Bijla Singh

So what you are saying is that Shabad Guru was given gurugaddi only because no human was left worthy enough to become a Guru? I find it insulting to Guru's family members whom you call "crooks" without presenting any evidence. Why not look at the fact that the He called Khalsa his own son. So the gaddi would've remained in the family anyways. Baba Deep Singh, Bhai Mani Singh and numerous other gursikhs were one with Guru Sahib but the main reason Guru Granth Sahib was given the gaddi is because Shabad has always been the Guru and there had never been a human Guru in Sikhi. Guru Amar Das Ji says that Gurbani is the Guru. Other Shabads also refer to Gurbani as the only Guru. Read Vaars of Bhai Gurdas Ji in which you will find at many places that Shabad is the Guru. In Vaar 24 Pauri 25, Bhai Sahib says that all six Gurus are one jot but Guru's moorat (form) is the Shabad not the human body. Since Sikhi started Shabad has been the true Guru. Guru Gobind Singh Ji continued this practice and passed the guruship to Gurbani. Khalsa is the true descendent of Guru Sahib. On a side note, state names of relatives of Guru Gobind Singh Ji and provide evidence that they were "crooks". ਬਾਣੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਗੁਰੂ ਹੈ ਬਾਣੀ ਵਿਚਿ ਬਾਣੀ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤੁ ਸਾਰੇ ॥ 982 ਸਬਦੁ ਗੁਰ ਪੀਰਾ ਗਹਿਰ ਗੰਭੀਰਾ ਬਿਨੁ ਸਬਦੈ ਜਗੁ ਬਉਰਾਨੰ ॥ 635 ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਕੀ ਬਾਣੀ ਸਤਿ ਸਤਿ ਕਰਿ ਜਾਣਹੁ ਗੁਰਸਿਖਹੁ ਹਰਿ ਕਰਤਾ ਆਪਿ ਮੁਹਹੁ ਕਢਾਏ ॥ 308 ਗੁਰ ਮੂਰਤਿ ਗੁਰ ਸਬਦੁ ਹੈ ਸਾਧਸੰਗਤਿ ਮਿਲਿ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਵੇਲਾ॥ Bhai Gurdas Ji

False. Solar calendar is more accurate because it is based on tropical year. Lunar calendar keeps shifting. You provide no reasoning whatsoever and took no time in refuting the article. In Bikarmi calendar there was no Gurpurab of Guru Gobind Singh Ji in 1999 and sometimes we have two Gurpurabs in the same year. How is this accurate? It is not absurd. Your argument is the same as the question addressed in the first post. Guru Sahib did not support Bikarmi calendar or accepted it as the Sikh calendar. It is up to Sikhs to decide whether they want to have fixed dates of Gurpurabs or celebrate Vaisakhi in November and Gurpurab of Guru Nanak Sahib in July. In fact, Barah Maha banis are based on Nanakshahi calendar. Bikarmi doesn’t have the same months as used in Gurbani and there are no fixed days in a month. Besides, it has an “unclean” month which is contrary to Gurbani. Guru Sahib had all the knowledge then why didn’t he give us blueprints of cars, planes, tvs etc? Where is Bikarmi calendar supported in Gurbani? Why not start using ਅੰਗੁਲ, ਹਾਥ, ਹਥ, ਗਜ, ਜੋਜਨ, ਕੋਸ, ਵਿਸੁਏ, ਚਸੁਏ, ਘੜੀ, ਪਲ, ਮੂਰਤ, ਮਹੂਰਤ, ਰਤੀ, ਮਾਸਾ, ਟੰਕੁ, ਤੋਲਾ, ਸੇਰ, ਮਣ, ਟਕਾ, ਦਾਮ which are mentioned in Gurbani and no longer in use? Guns were widely used back in those days but there are plenty of reasons why Kirpan was chosen over the gun. Dastaar was chosen over helmet or cap. These are already given but Guru Sahib did not require us to stick to Bikarmi calendar. No, I said Sikh Panth must have its own calendar because a nation cannot depend on a Hindu calendar which is inaccurate and highly unstable. We lose too much by using Bikarmi calendar. Absurd. What evidence do you have that Guru Sahib wanted us to use Bikarmi calendar? He did not waste any time in coming up with a new calendar but months used in Gurbani are not part of Bikarmi. Tell me why? Using Nanakshahi calendar is a progressive step. Did Guru Sahib not want His Sikhs to progress? If yes then why not start using horses, eat the same food and keep using the same guns? Using Nanakshahi is not against Gurmat. It is based on Gurbani. Using this calendar doesn’t result in losing history. It is due to backward and foolish “sants” who know nothing about the new calendar and don’t care about the Panth that some gullible people still support Bikarmi calendar which is lunar based, highly inaccurate, contrary to Gurbani, gives different dates every year, gives two Gurpurabs in the same year and sometimes no gurpurab at all. We wish to use everything modern that benefits us but when it comes to Panth we want to take steps backwards by blindly following ignorant and uneducated “sants”.

This is highly disillusioned belief. Term Sikh and Khalsa are synonymous. There is no difference. It is due to propaganda of Hindu fascists and their puppets like Mcleod that are confusing the general public in thinking that Sikh and Khalsa are two different things. There is no evidence from Gurmat literature that gives two different definitions. A Sikh is Khalsa and Khalsa is a Sikh. A Sikh is he who follows the hukam of Satguru. There is only one type of Sikh in Gurmat. Appearance, bani, bana, rehat etc are all one. There are no multiple versions. Nirmalas are required to take Amrit and their own version of rehat maryada makes it mandatory for them to take Amrit. Taking Amrit is the first step in entering the Sikh path. One must be a guru-wala in order to become a Sikh. Sikhi is path of submission not choices. A Sikh or Khalsa is a saint-warrior. Sikhs prior to 1699 kept rehat and weapons and fought Mughals. They don’t have to find another religion. It is their choice but they will not be Sikh if they don’t follow Gurmat which includes taking Amrit, keeping rehat, kakkars etc. it sounds foolish to call yourself a Sikh and not follow the fundamentals. If one wants to pick and choose then Gurmat is not the path for them. One can follow Sikhi as much as they want and read bani as much as they want but if they don't take Amrit and follow the hukam (which includes everything in rehat) then they cannot be called Sikhs. For example, many Hindus, Muslims, Christians read banis like Sohila Sahib and Sukhmani Sahib and listen to Keertan but they are not Sikhs. It doesn't make them inferior, it makes them non-Sikhs.

Here are some differences between Nanakshahi and Bikarmi calendars. Sikhs must have their own separate calendar since every major religion have their own calendar. Besides, Bikarmi is outdated and simply ridiculous and not according to Gurbani. It has no fixed dates and in 13,000 years Gurpurab of Guru Nanak Sahib will come in summer and Vaisakhi in winter. All of the information is taken from an article by Pal Singh Purewal. I urge readers to read the entire article "Guru Granth Sahib and Nanakshahi Calendar". I am posting just a small portion from it. Comparison between Nanakshahi and Bikrami Calendars Nanakshahi is based on length of Tropical year 365d 5h 48m 45s. Bikarmi is based on Sidereal year 365d 6h 9m 10s In Nanakshahi days in months 31 or 30; first five months contain 31 days each and last seven 30 days each -a very simple rule to remember. In Bikarmi months may contain 29,30,31 or 32 days; no simple rule for determination of the number of days in a given month In Nanakshahi fixed leap year rule -last month to have 1 extra day every four years. In Bikarmi no fixed rule In Nanakshahi fixed dates of Sangrands in Common Era. In Bikarmi Sangrand depends on entrance of sun into ‘rasis’, dates of Sangrands not fixed in Common Era. In Nanakshahi permanent relation between seasons and months; will stay according to Gurbani. In Bikarmi months will shift in seasons - on the average by 1 day per 70 / 71 years - already shift of 7 / 8 days since Guru Nanak Sahib’s time. In Nanakshahi Gurpurbs on fixed dates according to both Nanakshahi and Common Era calendars. In Bikarmi Gurpurb dates change from year to year in CE calendar. In Nanakshahi all Gurpurbs occur once every year, according to both NS and CE calendars. In Bikarmi in some years no Parkash Gurpurb of Guru Gobind Singh Sahib, while in others it occurs twice in one year of the CE calendar. In 1999 CE there was no Parkash Gurpurb of Guru Gobind Singh Sahib. In Nanakshahi no ‘unclean’ month (malmaas) in the year. No month or day is ‘clean’ or ‘unclean’ according to Gurbani. In Bikarmi a ‘mal mas’ or ‘unclean month’ is added every two or three years in the lunar year to keep it in step with the solar year. In this month Gurpurbs cannot be celebrated. This whole thing is contrary to Gurbani. In Nanakshahi Gurpurbs fixed according to solar dates e.g. 23 Poh for Parkash of Guru Gobind Singh Sahib, and 23 Poh will always occur on 5th January. (We gave precedence to the original solar dates over the lunar dates and English dates.) In Bikarmi Gurpurbs fixed according to lunar dates e.g Poh Sudi 7, therefore, changing from year to year in CE calendar. The lunar year contains 354 / 355 days while solar year 365 / 366 days. When ‘mal mas’ is added the lunar year becomes 383 / 384 days long. In 2000 CE Poh Sudi 7 was on 13th January according to Surya Siddhanta Panchangas (UP), while on 14th January according to Punjab Panchangs. So the same Gurpurb was celebrated on two different dates - on 13th January in Patna Sahib, and by some in Punjab on 14th January. Another problem of the lunar calendar is that the same ‘tithi’ can happen on two days or two ‘tithis’ can happen on one day. Some of the objections raised in public meetings by the opponents of the Nanakshahi Calendar: Objection: Since, in Guru Granth Sahib the tuk “ਆਵਨਿ ਅਠਤਰੈ ਜਾਨਿ ਸਤਾਨਵੈ ਹੋਰੁ ਭੀ ਉਠਸੀ ਮਰਦ ਕਾ ਚੇਲਾ ॥723" relates to the Bikrami calendar date, and that there are Banis in Guru Granth Sahib related to tithis, we cannot give up Bikrami calendar. Further, if we give up Bikrami calendar how are we to explain the meaning of this line to our children? Answer: ਗੁਰਬਾਣੀ ਵਿੱਚ ਮਾਪ-ਤੋਲ ਅਦਿ ਇਕਾਈਆਂ ਸੰਬੰਧੀ ਕੁੱਝ ਤੁਕਾਂ: ਸੁ ਸਬਦ ਕਾ ਕਹਾ ਵਾਸੁ ਕਥੀਅਲੇ ਜਿਤੁ ਤਰੀਐ ਭਵਜਲੁ ਸੰਸਾਰੋ ॥ ਤ੍ਰੈ ਸਤ ਅੰਗੁਲ ਵਾਈ ਕਹੀਐ ਤਿਸੁ ਕਹੁ ਕਵਨ ਅਧਾਰੋ ॥ - ਪੰ: 944 ਗਜ ਸਾਢੇ ਤੈ ਤੈ ਧੋਤੀਆ ਤਿਹਰੇ ਪਾਇਨਿ ਤਗ ॥ ਗਲੀ ਜਿਨ੍ਾ ਜਪਮਾਲੀਆ ਲੋਟੇ ਹਥਿ ਨਿਬਗ ॥ ਓਇ ਹਰਿ ਕੇ ਸੰਤ ਨ ਆਖੀਅਹਿ ਬਾਨਾਰਸਿ ਕੇ ਠਗ ॥1॥- ਪੰ: 476 ਰਾਖਹੁ ਕੰਧ ਉਸਾਰਹੁ ਨੀਵਾਂ ॥ ਸਾਢੇ ਤੀਨਿ ਹਾਥ ਤੇਰੀ ਸੀਵਾਂ ॥ - ਪੰ: 659 ਕਬੀਰ ਕੋਠੇ ਮੰਡਪ ਹੇਤੁ ਕਰਿ ਕਾਹੇ ਮਰਹੁ ਸਵਾਰਿ ॥ ਕਾਰਜੁ ਸਾਢੇ ਤੀਨਿ ਹਥ ਘਨੀ ਤ ਪਉਨੇ ਚਾਰਿ ॥ - ਪੰ: 1376 ਊਡੇ ਊਡਿ ਆਵੈ ਸੈ ਕੋਸਾ ਤਿਸੁ ਪਾਛੈ ਬਚਰੇ ਛਰਿਆ ॥ ਤਿਨ ਕਵਣੁ ਖਲਾਵੈ ਕਵਣੁ ਚੁਗਾਵੈ ਮਨ ਮਹਿ ਸਿਮਰਨੁ ਕਰਿਆ ॥3॥- ਪੰ: 10 ਮੇਰੀ ਮੇਰੀ ਕੈਰਉ ਕਰਤੇ ਦੁਰਜੋਧਨ ਸੇ ਭਾਈ ॥ ਬਾਰਹ ਜੋਜਨ ਛਤ੍ਰੁ ਚਲੈ ਥਾ ਦੇਹੀ ਗਿਰਝਨ ਖਾਈ ॥2॥ - ਪੰ: 693 ਘੜੀ ਮੁਹਤ ਕਾ ਲੇਖਾ ਲੇਵੈ ਰਤੀਅਹੁ ਮਾਸਾ ਤੋਲ ਕਢਾਵਣਿਆ ॥5॥ - ਪੰ: 127 ਆਪੇ ਕੰਡਾ ਆਪਿ ਤਰਾਜੀ ਆਪੇ ਤੋਲਿ ਤੋਲਾਇਆ ॥ ਆਪੇ ਸਾਹੁ ਆਪੇ ਵਣਜਾਰਾ ਆਪੇ ਵਣਜੁ ਕਰਾਇਆ ॥ ਆਪੇ ਧਰਤੀ ਸਾਜੀਅਨੁ ਪਿਆਰੈ ਪਿਛੈ ਟੰਕੁ ਚੜਾਇਆ ॥1॥- ਪੰ: 605 ਕਹਿਆ ਸੁਣਹਿ ਨ ਖਾਇਆ ਮਾਨਹਿ ਤਿਨ੍ਾ ਹੀ ਸੇਤੀ ਵਾਸਾ ॥ ਪ੍ਰਣਵਤਿ ਨਾਨਕੁ ਦਾਸਨਿ ਦਾਸਾ ਖਿਨੁ ਤੋਲਾ ਖਿਨੁ ਮਾਸਾ ॥4॥3॥11॥ - ਪੰ: 1171 ਗਜੀ ਨ ਮਿਨੀਐ ਤੋਲਿ ਨ ਤੁਲੀਐ ਪਾਚਨੁ ਸੇਰ ਅਢਾਈ ॥ ਜੌ ਕਰਿ ਪਾਚਨੁ ਬੇਗਿ ਨ ਪਾਵੈ ਝਗਰੁ ਕਰੈ ਘਰਹਾਈ ॥2॥ - ਪੰ: 335 ਸਾਢੇ ਤ੍ਰੈ ਮਣ ਦੇਹੁਰੀ ਚਲੈ ਪਾਣੀ ਅੰਨਿ ॥ ਆਇਓ ਬੰਦਾ ਦੁਨੀ ਵਿਚਿ ਵਤਿ ਆਸੂਣੀ ਬੰਨ੍ ਿ॥ - ਪੰ: 1383 ਖਿਨੇ ਪਲੁ ਨਾਮੁ ਰਿਦੈ ਵਸੈ ਭਾਈ ਨਾਨਕ ਮਿਲਣੁ ਸੁਭਾਇ ॥10॥4॥ - ਪੰ: 637 ਵਿਸੁਏ ਚਸਿਆ ਘੜੀਆ ਪਹਰਾ ਥਿਤੀ ਵਾਰੀ ਮਾਹੁ ਹੋਆ ॥ - ਪੰ: 12 We have discarded ਅੰਗੁਲ, ਹਾਥ, ਹਥ, ਗਜ and are using centimeters, and meters to measure length. We have discarded jojn, kos and are using kilometers to measure distance. We have discarded ਵਿਸੁਏ, ਚਸੁਏ, ਘੜੀ, ਪਲ, ਮਹੂਰਤ and are using seconds, minutes, and hours to measure time. We have discarded ਰਤੀ, ਮਾਸਾ, ਟੰਕੁ, ਤੋਲਾ, ਸੇਰ, ਮਣ and are using milligrams, grams, kilograms, and quintals to measure weight. All these units that we have discarded are mentioned in Gurbani. Why, then, can’t we discard the Bikrami Calendar whose months wander in seasons and do not stay according to Gurbani? Yes, there are Banis in Guru Granth Sahib depicting tithis of the lunar calendar. But, Guru Sahib in one such Bani, sums up towards the close : ਆਪੇ ਪੂਰਾ ਕਰੇ ਸੁ ਹੋਇ ॥ ਏਹਿ ਥਿਤੀ ਵਾਰ ਦੂਜਾ ਦੋਇ ॥ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਬਾਝਹੁ ਅੰਧੁ ਗੁਬਾਰੁ ॥ ਥਿਤੀ ਵਾਰ ਸੇਵਹਿ ਮੁਗਧ ਗਵਾਰ ॥ ਪੰ: 843 and Bhagat Kabir Ji’s Bani says it in no uncertain terms: ਕਾਹੇ ਮੇਰੇ ਬਾਮ੍ਨ ਹਰਿ ਨ ਕਹਹਿ ॥ ਰਾਮੁ ਨ ਬੋਲਹਿ ਪਾਡੇ ਦੋਜਕੁ ਭਰਹਿ ॥ 1 ॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ ਆਪਨ ਊਚ ਨੀਚ ਘਰਿ ਭੋਜਨੁ ਹਠੇ ਕਰਮ ਕਰਿ ਉਦਰੁ ਭਰਹਿ ॥ ਚਉਦਸ ਅਮਾਵਸ ਰਚਿ ਰਚਿ ਮਾਂਗਹਿ ਕਰ ਦੀਪਕੁ ਲੈ ਕੂਪਿ ਪਰਹਿ ॥ 2 ॥ - ਪੰ: 970 You can explain the meaning of the tuk - “ਆਵਨਿ ਅਠਤਰੈ ਜਾਨਿ ਸਤਾਨਵੈ ਹੋਰੁ ਭੀ ਉਠਸੀ ਮਰਦ ਕਾ ਚੇਲਾ ॥" to the children the same way you have been explaining the meanings of ਅੰਗੁਲ, ਹਾਥ, ਹਥ, ਗਜ, ਜੋਜਨ, ਕੋਸ, ਵਿਸੁਏ, ਚਸੁਏ, ਘੜੀ, ਪਲ, ਮੂਰਤ, ਮਹੂਰਤ, ਰਤੀ, ਮਾਸਾ, ਟੰਕੁ, ਤੋਲਾ, ਸੇਰ, ਮਣ, ਟਕਾ, ਦਾਮ which are mentioned in Gurbani and no longer in use. Objection: Christians celebrate Easter according to the lunar calendar. Muslims celebrate their sacred days according to the Hijri calendar which is a purely lunar calendar. Why can’t we? Answer: Easter, even though celebrated according to the lunar calendar, falls within a well defined period. It cannot occur before 22nd March or after 25th April in any year. It stays within the spring season, since its determination is based on 21st March of the Gregorian solar calendar which is based on the length of the tropical year. But the Bikrami lunar calendar is attached to the Bikrami solar year which is not based on the length of tropical year. So, the dates of the lunar calendar also shift in seasons. In 13000 years Diwali would occur 6 months later in the Gregorian calendar, in the months of April-May, instead of October-November as at present., and parkash Gurpurb of Guru Nanak Sahib would then occur in May. Is this what we want to happen? Like other dates which have been fixed in the Nanakshahi calendar we should fix the dates of Holla Muhalla, Bandi Chhor Divas(Diwali), and and parkash Gurpurb of Guru Nanak Sahib too, so that these dates do not drift as well. Secondly, in the U.K. there is a movement to fix the date of Easter according to the solar calendar and get it de-linked from the lunar calculations. In fact, in 1928 an act was passed in both houses of the British parliament that Easter be celebrated on the first Sunday after the second Saturday in April. To make this act into law the last stage remains. An effort was made in 1999 in the House of Lords to complete the final stage. However, after a debate for a few hours the Hon’ble Lord who placed the motion was persuaded to withdraw it. Muslims use a lunar calendar. But there are no adhik or malmasas. Holy Quran forbade the 13th intercalary month. In the Hindu calendar the extra month is introduced every two-three years to keep it in step with the solar calendar. In 2061 BK the month of Sawan is repeated, i.e. there are two months of Sawan, making thirteen months or 383/384 days in the lunar year. This is the reason why in 2004 CE there is no parkash Gurpurb of Guru Gobind Singh Sahib according to the Bikrami calendar. Poh Sudi 7 of Bikrami lunar calendar has been pushed by this extra month into January 2005. Since there are two months called Sawan I and Sawan II, tithis of Sawan Gurpurbs occur twice separated by a month. Such an extra month could be designated in Chet, Vaisakh, Jeth, Harh, Sawan, Bhadon, Asu, or Phagun. Complicated, isn’t it? Not only that, two lunar dates could occur on the same day or same lunar date could occur on two consecutive days. Objection: Guru Sahiban used the Bikrami Calendar, and they did not find anything wrong with it. Answer: Guru Sahiban used the Bikrami calendar because it was the calendar used by the people for day-to-day requirements, like fixing of dates of marriages, religious performances, dating of events etc. Guru Sahiban used tola, man, ser, gaz, kos, ratti, moorat(Muhurat), pal, gharhi etc. They did not find anything wrong with these too, yet these units have been discarded, even though these are mentioned in Gurbani. Objection: If Guru Sahiban had wanted to, they could have made a new calendar. Answer: Certainly, but they did not. Neither did they invent the telephone, the car, airplanes, and other modern appliances like TV’s, Computers etc. It was left by them for the following generations of engineers and inventors. Objection: We had managed for 500+ years without the new calendar. We could have continued like that. Answer: People had managed without cars, airplanes, telephones, cell phones, TV’s, fridges, etc., for thousands of years, and could have continued to manage like that. Objection: Why had no one before Mr. Purewal come up with this idea? Answer: Is Mr. Purewal to blame for that? But here are the reasons: S. Karam Singh Historian had this misgiving that Bikrami calendar was accurate to seconds in thousands of years , but it was not. The Bikrami year, which is sidereal, was out by almost three and a half minutes from the modern value of the sidereal year, and by more than 20 minutes from the length of the tropical year. Other historians accepted S. Karam Singh’s word. Mr. Purewal had an interest in astronomy, studied Hindu treatises like Surya Siddhanta, Graha Laghva, Makrand Sarni that pundits used for calculation of panchangas; he was a computer professional, he had written computer programs - probably before anyone else - based on the methods given in those treatises; he was a student of Gurbani; he was a student of Sikh history, he had produced the “500 Year Jantri”, calculated according to Surya Siddhanta, which had been published by the Punjab School Education Board in 1994 CE; he had intellectual pursuits as his hobby (he was on the Punjab Chess Team in 1961 which participated in the Nationals; he was a member of the Bedfordshire Chess Team in England), he was a Science and Math teacher in Punjab before emigrating to England in 1965; he was Senior Engineer with Texas Instruments, Bedford, in England before moving to Canada in 1974; he was Manager of Data Processing Department of a company in Canada, he is a co-inventor of a device which is patented in Canada - isn’t this enough of a background for a person to come up with a single new idea? (Please forgive me for mentioning all of the above. It was unavoidable to answer the question. )

Yes but the difference is that I look at the situation and provide my reasoning to justify my assumptions whereas you simply base your assumptions on “possibility”. Using your way any person can justify anything. There are scholars who accuse Guru Sahib of eating meat and drinking bhang and not to mention the current Hindu propaganda against Sikhi. They can easily say it might have happened because it is a possibility. Not a true way of studying history. When I disagreed with you I provided my reasoning. What I meant was the type of food he ate when he was a sadhu. His food and rehat would not have been different from Singhs he stayed with. I do not know what you mean by Baba Ji being a young man. It has nothing to do with rehat. Baba Deep Singh and Bhai Mani Singh stayed with Guru Gobind Singh Ji and took Amrit from him. They were the most respected personalities in the Panth. Baba Ji fought in the army of Baba Banda Singh and Bhai Mani Singh was consulted in every religious manner since he was the head granthi of Darbar Sahib. They were busy but in panthic matters not in personal matters. You should look at the situation of the time and how Singhs lived their lives only then make assumptions and also provide some reasoning using some real evidence. Making assumptions is acceptable if you can back them up with some solid evidence. Anyways, I do not want to drag it further. Guru Rakha p.s.- I am relaxed.

One can resort to assumptions and conjectures in positive and negative ways but that does not become an historical fact. You will need to provide some historical evidence to prove your point. There is no evidence that tells us about the type of food he used to eat before and after becoming a Sikh. I disagree with your statement because he was given Amrit by Guru Sahib Himself and stayed in the company of great gursikhs of the time such as Baba Deep Singh, Bhai Mani Singh, Baba Binod Singh and Bhai Baaj Singh. There are sakhis of numerous gursikhs who were from Hindu, Muslim and other background and once adopted Sikhi did not indulge in their previous practices. Had Baba Banda Singh not been able to let go off his earlier practices, Guru Sahib would never have made him the leader of the Khalsa army. Only a true Sikh could be appointed to such a position by Guru Sahib. Surely, he could’ve fallen into ego but this again is an assumption and not an historical fact. Being egotist and going against fundamental principles of Gurmat are two different things. Jassa Singh Raamgariya fell into ego and so did many others but they never equated themselves to Guru Sahib. Sardar Jassa Singh was excommunicated for killing his daughter which is against Gurmat and he had to seek apology from the Panth in order to become Khalsa again. Had Baba Banda Singh acted against Gurmat, Sikhs would’ve reacted, given him tankah and the event would’ve been recorded in history but nothing of the sort happened. When Sikhs like Baba Deep Singh and Bhai Mani Singh did not say anything to Baba Banda Singh it proves that he did nothing against Sikhi. i believe enough has been said.

What I meant was that some books write grossly against Baba Banda Singh. It is a common misconception amongst many Sikhs (I used to be part of it) that Guru Sahib gave five arrows to Baba Ji along with a boon of victory as long as he obeyed the instructions such as not getting married etc. It is also believed that whenever Khalsa army was about to loose, Baba Banda Singh would fire one of the arrows and defeat the enemies. When Baba Ji went against Gurmat, he lost his arrows and thus was captured. Bhangu is not the only one blaming Baba Banda Singh for all sorts of things. There are some who write (Sikh Panth Kithon Ton Kithay) that Baba Banda Singh wanted to sit on the throne in Darbar Sahib and wanted Sikhs to not follow a “book”. These remarks demean his true character. I grew up reading and hearing these stories and believed them to be true until I picked up the books to find out the truth. I did not mean that you or someone else is demeaning him or this topic is started for this purpose.

Sorry for not responding but the reason is that I have moved to a different city and all my books are at my previous residence so for not having books at hand I could not answer the question. When I studied this topic, my focus was on allegations that demean Baba Banda Singh. I responded to what I know. While I did come across a Hukamnama written by him in regards to avoiding garlic and onions, I could not find any religious significance behind it. I did not bother to find any reasoning since it wasn’t part of what I wanted to know but when I get my books I will look it up and try to find more info. Then I will respond on the forum or send you a pm. All I know is there are many Sikhs who do not eat garlic and onions due to health reasons and some give spiritual reasons which I cannot confirm but no one has said that it is against Gurmat. I am sure Baba Banda Singh had his reasons.

I do not want to start a discussion on meat but if we believe Singhs did perform jhatka (for argument sake) then Baba Banda Singh would never have any problem with meat fully knowing that it is part of Gurmat and was practiced by Guru Sahib. He then could not have gone against Gurmat and appeal to Sikhs to stay away from meat in his hukamnama. Baba Banda Singh was given five arrows, sword, nagara and a hukamnama in which he was declared commander of the Khalsa army. Guru Sahib also wanted to give him the Khanda with which Amrit was prepared but Singhs disapproved. This also shows that when Panj Singhs disapproved something, Guru Sahib agreed and Baba Banda Singh became acquainted with this important practice. Baba Banda Singh did not use any black magic after he became a Sikh. Persian sources mention that his victories were due to his black magic. Imagine the mighty Mughals and Pathans being defeated by handful of Sikhs who had much less resources, weapons, no paid army, territory, money and forts. Mughals were considered invincible and when they lost they had no other way to explain it other than black magic. Persian sources are silent on what magic trick was used during which particular battle. Baba Banda Singh would’ve used magic tricks to win at Gurdas Nangal, escape from prison and avoid his execution. Bhangu states that the source of Banda Singh’s power was the arrows and when he lost them he lost his powers. This (if true) also refutes him using any black magic tricks. Baba Banda Singh was a great gursikh. There is no doubt that anyone can fall under the influence of ego but Baba Ji always consulted five Singhs that accompanied him from the south. Bhangu wanted to prove that Sikhs deserve to rule and this sovereignty was blessed by Guru Sahib. In order to justify why the sovereignty was lost initially, he blamed Baba Banda Singh for going against Gurmat. Any ruler becoming egotist doesn’t result in loss of his kingdom all of the sudden. Romans, English, Russians, Indians and Americans all were and are egotists. Egoism results in loss of power over time but it doesn’t happen over night. Fateh Darshan was never enforced. When the Panth rejected it Baba Ji retracted it and never used it again. I have not come across any source mentioning Baba Ji and Sikhs wearing red when they were captured. His descendents don’t wear red till today. Singhs like Baaj Singh and Binod Singh surely would’ve left him had he gone against Gurmat and Panth would’ve appointed a new leader. Baba Deep Singh, Bhai Mani Singh and numerous other gursikhs were alive at the time. Bhangu mentions that the conflict started after Baba Ji became martyr which proves that until he was alive there was no conflict. This is all false. Persian sources do not mention this. Again, Bhangu wishes to blame everything on Baba Ji and for that he also maligns the reputation of Sikhs and Mata Ji. I think diary of Farukh Siyar might tell us bit more about the events of the time. Panth Parkash and Persian sources mention that arrest of Baba Ji and other Sikhs was due to running out of supplies and they had become very weak. Where went the black magic then? This leaves no doubt that Sikhs captured with Baba Banda Singh were true gursikhs. Reciting Gurbani, wishing to end the tyranny, fearlessness, accepting death happily etc are all characteristics of gursikhs. Sikhs are under the misconception that Baba Banda Singh wished to establish himself as a Guru and leader of the Panth. Some goes to the extent of saying that he wished to sit at the throne in Darbar Sahib. These are all baseless assertions and have no evidence behind them. Mirt’at-i-Waridat by Muhammad Shafi in 1734 clearly shows Muslims viewed Baba Banda Singh an incarnate of Guru Sahib. They sent letters to the zamindars of the territories of the Punjab and Hindustan, who belonged to his circle of believers, that Guru Gobind, while in the army of the Emperor, had died at the hands of an Afghan, but, according to his will, in a short while, he will, through the transmigration of his soul, wear the robe of honor of sovereignty, reappearing afresh as a living person. He further goes on to say that "who (Baba Ji) has made himself similar in appearance to him (Guru Gobind Singh)". Thus, it is clear that Baba Ji's appearance was very similar to that of Guru Sahib because he wore the same bana and weapons. Also, he sacked Sarhind and killed all those who stood against Guru Sahib and His family. Muslims thought it was Guru Sahib who came and sought revenge. Due to this misconception of the Muslims (common majority) many Sikhs of later times came under the impression that Baba Ji wanted to make himself the Guru. Regarding Baba Ji's victory Khafi Khan in Muntakhabu'l Lubab written in 1731 says "Ordinary people of little faith attributed it to magic and sorcery practiced by that sect." This leaves no doubt that sudden success of Baba Ji in a very short period of time could not be comprehended by many people who started to believe that Baba Ji used magic and powers to achieve success. Keep in mind that Sarhind was considered invincible and no foreign invaders dared to attack it. Wazir Khan had all the wealth, modern army and weapons and protection of forts but none could stand against the Sikhs. Hence, people thought no warrior without the use of any magical powers could win over Sarhind. Baba Ji struck coins in the name of Guru Sahib. Had he gone against Sikhi, he would've struck new coins in his name. No quarrel took place between the Sikhs while he was alive which proves that he remained a Sikh. He preached equality. Contemporary records state that many outcaste people who joined his army were appointed leaders of their respective areas and high caste people stood waiting for their orders. This was a revolutionary change in the community. He abolished zamindari system and gave more rights to farmers. Baba Ji introduced "Fateh Darshan" which is mentioned by only Khafi Khan but when Sikhs refused to accept it, Baba Ji retracted it and never enforced its use. There is no evidence that Baba Ji introduced new practices contrary to Sikhi. The reason of his capture was that he ran out of supplies and when Sikhs were arrested they were “half men half dead” as Muhammad Qasim (in Ibratnama written in 1723) puts it. It is thus clear that capture of Baba Banda Singh and Sikhs was not because he turned his back on Guru Sahib’s words but lack of supplies. Also, imperial forces were too strong for him. Sikhs never gave up their faith which proves that they were indeed absorbed in Naam and love for the true Guru. He was a great gursikh and made a great sacrifice for the true cause. He preached Sikhi and brought many into the fold of Gurmat. He converted many Muslims to Sikhi as well. He was a true Sikh. He lived as a Sikh and died as a Sikh.

Nehmat, I agree that Khalsa shall rule the world and I believe the same Khalsa will also rule Khalistan. Guru Sahib will bless Raj only to true Khalsa. I don’t know who you are calling “fanatics” but I consider Jujharoo Singhs who gave their lives for the Panth true Khalistanis. Khalsa is the military or fauj of Akal Purakh so Khalistan will be run by military. In the past Sikh rulers were also military leaders (Baba Banda Singh, Nawab Kapoor Singh, Sardar Jassa Singh etc) and I see no disaster. Guru Rakha

Gurmat is universal and it should be preached all over the world. But it cannot be preached when its survival is at stake. Guru Sahib’s message needs to be taught well and for that we need Sikh universities, educated Sikh scholars, well trained preachers etc. All of this requires money and only when Sikhs are well organized can this be done. This is one more reason why we need Khalistan so that Sikhs will have a central government and there will be no shortage of funding and money of the Gurdwaras will be well spent. Raj helps spread the faith. Buddhism spread because of Ashoka. Islam spread when Muslims took over Medina. In India it spread when Mughals took over. Christianity spread when it was adopted by Roman Empire. Hinduism spread when they got their country. Sikhi spread when Sikhs ruled and suffered when non-Sikhs were the rulers. Creating a Khalistan doesn’t mean every Sikh will be forced to move back. Do all Hindus live in India and Muslims in Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan etc? Do all Buddhists live in Tibet? No. Khalistan ensures survival of Sikhi and the Panth. Remember “Raj Bina Nahin Dharam Chalay Hain..”. Having Khalistan means we will have a political voice and the world will listen to us. Imagine sending a Sikh preacher to Pakistan to preach and he gets killed. Which country will help us? None. Imagine the same preacher being sent by the government of Khalistan. Now the killers will have to deal with another country and Pakistani government will have to answer. No one listens to or cares about a homeless. Same way no one cares about a homeless community. You want to be heard? You must have power and authority recognized by the rest of the world otherwise we are just a minority in India and “sect” of Hinduism/Islam. I find it ironic that you are against Sikhs having one small country and yet asking them to take over the whole world. If a small country brings destruction then won’t occupying the whole world bring even more destruction? Bear in mind that taking over the world begins somewhere so why not start at Khalistan and then spread, preach true version of Sikhi, help people to make their lives better, teach them about peace, love, devotion and dedication? Just my thoughts. When Guru Sahib established many cities and towns, Sikhs were a minority. During Baba Banda Singh Sikhs were a minority. During Misal rule, Sikhs were a minority. During Maharaja Ranjit Singh Sikhs were a minority. But that never prevented them from becoming the rulers. Weren’t Jews a minority in Israel one time? It is a misunderstanding that Khalistan is only for Sikhs. It will be for everyone regardless of their religion. It is forbidden to force someone in and out of religion. Our great Gurus sacrificed for the right of freedom and practice of religion. Sikhi was never forced by Sikh rulers. Since it is a path of love, it must spread with love. Everyone is free to live in a Sikh country. I don’t find any example of Sikhs kicking out non-Sikhs in history. Type of government can only be decided when Sikhs have a country because it all depends on situation and time. There can be multiple levels or branches of government. USA formed a government after 13 years. India wrote its constitution after 3 years of independence. My point is when Sikhs have a country only then can the final decision be made. Policies and laws can be reformed, modified or scraped entirely depending on situation and time. It is a good thing to brainstorm some ideas but final decision cannot be made until Khalistan is independent. Only the government can decide what type of military there will be in Khalistan. Until then we can have different opinions. I think every Sikh should be required to learn gatka, self-defense etc. Serving in the military should be voluntary but the government should have the right to draft people in case of an emergency or during a war. Foreigners should be allowed and only the government can decide up to what extent. Khalistan doesn’t define Sikhi and being a Khalistani doesn’t make one a Sikh. So one will have the right to leave Sikhi at will. Sikhi should never be forced on anyone. Other religions can have freedom and it depends on what their practices are. I personally think (solely my opinion) only one wife should be allowed legally (as is the law in many countries), forced conversion should be illegal and any practice that harms another citizen or interferes in another’s life should be banned. Since the government doesn’t always know every practice of every religion it is difficult to declare everything legal or illegal. Communities will have to go to courts if they disagree with the law and then have it amended. This also depends on what the situation at that time is. Good economic role models may fail in the future. No economic model is perfect. This is the question that Sikh economists have to answer but again policies that are good today may not work tomorrow. When we have Khalistan only then will we know for sure how should the economy work. If the neighboring countries refuse to allow us access to sea port (I hardly doubt this since India and Pakistan hate each other) the government will decide what to do after assessing the situation. Again, very vague question. The best way of approach depends on a situation. No government in the world can come up with a solution to a problem that will arise in the future. First a problem comes then solution is decided. We have examples of Sikh rule from Guru Sahib’s time and up to 1849. These are just my opinions and others can disagree. I believe a Sikh should always think positive and when it comes to betterment of the Panth we should think in terms of finding answers rather than questions and presenting solutions rather than problems. Sikhs should start thinking in terms of what kind of country they want to setup that will serve as a role model for the rest of the world. Decisions can only be made together after collecting thoughts and opinions of everybody. The responsibility rests on us. Guru Rakha

You states you have studied in-depth about this topic yet you are quoting from books written 150 years later. Bravo. You have not even heard of sources I listed that were written during Ranjit Singh’s lifetime and by his courtiers. Both authors have no reference from earlier sources to prove their point. They too just like yourself are trusting English sources while ignoring what Sohan Singh Seetal and Prof Ganda Singh have written. Grewal has made a huge error in his book even when he has copies of all the records of Sikh kingdom available to him. In his book “Maharaja Ranjit Singh: State and Society” he openly refutes many of the English sources when it comes to their credibility regarding Sikh politics and internal affairs. There must be a letter written by Rani to the British or any meeting that took place. Gulab Chand became a puppet of the British during Afghanistan campaign. When did Maharani start her communications? With whom? For how long and where is the evidence from that time? British had decided to take over Punjab long before Anglo-Sikh wars. Capturing Sindh and Firozepur, building bridge and increasing army from 17000 to 40000 on the border were clear signs. During Afghanistan campaign, british lured Gulab Chand on their side along with Dhiyan Chand. Hira Chand followed his dad. Suchait was also a dogra. British promised to give them their independent state of Jammu if they helped. British also announced that they would give rewards to all non-Sikh employees of Ranjit Singh if they left him. Tej Ram and Laloo also wanted their cut so they communicated with the British. They killed many heirs to the throne and wanted to rule themselves. They deceived other royal families. Rani, Dina Nath and few other Sardars wanted peace but British started to harass Sikhs and over time the war started. Dhiyan Chand being the wazir did not send supplies to the army upon which the generals approached Jind Kaur. She thought the generals were making excuses so she threw a chunni and told them to wear it and sit at their homes and she would go and fight the British. Earlier British had offered to send their army to keep order in the Khalsa army but it was refused by Jind Kaur and other Sardars. Once the war was lost due to betrayal of the dogras (and not due to shortage of supplies), the British forced Sikhs to sign the treaty which was very strict in terms and basically crippled the kingdom. All the power now wrested in the British hired agent who stayed in Lahore. All decisions were made by him. Rani was kept away from the Darbar as she was considered a threat to the British policies. She was imprisoned while Daleep Singh was lured to go hunting with some British officers. All non-Sikh maids were hired who had no sympathy with the Rani. She was not given sufficient food to eat and proper clothes to wear. Her jewelry was taken away and her expenses were decided by the agent. When she appealed for her rights, she was ignored and suppressed. Dalhousie refused to listen. Finally, it was decided to exile her without any reason. Once she was sent out of Punjab she was never allowed to return. 10 months after she was gone, British made another plan according to which they could take over the entire Punjab “officially”. Rewards were given to Tej Ram, Laal Chand and Dogras for their betrayal. Venture was rewarded and given property in British areas but why was Rani never rewarded or treated respectfully? She was even strip searched and all of this was because she never liked British presence in Punjab. She wanted them to leave and only she was intelligent enough to counter British plans. Many English sources reveal that Rani was never an ally of the British. Even though many English authors condemn their own treacherous doings but they were never against British rule over Punjab and mistreatment of the royal family. They created misconceptions to fool the public and I see it is still strong in the minds of some fools. Their aim was to justify annexation of Punjab by portraying Ranjit Singh and Kharak Singh as irresponsible. Then they started writing about Sikhs inviting and requesting the British to come and take over. This is all bull. English authors provide no evidence (letters etc) to justify their claims. They wanted to take over by any means and they did. Ganda Singh and Sohan Singh Seetal have written detailed work on Anglo-Sikh wars and Karam Singh Historian collected many eye-witness accounts of the war from soldiers who fought in the battles. It is unfortunate that their work is being ignored over the books that were solely written to malign the Sikh kingdom and the royal family by purposely writing false information. Prof. Ganda Singh is considered a great scholar by Sikhs and non-Sikhs. He is the one who started intensive study and research on Sikh kingdom. You are a fool and ignorant to not know of Ganda Singh. His book Punjab Uttay Angrezan Da Kabza is very detailed on this issue and he has provided evidence for every single argument. Sohan Singh Seetal wrote his book based on eye-witness accounts and contemporary sources. Sita Ram Kohli too has written up on it. So much for your “in-depth” study. He was a Christian when he got married and only 6 years before his death did he become a Sikh. Peter Bance’s book “Maharaja Daleep Singh” and Sohan Singh’s book “Dukhiye Maa Putt” are two best sources. I doubt you have studied anything. This book too has failed to provide any contemporary evidence and the author gives no reasoning to his statement. I have book written by Gardner. What is the point you are trying to make? There were thousands of people who were there and dozens of books have been written. So? Only a fool like yourself would ignore facts and keep on pressing his falsified beliefs. I suggest you study some more before writing anything stupid. MOD Note - No more personal fights over this. Topic Closed.

First you say he didn’t care and when proven wrong you change your point. He paid much attention to his army’s needs but doesn’t mean he refused to let others learn. He hired many trained officers to train his army. He hired talented people from all across the country including Hindus and Muslims. Military System of the Sikh Army by Fauja Singh is the best book on this and I suggest you read it before writing speculations. He was a great leader who consolidated Punjab and for the first time Punjab became on world’s map as an independent state. He stopped foreign attacks and took Peshawar back after 834 years. You are a fool to not realize this fact. Allard died in 1838 and others didn’t leave until much later. Some participated in Anglo-Sikh wars. You know nothing. I have explained this before. Ranjit Singh had limited resources and with enemies all around him, it would’ve been unwise to have a war with a strong empire over a small area. Inviting Russia was out of the question as they too had their own motives. When Hindu kings invited Mughals to suppress their enemies, Mughals came and took over and kings who invited them became their subordinates. Ranjit Singh fully knew this and Russians would’ve done the same. Ranjit Singh wanted no external power coming to Punjab and then staying there permanently. Again, Ganda Singh has analyzed this issue in details. Now go study it. What he built was much better than 40 years earlier. Sikhs were only 10% of the population and ruled over 80% Muslims. The area they occupied was huge. This wasn’t an easy task. For the first time in history Punjab became a safe place and guarded from foreign attacks. English travelers rated Punjab as the safest place in India. Not decent enough? My foot. Reading too much English sources are we? It was their aim to show the king irresponsible in order to justify future British annexation over Punjab. Ganda Singh gives many proofs regarding Aliwal. It wasn’t even a battle. Read up on it. You are mixing up different events. Sabraon was the last battle and Rani herself invited Sham Singh Attariwala to fight. When army went to ask for supplies it was before the first war. Ganda Singh describes this event in details and Rani threw a chunni not her top. You are such an <banned word filter activated>. She wept but doesn’t prove she betrayed. Jawahar Singh was a drunkard and wished to become king himself. You failed to provide any evidence that she communicated with the British. Dhiyan Chand and Gulab Chand were already popular and wazirs before Ranjit Singh died. Akal Phoola Singh was upset because they were appointed as wazirs as he wanted Sikhs to be in power. Dhiyan Chand remained wazir of Kharak Singh and then Sher Singh. In fact, he died as a wazir. Gulab Chand was wazir of Jammu. You have no evidence to prove that Ranji Jind Kaur appointed them. She had no say in politics until Daleep Singh sat on the throne. Even then she only influenced her son. No evidence. Harding, Honiberger, Smyth, Dalhousie, Ganda Singh, Sohan Singh, Fauja Singh, J S Grewal, Indu Banga etc all state otherwise. If you want some direct quotes let me know. Care to name some of those people? After the first war, british agent at Lahore had the control over expenses and he made significant changes to reduce state’s revenue. Daleep Singh had no right. After he was taken into custody, Logan was in charge of his expenses. No. She had him study Gurbani from a granthi who always accompanied Daleep Singh. He was kept around Sikh servants. A mother wouldn’t want to send her child away for no reason. All this changed when British took over. Sohan Singh Seetal makes it clear in Dukhiye Maa Putt. Once again you provided no evidence. You are a fool to trust English sources blindly. Daleep Singh was purposely placed under supervision of Logan who deeply wanted to convert the young prince. His letters are clear on this. He states that he wanted to put bible in his hands but couldn't as this would be seen as forcing him to convert. So to achieve his goal, Christian servants were hired and a Brahmin graduated from Christian school was hired to read Bible to Daleep Singh every night. Daleep Singh was only 9 years old at the time. Dalhousie’s motives were the same and this is why he never allowed Chattar Singh to marry her daughter to Daleep Singh which became the reason for him to revolt resulting in second war. Sohan Singh Seetal has also provided evidence in his book and Dalhousie’s letters are quoted to prove this point. Your foolishness has no bounds. Have you read Khalsa Darbar Records, Umdat-Ut-Twarikh, Tarikh-i-Punjab, Chahar-e-Punjab? I doubt it. Your study is shallow and incomplete. So-called contemporary accounts you are referring to are probably English and your statements clearly show their influence on you. While all Sikh scholars have disapproved many of the English sources you are blindly following them. How rational is it to trust books written by those who wanted to take over Sikh kingdom? This is irrelevant. Shows how immature you are. Khalistan has nothing to do with this topic and having a pic of Sant Ji only shows my admiration for him. You don’t have to live in Khalistan and I am sure Khalistan is much better off without English boot lickers like yourself. You are the one who is being fooled by English politicians of past and present.

1) Declaration that no one should cooperate with the government. 2) Santa Singh goes against this hukam and speaks against sovereignty of Akal Takhat. He is given notice to pesh himself. 3) Santa Singh declared Tankhaeeya. 4) Regarding sewa of Akal Takhat and Sikhs not having freedom to have darshan of Darbar Sahib as of August 5, 1984. Santa Singh is going on with the construction. 5) Rebuilding Akal Takhat and sewa given to Harbans Singh and Karnail Singh. 6) Santa Singh peshed in 2001, 17 years later.

Khalsa Darbar Records. Chronicle of Maharaj Ranjit Singh also known as Umdat-Ut-Twarikh by Sohan Lal Suri. Ranjit Singh paid every attention to his army. He wrote letters instructing his generals what to feed horses, how much the army should travel etc. Every little detail was kept in mind by him. Name some of those. Army was trained by experienced officers like Avitable, Vetura and Allard. List of officers in the kingdom can be found in many books. This is simply easy talk without knowing the core issue. Maharaja Ranjit Singh did his best to capture Sindh as he considered it not against the treaty but British had other plans. At last, it was Amirs of Sindh who signed the treaty and aligned with the British just like Sikh kings of Malwa sought British protection against Maharaja Ranjit Singh. Maharaja Ranjit Singh knew his resources and power. He was surrounded by enemies. One side was British, then Russia, Pathans on the other side and Dost Mohammad of Afghanistan seeking opportunities to capture Peshawar. British had resources and army of the entire Indian states while Maharaja Ranjit Singh had no back up and resources less than 20% than that of the British. It would’ve been very unwise and foolish on the part of Sikhs to jeopardize the entire Punjab over Sindh. Maharaja Ranjit Singh kept Punjab free for as long as he could. Study some history first. False. Read his last speech written in book by Sohan Singh Seetal. Maharaja Ranjit Singh knew British’s plans and he also knew that Punjab would not be able to stand against British for very long time. The way British was conquering other regions with the help of Indians he knew Punjab won’t hold out much longer either. He cared for the kingdom he established and wanted his son to rule after him. How could a king not care for his kingdom and his sons? At least read Ganda Singh’s books. Any evidence? It was only her and Pandit Dina Nath who fully knew what British thought once they came to Lahore in 1846 as “protectors”. She encouraged the army to fight the British till their last breath. She invited Sham Singh Attariwala to the battle. She told her son not to put saffron mark on the forehead of Tej Ram. No. She had no say when Maharaja Ranjit Singh was alive. After he died she took no part in politics until her son was appointed and at that time British kept her away from the Darbar and British resident appointed everyone. The army killed her brother because he threatened to go to the British. But Rani was considered “Raj Mata” by the army. When the army was not getting enough food and ammunitions the generals went to her for help because they knew she would listen. She cared for her husband’s kingdom. Dogras were killing not the army. Dogras caused death of Kharak Singh and Nau Nihal Singh. They killed Chand Kaur and Charat Singh. They killed Sher Singh. Mind you it was the army that killed Heera Laal and Suchait Ram and later supported Sandhawalias to kill Dhiyan Chand. What books are you studying from? She expected the Khalsa army to beat the British and they could have had the Dogras not betrayed. Army supported Jind Kaur. Fauj was never against the royal family. It was dogras who sold secrets of the Khalsa to the British. When army persisted on attacking Firozpur, Laal Chand kept refusing and delaying. He acted on British orders. Even British historians agree to this. Simply ignorant. He was only 9 when he was taken into British custody. He was placed under supervision of British agents, surrounded by non-Sikh servants and taught bible every night by a Brahmin. He was removed from Sikhs and Sikhi. Ganda Singh, Sohan Singh Seetal, Letters of Dalhousie and Logan etc all confirm that British practically imprisoned Daleep Singh and influenced him to convert to Christianity. He was kept away from Punjab for his entire life so that he wouldn’t return to his heritage. Any evidence? His letter addressed to Sikhs has much different tone as you claim. He wanted his kingdom back because he had found out that it was deceitfully taken away from him (not won). I hardly doubt he ever read Sau Sakhi but he was the true heir to his father’s throne. I think you hardly know anything about Maharaja Ranjit Singh and the Sikh kingdom. Please read some authentic books instead of biased works of European travelers and British agents whose aim was to justify British annexation over Punjab.

Half of the state revenue went to dharamsalas as grants. He even tried to open an English school but refused to accept Bible study as part of the curriculum. What more do you want? War against the British was fought with weapons and Ranjit Singh had a strong army trained on European lines. Weapons built in factories in Punjab were better than European ones. Sikhs beat the British but lost at the end because of betrayal. This shows that Ranjit Singh was a great leader and protected Punjab from the British. He was an intelligent and far sighted person. He has negative points (and so does everybody) but he made no mistakes that resulted in loss of our kingdom. This is utterly foolish talk. Rani Jindan was daughter of Manna Singh, a Sikh. She remained loyal to the Sikh kingdom and was the only real threat against British during Anglo-Sikh wars. She fully knew British plans and always countered them. This is why she was exiled and never allowed back in Punjab. Daleep Singh's return to Sikh faith and turning against the British was also due to her influence. How else do you explain her sufferings until her death? Punjabi Muslims served in the Sikh army and fought against the British. It was dogras and brahmins of U.P. that betrayed us. What evidence do you have that Rani Jindan was against the kingdom ruled by her husband?

jassa singh, it is only but shameful how you turn blind eye on something that happened in last 25 years just to support your own jatha that is well known to have played as puppets at the hands of the government. There are numerous books along with records of SGPC, eye witness accounts and hukamnamas of Akal Takhat that prove you wrong. Akal Takhat was greatly destroyed during the attack. There was discussion among the panthic organizations whether to keep the building as is and build another one right beside it. The government wanted to hide its misdeeds and for this purpose hired Santa Singh to do the job. Army remained in Darbar Sahib for many months and sangat didn't have freedom to have open darshan. The new building was built by Santa Singh with the support of the government even though it had been declared from Akal Takhat that no one should cooperate with the government. Santa Singh claimed that he was the only jathedar of the Panth and refused to recognize the jathedar of Akal Takhat. He said he didn’t need to reply to any jathedar since Akal Takhat was no more. Building built by Nihungs was torn down by the Panth and then rebuilt. It is a well known fact that Buddha Dal jathedar Santa Singh played the role of a traitor and remained a traitor until he peshed in 2001 and was forgiven. Hukamnamas of Akal Takhat are more than enough to prove that what you claim as rumors are facts. I will post copies of those hukamnamas and then you can respond.

It would be great if original one can be found. Baba Binod Singh also wrote a granth which still remains unpublished. I have not read it yet and will try to get a copy on my next visit. Also, Baba Binod Singh couldn't have gone to Hazoor Sahib since Guru Sahib became Joti Jot while Baba Banda Singh was on his way to Punjab.

I didn’t say it occurred after his death. His sudden success was mistaken as him possessing supernatural powers (during his life) which became the reason for his associates to promote him as a Guru after his death. Baba Banda Singh never performed any “miracle” after he became a Sikh. I trust what makes more sense. Persian accounts are silent on this issue otherwise someone would’ve mentioned it in 18th century. It happened at Darbar Sahib where Bhai Mani Singh was a granthi. Bhai Mani Singh was respected by Hindus and Muslims as well and he was considered the most trustworthy person among Sikhs. Many misconceptions exist such as Tatt Khalsa sided with the Mughals to defeat Banda Singh and Mata Sundari Ji signed a treaty with the government. This is why Bhangu brought in a mughal at Darbar Sahib but none of the Persian sources mention anything remotely close to it. Perhaps you should read Ganda Singh’s work on it and study his arguments refuting Bhangu’s assertions. Proofs exist in abundance. Bhangu cannot be correct in front of contemporary accounts of Baba Banda Singh. Conflict occurred but doesn’t prove Baba Banda Singh indulged in anti-Sikhi activities. It depends on what you mean by “dubious”. But he never insisted upon anything and proof that he retraced “Fateh Darshan” proves how he behaved. He considered Khalsa as the leader of the Panth as is clear from his hand written hukamnama. Khalsa Raaj established by Khalsa Panth under the leadership of Baba Banda Singh. Comparing his edition with an unedited version can confirm what was removed (if it was) and only then can we determine whether it was right or wrong. Nonetheless, I wanted to inquire about Bhai Veer Singh’s book and will try to get it on my next visit to Punjab. I will also try to find an unedited version of Panth Parkash. Other than that, I do not believe Baba Banda Singh did anything wrong as preached by Bhangu.

When reading Persian texts we must be aware of the fact that they are written with certain degree of hostility and Sikhs are portrayed as oppressors. They do not care about internal affairs of the Sikhs. Also, none of the Muslims were ever present during Gurmattas or meeting of Khalsa. Muslims can only write about what they witness or hear about Sikhs and that was about how they fight. They wrote about political role of Sikhs but not much about their lifestyle or internal religious affairs in which they were never involved. Only after shaheedi of Tara Singh Wan did Khalsa came out in the open and started fighting so clearly during that period many historians would be silent. Fact is that when Baba Banda Singh died as a true Sikh some of his associates portrayed him as the Guru and started a separate sect. This was due to the revolution he brought and his sudden success that ordinary people started considering him a person with supernatural powers. Bhai Mani Singh intervened and resolved the issue. It was he who performed the Ardaas and threw in the two slips. He was the most trustworthy person. When he picked up the slip that came on top, majority of Bandayees joined Tatt Khalsa and rest were suppressed. This sect ended soon after. Regarding “Fateh Darshan”: Baba Banda Singh did introduce it but not to replace the original Fateh. When Khalsa rejected it, Baba Banda Singh never reinforced it. Ganda Singh has written specifically on this topic. Other than this none of the allegations of Bhangu are found in earlier sources. I have discussed this in details in the link provided. He lived and died as a Sikh. It was his associates that promoted him to the level of Guru and Baba Ji cannot be blamed for it. Naamdharis promote Baba Raam Singh as the Guru but he always remained a Sikh and his letters confirm it. Similarly, hukamnamas written by Baba Banda Singh confirm his dedication to Sikhi. The fact that he was arrested and executed is the real proof of who he was. Had he left Sikhi, Mughals would have never executed him. Farukh Siyar ordered to release a young man from Baba Ji’s group when his mother said he wasn’t a Sikh. But when the young Sikh said he was a true Sikh he was executed. This shows the government was against Sikhs and Baba Ji was martyred for that. Bhai Baaj Singh, Baba Binod Singh etc were all Sikhs. Till this day descendents of Baba Ji live in Kashmir and follow Sikhi to the core. None of the anti-Sikhi practices are found among them. Bhangu blamed Baba Banda Singh for the loss of Khalsa Raj. He was a Bhangi and jhatka eater so surely he mixed up these practices in earlier events. He writes about reading Chandi Di Vaar during Amrit Sanchaar which is not found in any of the earlier texts. Giani Gian Singh used to eat ‘afeem’ and wrote the same about Guru Sahib. Bhai Veer Singh would never have removed portions of Panth Parkash with the intent of deceiving the readers. In fact, he has written “Devi Poojan Partaal” in which he examines Panth Parkash and all other sources on historical level and refutes that Guru Sahib never worshipped goddess. Panth Parkash is an important historical source but not 100% correct. He also makes many other mistakes but he is totally wrong about Baba Banda Singh.

Only Khafi Khan exaggerated the truth more than others. All Muslims hated Sikhs but none of them accuse Banda Singh of what Bhangu does. Muslims’ propaganda was that Banda Singh was a criminal and killed Muslims. Not a single Persian source written up till 1734 states that Banda Singh went against Sikhi considering the fact that he was killed for being a "Nanak-Panthi" (Sikh). Had he gone against Sikhi, he wouldn’t have been arrested and killed. I would be interested if you could provide some references that confirm Bhangu's assertions. No historic source (Persian, English, Punjabi) can be declared 100% accurate. We must be careful to separate facts from fiction. Hukamnamas of Banda Singh confirm who he really was: a true Sikh who considered Khalsa as the real jathedar of the Panth. Read this topic first before you start posting the same old arguments. http://www.sikhsangat.com/index.php?showtopic=39296&hl=

It could be true since some of his books are not published anymore. Could you provide more details. What is the name of the book (by Bhai Veer Singh)? When was it published? Did he edit it only or also provided translation (in Punjabi) with it? Does it say that only edited version is now published? I have a copy of Panth Parkash in Punjabi without translation and will try to examine it.

One must understand why Bhangu projected misconceptions about Baba Banda Singh as facts. He wanted to write “true” version of Sikh history and convince the British and Murray that Khalsa was the true ruler of Punjab and this rule was granted to them by Guru Sahib himself. Then one must ask why this rule was taken away and why Sikhs suffered so much after Baba Banda Singh? To address this, Bhangu explained that Baba Banda Singh turned his back on Guru Sahib and indulged in anti-Sikhi practices for which he lost and the rule blessed to Khalsa was taken away. One can read the analysis of Panth Parkash in “Khalsa over 300 Years”. Sardar Karam Singh, Prof. Ganda Singh and other scholars have correctly pointed out fallacies in Bhangu’s work and we must keep in mind that after all it is an historical book written by a human being. Therefore, it is bound to have intentional and unintentional mistakes. All contemporary sources and eye witness accounts written mostly in Persian clearly state the reasons for Baba Banda Singh’s defeat and his steadfast faith in Sikhi. Not a single source mentions him diverting from fundamental principles of Gurmat. Ganda Singh too has refuted many of misconceptions. If one still insists on accusing Baba Banda Singh of apostasy in abundance of historical proofs proving otherwise then he must be a fool. The topic regarding Baba Ji has been discussed here http://www.sikhsangat.com/index.php?showtopic=39296&hl= Bhai Veer Singh Ji has written commentary on Sooraj Parkash not Panth Parkash. He did not remove anything but explained which portion is against Gurmat. He has also written about sources which helped Kavi Santokh Singh to write his books and naturally fallacies passed on.

I find it unfortunate that most Sikhs have still not understood the real purpose behind Vaars. Bhai Gurdas Ji's work is the most authentic and completely in line with Gurbani. In fact, Vaars are not only based on Gurbani but derived from it which is why Guru Sahib never included them in Guru Granth Sahib. Bhai Sahib took many principles of Gurmat and explained them in simpler terms by giving stories, examples, metaphors etc. Story of Bhagat Dhanna Ji is no different. Second post of this topic proves that Gurbani rejects idol worship because it is a blind ritual which bears no fruit. If one wants to understand if Bhagat Ji worshipped idols then reading Shabads by him in Gurbani have to be the ultimate authority. I would trust Bhagat Ji’s bani and Guru Arjan Dev Ji and not some book. Gurbani rejects idol worship and Guru Gobind Singh Ji called idol worshippers “animals” in Akal Ustat. I don't see why we have to give precedence to Vaars over Gurbani. In any case, here is the entire pauri. ਬਾਮ੍ਹਣ ਪੂਜੈ ਦੇਵਤੇ ਧੰਨਾ ਗਊ ਚਰਾਵਣਿ ਆਵੈ॥ ਧੰਨੈ ਡਿਠਾ ਚਲਿਤੁ ਏਹੁ ਪੂਛੈ ਬਾਮ੍ਹਣੁ ਆਖਿ ਸੁਣਾਵੈ॥ ਠਾਕੁਰ ਦੀ ਸੇਵਾ ਕਰੈ ਜੋ ਇਛੈ ਸੋਈ ਫਲੁ ਪਾਵੈ॥ ਧੰਨਾ ਕਰਦਾ ਜੋਦੜੀ ਮੈ ਭਿ ਦੇਹ ਇਕ ਜੇ ਤੁਧੁ ਭਾਵੈ॥ ਪਥਰੁ ਇਕ ਲਪੇਟਿ ਕਰਿ ਦੇ ਧੰਨੈ ਨੋ ਗੈਲ ਛੁਡਾਵੈ॥ ਠਾਕੁਰ ਨੋ ਨ੍ਹਾਵਾਲਿ ਕੈ ਛਾਹਿ ਰੋਟੀ ਲੈ ਭੋਗੁ ਚੜ੍ਹਾਵੈ॥ ਹਥਿ ਜੋੜਿ ਮਿਨਤਿ ਕਰੈ ਪੈਰੀ ਪੈ ਪੈ ਬਹੁਤੁ ਮਨਾਵੈ॥ ਹਉ ਬੀ ਮੁਹੁ ਨ ਜੁਠਾਲਸਾਂ ਤੂ ਰੁਠਾ ਮੈ ਕਿਹੁ ਨ ਸੁਖਾਵੈ॥ ਗੋਸਾਈ ਪਰਤਖਿ ਹੋਇ ਰੋਟੀ ਖਾਹਿ ਛਾਹਿ ਮੁਹਿ ਲਾਵੈ॥ ਭੋਲਾ ਭਾਉ ਗੋਬਿੰਦ ਮਿਲਾਵੈ ॥13॥ Bhai Sahib writes the popular story about Bhagat Ji. He is not writing to validate the story. His purpose of writing it lies in the last line which means "Through innocent love (ਭੋਲਾ ਭਾਉ ) God is obtained". Bhai Veer Singh Ji also states that Bhai Gurdas Ji is not supporting the story and the essence of the Pauri has nothing to do with Bhagat Ji, Pandit or idol worship. What we learn from this pauri is that if one wants to obtain God then he must have strong devotional worship or strong faith and that faith must be innocent or free of desires. The only desire that must exist is to have darshan of God and that is only possible through strong faith not blind faith. The popular story is used only as an example to highlight the importance of faith, dedication and love. Once again, Bhai Sahib is not saying that story is true or idol worship is right. This Pauri is based on the following Shabad of Gurbani: ਕਬੀਰ ਜੀ ਗਉੜੀ ॥ ਕਿਆ ਜਪੁ ਕਿਆ ਤਪੁ ਕਿਆ ਬ੍ਰਤ ਪੂਜਾ ॥ ਜਾ ਕੈ ਰਿਦੈ ਭਾਉ ਹੈ ਦੂਜਾ ॥1॥ ਰੇ ਜਨ ਮਨੁ ਮਾਧਉ ਸਿਉ ਲਾਈਐ ॥ ਚਤੁਰਾਈ ਨ ਚਤੁਰਭੁਜੁ ਪਾਈਐ ॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ ਪਰਹਰੁ ਲੋਭੁ ਅਰੁ ਲੋਕਾਚਾਰੁ ॥ ਪਰਹਰੁ ਕਾਮੁ ਕ੍ਰੋਧੁ ਅਹੰਕਾਰੁ ॥2॥ ਕਰਮ ਕਰਤ ਬਧੇ ਅਹੰਮੇਵ ॥ ਮਿਲਿ ਪਾਥਰ ਕੀ ਕਰਹੀ ਸੇਵ ॥3॥ ਕਹੁ ਕਬੀਰ ਭਗਤਿ ਕਰਿ ਪਾਇਆ ॥ ਭੋਲੇ ਭਾਇ ਮਿਲੇ ਰਘੁਰਾਇਆ ॥4॥6॥ Gauree, Kabeer Jee: What use is chanting, and what use is penance, fasting or devotional worship, to one whose heart is filled with the love of duality? ||1|| O humble people, link your mind to the Lord. Through cleverness, the four-armed Lord is not obtained. ||Pause|| Set aside your greed and worldly ways. Set aside sexual desire, anger and egotism. ||2|| Ritual practices bind people in egotism; meeting together, they worship stones. ||3|| Says Kabeer, He is obtained only by devotional worship. Through innocent love, the Lord is met. ||4||6|| Notice that last line of the Shabad is almost the same as the last line of the Pauri by Bhai Gurdas Ji. In this Shabad we understand what “Innocent Love” really is and what idol worship is thought of in Gurmat. Bhagat Ji says that fasting, idol worship, blind rituals etc are all futile. People with blind faith worship idols but can never be free from maya. Only by innocent love (renunciation of greed, lust, ego and worldly desires) does one obtain God. This explains what Bhai Gurdas Ji is saying in the Pauri. Bhai Sahib chose to explain the same thing in a different manner and that is by using the story. Using a fake story to explain a moral message is one thing and supporting that fake story to be true is another. Here are some more lines from Vaars and Gurbani which show that Vaars are based on Gurbani. Blue color is Gurbani and black is Vaars. ਚਾਰੇ ਜਾਗੇ ਚਹੁ ਜੁਗੀ ਪੰਚਾਇਣੁ ਆਪੇ ਹੋਆ ॥ ਆਪੀਨ੍ੈ ਆਪੁ ਸਾਜਿਓਨੁ ਆਪੇ ਹੀ ਥੰਮ੍ ਖਲੋਆ ॥ ਆਪੇ ਪਟੀ ਕਲਮ ਆਪਿ ਆਪਿ ਲਿਖਣਹਾਰਾ ਹੋਆ ॥ ਸਭ ਉਮਤਿ ਆਵਣ ਜਾਵਣੀ ਆਪੇ ਹੀ ਨਵਾ ਨਿਰੋਆ ॥ ਚਾਰੇ ਜੱਗੇ ਚਹੁ ਜੁਗੀ ਪੰਚਾਇਣ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਆਪੇ ਹੋਆ॥ ਆਪੇ ਪੱਟੀ ਕਲਮ ਆਪ ਆਪੇ ਲਿਖਣਹਾਰਾ ਹੋਆ॥ ਹੋਰਿਂਓ ਗੰਗ ਵਹਾਈਐ ਦੁਨਿਆਈ ਆਖੈ ਕਿ ਕਿਓਨੁ ॥ ਨਾਨਕ ਈਸਰਿ ਜਗਨਾਥਿ ਉਚਹਦੀ ਵੈਣੁ ਵਿਰਿਕਿਓਨੁ ॥ ਉਲਟੀ ਗੰਗ ਵਹਾਈਓਨ ਗੁਰ ਅੰਗਦ ਸਿਰ ਉਪਰ ਧਾਰਾ॥ ਪੁਤੀਂ ਕੌਲ ਨ ਪਾਲਿਆ ਮਨ ਖੋਟੇ ਆਕੀ ਨਸਿਆਰਾ॥ ਬਾਝੁ ਗੁਰੂ ਡੁਬਾ ਸੰਸਾਰੁ ॥2॥ ਬਾਝ ਗੁਰੂ ਡੁੱਬਾ ਜਗ ਸਾਰਾ ॥29॥ ਗੁਰ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਕਾ ਜੋ ਸਿਖੁ ਅਖਾਏ ਸੁ ਭਲਕੇ ਉਠਿ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਧਿਆਵੈ ॥ ਉਦਮੁ ਕਰੇ ਭਲਕੇ ਪਰਭਾਤੀ ਇਸਨਾਨੁ ਕਰੇ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਸਰਿ ਨਾਵੈ ॥ ਕੁਰਬਾਣੀ ਤਿਨਾਂ ਗੁਰਸਿਖਾਂ ਪਿਛਲ ਰਾਤੀਂ ਉਠ ਬਹੰਦੇ॥ ਕੁਰਬਾਣੀ ਤਿਨਾਂ ਗੁਰਸਿਖਾਂ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਵਾਲਾ ਸਰ ਨ੍ਹਾਵੰਦੇ॥ ਜਨਮ ਮਰਣ ਦੁਹਹੂ ਮਹਿ ਨਾਹੀ ਜਨ ਪਰਉਪਕਾਰੀ ਆਏ ॥ ਜੰਮਣ ਮਰਨਹੁ ਬਾਹਰੇ ਪਰਉਪਕਾਰੀ ਜਗ ਵਿਚ ਆਏ॥ ਓਹੁ ਵੇਖੈ ਓਨਾ ਨਦਰਿ ਨ ਆਵੈ ਬਹੁਤਾ ਏਹੁ ਵਿਡਾਣੁ ॥ ਆਦਿ ਪੁਰਖੁ ਆਦੇਸੁ ਹੈ ਓਹੁ ਵੇਖੈ ਓਨ੍ਹਾ ਨਦਰਿ ਨ ਆਇਆ॥ ਜੇਹਾ ਬੀਜੈ ਸੋ ਲੁਣੈ ਮਥੈ ਜੋ ਲਿਖਿਆਸੁ ॥ ਜੇਹਾ ਬੀਜੈ ਸੋ ਲੁਣੈ ਜੇਹਾ ਬੀਉ ਤੇਹੋ ਫਲ ਪਾਈ॥ ਸਤਜੁਗਿ ਸਤੁ ਤੇਤਾ ਜਗੀ ਦੁਆਪਰਿ ਪੂਜਾਚਾਰ ॥ ਸਤਿਜੁਗਿ ਸਤਿ ਤ੍ਰੇਤੈ ਜੁਗਾ ਦੁਆਪੁਰਿ ਪੂਜਾ ਬਹਲੀ ਘਾਲਾ॥ This proves that Vaars explain Gurbani meanings and Bhai Sahib could never have written anything that goes against Gurmat.

The story can be found in book Excellence of Sikhism by Saroop Singh.