn't of Punjabi origin. I am neither for nor against Khalistan. Self-determination is the right of every people whether or not it's in their best interests, and if Punjabis in Punjab want Khalistan then I support their legitimate desire wholeheartedly. If they don't then as a 'foreigner' in a distant country it isn't my right to dispute that. Khalistan itself is not personally very important to me. What is important is respect for the rule of law and the dignity of others.

Waheguru Breaking: Namdhari Leader Wants to Join Khalsa Panth(DSU News Bureau) 3 June 2015- Namdhari leader Thakur Dalip Singh and his followers arrived at Hassanpur, Punjab to visit Bapu Surat Singh Khalsa and to express his willingness to join Khalsa Panth. Bapu Ji was arrested by police and taken to the hospital for force feeding. Although, Thakur Dalip Singh couldn’t meet with Bapu Ji but he met with Sangarsh committee leaders and expressed unity for the cause. It is important to point out that not all Sikh groups under the Akal Takht have come in support of Bapu Surat Singh Khalsa nor have they visited him. Thakur Dalip Singh isn’t the head of the Namdhari community but an estimated 80% of Namdharis follow him. The important points towards unity were the following: 1) Namdhari Leader Thakur Dalip Singh has told his followers to use the word Guru while saying Guru Granth Sahib Ji as before his followers pronounced Aad Sri Granth Sahib. 2) They have agreed to use the Fateh greeting as before it wasn’t always used. 3) Majhbhi Sikhs have been given equal rights as before they ate langar separately and were treated unequally, but now those Majhbhi Sikhs that are Naamdhari will be treated equally according to Thakur Dalip Singh. 4) Thakur Dalip Singh has pledged to support Khalsa Raj and a separate Khalsa State. 5) Thakur Dalip Singh has organized a program in the past where Panthic groups were present. In that program, the theme was for unity of various Sikh groups for a common cause. Also, in that program the Dohara ‘Agia Bhaei Akal Ki’ was read and names of only the ten Sikh Gurus were said which has never happened before among the Naamdharis. Thakur Dalip Singh further pledged to join the Khalsa Panth and to follow it’s Rehats. The historic meeting for unity is being recognized as a turning point to achieve long avoided goals of the Panth. taken from: http://dailysikhupdates.com/breaking-namdhari-leader-wants-to-join-khalsa-panth/

I started this topic with Gursevak.com in mind, but thank you. I brought this to the sangat's attention because Bhagat Jaswant Singh ji can be next on Dhumma's list. These traitors of the Khalsa Panth need to be exposed on every act they do against the Khalsa Panth. We need to stand side by side with Darshan Singh and Bhagat Jaswant Singh ji. Both have done a great seva for the Panth and it is showing in the Panth.

The posts on this page have been really good. But, essentially, it all boils down to what I said in message 133, i.e the fact that the vast majority of 'khalistanis' in the UK are moneh Punjabis with a deep pride in being Punjabi. i.e Punjabis with enough general knowledge to know that never, in their entire history, were they part of India until India lied and tricked them into being so with that speech full of lies in 1946. Any human being, whether Sikh, Scot or Quebecan, with an ounce of self-respect and dignity, would never accept being a second rate being like that. So, the real question should be what kind of Sikhs are there out there that have so little self-respect that they enjoy being a gulaam of a foreign nation ? Thats the real question.

If this is true, its simply amazing great news for the Panth and we are the dust of his feet.

The English guy's body language was overtly aggressive as he was squaring up. It was the calm before the inevitable storm. Is that not obvious from the video? He was winding up to take a swing at the Singh (or bundle him to the floor and ground 'n' pound him MMA style as he tried to do in the video yet the Singh managed to keep his footing and sidestepped it). Had Singh walked away after administering a couple of punches I can guarantee the other kid would've been up with a second wind, and tried to settle matters whilst his blood was still up. The General Zod dialogues were probably a bit unnecessary though, lol. A bit too Hollywood for my liking.

I have seen the longer version and the Sikh is telling the white guy to get down on his knees. I have been in a similar position where the aggressor was told to get down on his knees and apologize. In that incident the aggressor actually got down on his knees and apologized. Bullies need to be embarrassed. Obviously, this white guy thought he was a tough guy and can knock out the skinny Sikh and hold his status of being a bully and embarrass the Sikh even more among others. Stupid bully don't even know how to punch. The Sikh was obviously skilled in fighting as he told the bully to punch him, he took a step back and raised his hands from his sides without showing to be in an offensive stance. Fighting doesn't solve anything, but in this case it did solve the problem. Good on the Sikh to embarrass this bully and not stop after knocking him out to the ground in one punch. Also that's a tough punch to throw, from the inside and knocking the person out. To get enough force built up from the inside is difficult, especially when you and the opponent are pretty much chest to chest. .

Folks ive seen 30secs more of this clip and the singh is telling the gorah kneel before me or else its simple im gonna knock you out... It came across as the singh being the aggresor and bully from the longer video i seen of this. Respect due the singh. Hed make a champion boxer!!!

ੴ ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕੀ ਫਤਹਿ॥ ਇਹ ਸਿੱਖ ਇਤਿਹਾਸ ਅੰਦਰ ਪਹਿਲੀ ਵਾਰ ਹੋਇਆ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਸਿੱਖੀ ਦਾ ਭੇਖ ਬਣਾ ਕੇ ਕਿਸੇ ਨੇ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਦੀ ਪ੍ਰੰਪਰਾ ਤੇ ਕਿੰਤੂ ਕੀਤਾ ਹੈ।ਇਹ ਵੀ ਸਿੱਖ ਕੌਮ ਦੀ ਤ੍ਰਾਸਦੀ ਹੀ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਆਪਣੇ ਆਪ ਕੌਮ ਦਾ ਰੌਸ਼ਨ-ਜਮੀਰ ਅਤੇ ਰੌਸ਼ਨ ਦਿਮਾਗ ਸਮਝਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਵੀਰ ਜਿਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਨੇ ਅਜਿਹੇ ਹਮਲਿਆਂ ਤੋਂ ਕੌਮ ਦੀ ਰਾਖੀ ਕਰਨੀ ਸੀ, ਉਹ ਆਪ ਹੀ ਕੁਰਾਹੇ ਪੈ ਗਏ ਹਨ।ਸਿੱਖ ਇਤਿਹਾਸ ਇਸ ਸੰਬੰਧੀ ਕੀ ਲਿਖੇਗਾ। ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਮਰਿਯਾਦਾ ਸੰਬੰਧੀ ਇਤਿਹਾਸਕ ਤੌਰ ਤੇ ਝੂਠੀਆਂ ਸਿੱਧ ਹੋ ਜਾਂਦੀਆਂ ਹਨ, ਜਦੋਂ ਅਸੀਂ ਸ. ਗੁਰਮੁਖ ਸਿੰਘ ਵਾਲਿਆਂ ਦੀ ਲਿਖੀ ਕਿਤਾਬ ਭਾਈ ਜੈਤਾ ਜੀ - ਜੀਵਨ ਤੇ ਰਚਨਾ ਐਡੀਸ਼ਨ 1994 ਪੜ੍ਹਦੇ ਹਾਂ। ਇਸ ਵਿਚ ਡਾ. ਗੁਰਮੁਖ ਸਿੰਘ ਜੀ ਨੇ ਭਾਈ ਜੈਤਾ ਜੀ ਦੇ ਫਰੀਦਕੋਟ ਵਿਖੇ ਪਏ ਹੱਥ-ਲਿਖਤ ਖਰੜੇ ਦੇ ਹਵਾਲੇ ਦਿੱਤੇ ਹਨ।ਭਾਈ ਜੈਤਾ ਜੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਘਰ ਦੇ ਉਹ ਸਿਦਕਵਾਨ ਸਿੱਖ ਹੋਏ ਹਨ, ਜਿਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਨੇ ਗੁਰੂ ਤੇਗ ਬਹਾਦਰ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਜੀ ਦਾ ਸੀਸ ਦਿੱਲੀ ਤੋਂ ਅਨੰਦਪੁਰ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਲਿਆਂਦਾ।ਬਾਅਦ ਵਿਚ ਭਾਈ ਜੈਤਾ ਜੀ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਛਕ ਕੇ ਭਾਈ ਜੀਵਨ ਸਿੰਘ ਬਣੇ। ਭਾਈ ਜੀਵਨ ਸਿੰਘ ਜੀ, ਸ੍ਰੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਗੋਬਿੰਦ ਜੀ ਨਾਲ ਕਾਫੀ ਸਮਾਂ ਰਹੇ।ਆਪ ਜੀ ਨੇ ਗੁਰੂ ਤੇਗ ਬਹਾਦਰ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਦਾ ਸ਼ਹੀਦੀ ਸਾਕਾ, 1699 ਈ. ਦੀ ਵਿਸਾਖੀ, ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਤਿਆਰ ਕਰਨ ਅਤੇ ਛਕਾਉਣ ਦੀ ਵਿਧੀ, ਰਹਿਤਾਂ ਆਦਿ ਬਾਰੇ ਅੱਖੀਂ ਡਿੱਠਾ ਹਾਲ ਬਾਰੇ ਇਹ ਸਤਰਾਂ ਵਿਚ ਲਿਖੀਆਂ ਹਨ: ਸਵੈਯਾ:-ਆਇ ਜੁਰੇ ਦਮਦਮਹਿਂ ਸੁ ਸਿਖ ਗਨ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਬੀਚ ਦੀਵਾਨ ਸੁਹਾਯੋ। ਧੂਹ ਕ੍ਰਿਪਾਨ ਖੋੜਿ ਤੇ ਬਾਹਰ ਸੀਖਨ ਕਉ ਮੁਖ ਐਸ ਅਲਾਯੋ। ਕੋਊ ਸਿਖ ਹੋਇ ਤਉ ਦੀਜੈ ਸੀਸ ਮੋਹਿ ਅਬ ਹੀ ਫੁਰਮਾਯੋ। ਦੋਇ ਕਰ ਜੋਰ ਉਠਯੋ ਇਕ ਸੇਵਕ ਬਿਨਤੀ ਕਰ ਉਰ ਹਰਖ ਮਨਾਯੋ॥56॥ ਸਵੈਯਾ:-ਦੀਨ ਦਿਆਲ ਕ੍ਰਿਪਾ ਕੈ ਸਾਗਰ ਮਮ ਸਿਰ ਕਉ ਨਿਜ ਲੇਖੇ ਪਾਯੋ। ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਬਾਹਿਂ ਪਕਰ ਤਿਸ ਸਿਖ ਕਉ ਨਿਕਟ ਤੰਬੂ ਮਹਿਂ ਜਾਇ ਬਿਠਾਯੋ। ਫੁਨ ਦੀਵਾਨ ਮਹਿ ਐਸ ਉਚਾਰਾ ਅਵਰ ਏਕੁ ਕੋਇ ਸੀਸ ਲਗਾਯੋ। ਪੁਨ ਇਕ ਸਿਖ ਕਹੀ ਕਰ ਜੋਰੈ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਸੇਵ ਮੋਹਿ ਏਹੁ ਭਾਯੋ॥57॥ ਸਵੈਯਾ:-ਤਿਹ ਭਿ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਬਾਹਿਂ ਪਕਰ ਕਰ ਤੰਬੂ ਭੀਤਰ ਲੈ ਕਰ ਜਾਯੋ। ਈਵ ਹੀ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਪਾਂਚ ਸਿਖਨ ਕਉ ਤੰਬੂ ਮਹਿਂ ਲੇ ਜਾਤ ਸੁਹਾਯੋ। ਕੇਤੀ ਬਾਰ ਭਈ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਤਉ ਪੁਨ ਤੰਬੂ ਤੇ ਬਾਹਰ ਨ ਆਯੋ। ਖੁਸਰ ਮੁਸਰ ਸਿਖਨ ਮਹਿਂ ਹੋਇਹੈ ਪਾਂਚਹੁੰ ਕੋ ਗੁਰ ਮਾਰ ਮੁਕਾਯੋ ॥58॥ ਸਵੈਯਾ:-ਧੀਰੈ ਧੀਰੈ ਨਿਕਸਨ ਲਾਗੈ ਜਿਹ ਸਿਖ ਕਾਚਾ ਨਾਮ ਧਰਾਯੋ। ਕਿਛ ਕਿਛ ਬੈਠ ਰਹਯੋ ਨਹਿਂ ਗਮਨੇ ਕਿਵ ਗੁਰ ਘਰ ਮਹਿਂ ਮਾਨ ਰਹਾਯੋ। ਕਿਛ ਪੂਰੈ ਪ੍ਰੇਮੀ ਪਦ-ਪੰਕਜ ਬੈਠ ਰਹਯੋ ਨਹਿਂ ਬਾਰੀ ਆਯੋ। ਅਬ ਕੀ ਬਾਰ ਸੁ ਮੰਚ ਸੁਹਾਏ ਪਾਂਚ ਸਿਖਨ ਕਉ ਸਿੰਘ ਸਜਾਯੋ ॥59॥ ਸਵੈਯਾ:-ਬੀਚ ਸਭਾ ਮਹਿਂ ਬੈਠਿ ਕੇ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਰਹਿਤ ਕੁਰਹਿਤ ਸਬਹਿ ਸਮਝਾਯੋ। ਤੇਜ ਲਿਲਾਟ ਨਿਹਾਰ ਸਿੰਘਨ ਕੇ ਸਿਖ ਦੁਚਿਤੇ ਅਤਿ ਖੁਣਸਾਯੋ। ਪੁਨ ਕੈਸੇ ਸਿਖ ਜੀਵਤ ਭਏਂ ਹੈਂ ਸਬਹਿਨ ਕੈ ਮਨ ਅਤਿ ਭਰਮਾਯੋ। ਸਰਧਾਹੀਨ ਭਏ ਅਤਿ ਬੌਨੇ ਗੁਰ ਮਹਿਮਾ ਕੋ ਭੇਦ ਨਾ ਪਾਯੋ ॥60॥ ਸਵੈਯਾ:-ਪਾਂਚ ਬਡੇ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਕੈ ਦਰ ਹੈਂ, ਅਰ ਪਾਂਚ ਕਾ ਮਾਨ ਹੈ ਗੁਰਦਰਬਾਰੇ ਕ੍ਰਿਪਾਨ ਕੜਾ ਕਛ ਕੰਕਤ ਕਰ ਦੀਨਹਿਂ ਨਿਸਚੈ ਪਾਂਚ ਕਕਾਰੇ। ਪਾਂਚ ਕਕਾਰ ਦੀਏ ਗੁਰ ਨੇ ਪੁੰਜ ਪਾਂਚ ਕਾ ਪਾਂਚ ਵਿਕਾਰਨ ਮਾਰੇ। ਭੇਦ ਕੋਇ ਗੋਪ ਨਹਿ ਇਨ ਮਹਿੰ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਕੇ ਚਿੰਨ ਪਾਂਚ ਪ੍ਰਭੂ ਅਤਿ ਪਿਆਰੇ॥110॥ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ-ਬਿਧਿ ਸਵੈਯਾ:-ਆਇਂ ਜਬਹਿ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਅਭਿਲਾਖੀ ਪਾਂਚ ਸੁ ਸਿੰਘਨ ਚਯਨ ਕਰੀਜੈ। ਸਕੇਸ ਕਰਹਿਂ ਇਸਨਾਨ ਸਬਹਿ ਜਨ ਨਿਰਮਲ ਸਵਛ ਪੁਸਾਕ ਪਹਿਰੀਜੈ। ਨਿਰਮਲ ਕੰਬਰ ਦੇਹੁ ਬਿਛਾਈ ਸਬ ਤਿਸ ਕੰਬਰ ਆਸਨ ਕੀਜੈ। ਕੰਬਰ ਊਪਰ ਰਾਖ ਲੋਹ ਪਾਤਰ ਪਾਤਰ ਮਹਿ ਸਬ ਨਦਰਿ ਟਿਕੀਜੈ ॥111॥ ਸਵੈਯਾ:-ਪਾਂਚ ਕਕਾਰ ਸੰਪੂਰਣ ਦੇਖਿ ਕੈ ਯਾਚਕ ਸਿਖਹਿ ਸੰਮੁਖ ਬੈਠੀਜੈ। ਜਲੋ ਬਤਾਸੇ ਲੋਹ ਪਾਤਰ ਮਹਿਂ ਡਾਰਿ ਕੈ ਛਹਿ ਸਿਖ ਆਸਨ ਬੀਰ ਲਵੀਜੈ। ਹਾਥ ਪ੍ਰਥਮ ਸਿੰਘ ਖੰਡੇ ਕਉ ਲੇਕਰ ਜਲੋ ਪਤਾਸੋ ਕਉ ਖੂਬ ਮਿਲੀਜੈ। ਜਪੁ ਕੋ ਪਾਠ ਕਰਹਿ ਸੰਗ ਤਿਹ ਸਿਖ ਪਾਤਰਿ ਦੂਸਰ ਹਾਥ ਧੀਰਜੈ ॥112॥ ਸਵੈਯਾ:-ਪਾਚਹੁੰ ਮਹਿ ਚਾਰ ਸੂ ਹੋਵਹਿਂ ਅਵਰ ਜੋਇ ਪਾਤਰ ਊਪਰ ਹਾਥ ਰਖੀਜੈ। ਆਪਨ ਆਪਨ ਬਾਰ ਯੇ ਪਾਂਚਹੁੰ ਪਾਂਚ ਹੀ ਬਾਣੀ ਕੋ ਪਾਠ ਪੜ੍ਹੀਜੈ। ਜਪੁ ਜਾਪ ਸਵੈਯੇ ਚੌਪਈ ਅਨੰਦ ਕੋ ਪਾਠ ਸੋਂ ਪਾਹੁਲ ਤਿਆਰ ਕਰੀਜੈ। ਪਾਂਓ ਚੁਲੇ ਮੁਖ ਪਾਵਹਿ ਸੁ ਯਾਜਕ ਏਤ ਹੀ ਨੇਤਰ ਕੇਸ ਪਵੀਜੈ ॥113॥ ਸਵੈਯਾ:-ਪ੍ਰਤਿ ਏਕ ਚੁਲੇ ਸੰਗ ਯਾਚਕ ਮੁਖ ਤੇ ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਕੀ ਫਤਿਹਿ ਗਜਾਵੈ। ਯਾਚਕ ਸਿੰਘ ਜੋ ਅਵਰ ਭਿ ਹੋਇ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਏਕੁ ਹੀ ਪਾਤਰ ਪਾਵੈ। ਰਹਿਤ ਕੁਰਹਿਤ ਬਤਾਇ ਕੈ ਸਬਹਿਨ ਅਰਦਾਸ ਕਰਹਿ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ ਦਵਾਵੈ। ਪੁਨ ਸਬ ਏਕੁ ਹੀ ਬਰਤਨ ਮਾਹਿਂ ਏਕਠਿ ਖਾਨ ਔ ਪਾਨ ਕਰਾਵੈ ॥114॥ -ਡਾ ਅਨੋਖ ਸਿੰਘ, ਬਠਿੰਡਾ।