Bijla Singh

With Guru Sahib's kirpa, an article on Gurmantar has been completed for the benefit of the sangat. It was a bit long to be pasted here. Here is the link: http://searchsikhism.com/gurmantar.html

"How did such a small percentage come to dictate what "gurmat" Sikhi is?" You fail to understand the fact that Gursikhi is dictated by Gurbani not by people. So far you have not presented any evidence to make your claims credible. Only Amritdhari practicing gursikhs are Sikhs. The rest who commit bajjar kurehats and don’t keep rehat are not Sikhs in any sense. Hence, the “small minority” that practices Gurmat knows the real message of Gurbani.

Sherdil, since you have not taken Amrit and do not practice rehat fully, how do you know what is approved by Guru Sahib and whats not? What evidence do you have other than your own opinions to back up your false claims that bibek is not part of rehat? Do you even know what rehat bibek constitutes? In my post I have made it clear that Guru Sahib refused to eat from those who were not practicing the truth. Guru Sahib is pure soul and free of sins even then he did not consume food from those who were not religious in practice. Gurbani states that Amrit has the power to erase all sins. One just has to utilize it properly according to rehat. It was the power of Amrit that transformed sparrows into hawks. Since you are non-Amritdhari what authority or evidence do you have to insult Amrit and denigrate it? Panj Pyare tell at Amrit Sanchaar that all past sins get erased provided that one abides by rehat. You audaciously claiming otherwise shows your ignorance and foolishness. An Amritshak is a person who has taken Amrit and an Amritdhari is a person who has adopted the Amrit way of life and lives according to it. An Amritdhari who is an awful human being is not an Amritdhari by definition. One cant be both at the same time. You state Even if all amritdharis were pure and all non-amritdharis were full of sin, it wouldn't affect your kamai to eat from them. You are treating them like untouchables. I dont think you understand the concept of untouchability in Hinduism. Non-Amritdharis are human beings just like all the Sikhs and as humans we are all equal but that does not negate the fact that food from them is unacceptable because it is not prepared according to Gurmat. Rehat clearly prohibits roti beti di saanjh with sirgumm (monas). Untouchables can never become brahmins whereas monas can take Amrit and become part of Khalsa brotherhood. So dont even make a fool of yourself by accusing bibeki Sikhs of practicing inhumanly practice. The fact is that you are bothered by the fact that you belong to a category whose food is not accepted as Guru Ka and rather than making an effort to improve yourself to please Guru Sahib, you are deliberately trying to redefine Gurmat to suit your own lifestyle. In terms of affecting naam kamayee, food definitely has its impact. I can present stories of Sikhs and non-Sikhs as well but to be brief, any action done by physical body has an effect on the mind. If you see something bad, it will influence your mind in a similar way. If you smell something bad, you get abhorrent feelings. If someone yells at you angrily, your state of mind will change to either angry or pathetic. Similarly, the food you eat affects the mind. Since you do not do any Amrit Vela and practice Naam Simran, you do not feel it. Ask those who struggle through Amrit Vela and try to infuse their minds with Naam and make an attempt to find out rather than sitting behind a screen and write gibberish to defy Gurmat. When it comes to benefitting kamayee by keeping bibek, no one will (or should) give away their experiences to you or anyone for that matter because it is not pleasing to Guru Sahib. More one reveals more loss they incur. All I can say is that it is a great aid and significantly contributes to naam simran when it comes to focus, concentration, waking up and feeling refresh all day long. The experience of naam simran is more vigorous and indescribable in words. You will have to experience it yourself. Guru Rakha

"But veer ji, can't someone adopt rehat without taking Amrit?" One can keep the rehat but he wont be a Sikh of Guru Sahib. Not that Guru Sahib hates him but he is not accepted in Gurmat because he is still following manmat. The first step in Gurmat is to submit to the Hukam of Guru Sahib and take Naam. If one chooses to bypass this, he is following manmat to begin with. The closet example to it I can give is this: A person can study at home without enrolling in school or any training program but at the end he will not get any certificate or a professional job. One can try to train himself in any sport, but he wont be taken in any team as a professional player. Similarly, one can do all they want, but it is not worth much without enrollment in school of Gursikhi. One can argue that a university might have a challenge test one can take to get the certificate but it goes to show that he must be held to the university standards after all. Same way, one must be held to Gursikhi standards in terms of character and way of life. So how will a non-Sikh practicing Gurmat at home without any sangat be able to pass the test of Guru Sahib? It is not as easy as a university exam and Guru Sahib would never put a non-Sikh through the test of Gursikhi. One can never be a Gurmukh if he starts his journey following manmat. If five monas get together and follow all the steps of preparing Amrit, it will still not be acceptable as Amrit because they are not guru wala. If a degh prepared by a non-Sikh is not acceptable then on the same lines, his food is not acceptable as Guru Ka Langar either. We need to educate others about bibek with reason so they see their own faults and try to improve themselves rather than compromising Gurmat and pushing others away. Sant Harnaam Singh Ji drank tea that was joothi of another Amritdhari and he took it as a medicine not as a regular practice. There is no mention in Se Kineheya of Sant Ji drinking tea at in dhabas as a regular practice. In fact, he would go on without eating or drinking for days. If we wish to emulate Sant Ji then why not do it as a whole rather than picking easy to follow steps? A Muslim woman once wished to have Sant Kartar Singh Ji to eat at her house but upon finding out the strict dietary rehat of Sant Ji she took Amrit and then invited the jatha over. Sikhs are becoming lax these days which is the major cause of disunity and suffering. Then we wonder why chardi kala is not happening. It is up to the individual if he does not want to follow bibek. It won't make him a sinful or a bad person. But practicing will definitely make him a better Sikh.

I understand. The point still remails that since some food items are inherently impure and some due to the method of their preparation, reciting Gurbani over them prior to consumption is not an acceptable way. Hence, illogical. Baba Nand Singh once refused to eat mangoes bought from a seller who was smaoking with one hand. Sant Kartar Singh refused to eat at someone's house who was in liquor business. Bibek at some level has always been in practice in different jathas. Some Amrit Sanchaars organized by Taksal clearly tell not to eat from non-Amritdharis. Only put faith in someone you know is doing their best to keep rehat and preparing food. A Sikh eats and drinks Amrit and any food without any Amrit rass is unacceptable. If there is uncertainty then why not abstain from that food? Have faith in Guru Sahib to provide you with proper food. Bhai Sahib, eh behas da visha nahin. Vichaar should be done on how to overcome challenges in this rehat rather than whether to keep it.

"However, can you ensure that every amritdhari has naam enshrined in their heart?" Why do you need my assurance to begin with when Gurbani is there to tell us who a true Sikh is? An Amritdhari is a person who has adopted rehat (not just taken Amrit) and hence has obtained Naam from Satguru. As long as he abides by rehat of Guru Sahib, he is a Sikh and food from him is acceptable. The moment he falters i.e. commits bajjar kurehat, he is not a Sikh anymore. "Gurbani has power to make everything amrit/paras kala, its always been there..question here comes down to one's individual full faith and prem in gurbani itself regarding this suitation..if someone has pure intent and pure perception relyin on gurbani and recites gurbani before having food ..i honestly believe - food is parvan and could be eaten..!!" This is not a logical statement. Can one take plain water, put it in a plastic bowl, recite Gurbani and expect it to become Amrit to be given to someone as a form of initiation? Absolutely not. Guru Maryada dictates recitation of Gurbani as well as a qualified person(s) while preparing food, degh and Amrit. Otherwise it is not acceptable. Had your logic been valid, Guru Sahib wouldnt have prohibited meat, liquor and tobacco etc. to Sikhs. You have admitted in this very topic that you wouldnt eat from an Amritdhari who hates others and is engrossed in anger. It seems hypocritical not to live by your own standards which you could easily implement by reciting Gurbani over anything he prepares and eat it. Those who think it is not necessary why not just practice it for a month along with full rehat and see how Guru Sahib blesses you?

I am well aware of the sakhi and its details. Every nigura person needs Naam to be saved. Why don't you study Gurbani first to understand this fact? Some like Bhai Lalo were ready to receive it without much hard effort while those like Sajjan and Malik Bhago had to be molded so their fields of hearts could be prepared to plant the seed of Naam. Bhai Gurdas Ji and Guru Sahib Himself make it emphatically clear that Akal Purakh gave Hukam to Guru Sahib to take udasis and give Naam to people. I am not here to convince you. You are entitled to your opinion and live the way you please but don't claim your personal opinions as Gurmat.

Why would Guru Nanak need to give Bhai Lalo Naam? Lalo was already honest and hardworking. That is why Guru ji preferred his food over Malik Bhago's. Thats what Satguru does. He gives Naam. Guru Sahib took tours for the purpose of giving Naam to everyone not to find hardworking people to eat from. Eating food was never his concern to begin with. While honesty and hard work are important, one need to practice these within Gurmat otherwise one can sell tobacco and liquor and call himself an honest hard worker. At the same time, one can reveal secret information about Singhs to government authorities and claim to be truthful. Gurmat defines what honesty means and how it is to be practiced. Being an honest and hardworking doesnt negate the fact that one needs to have Naam to become mukat. This is the emphasis of Gurbani in almost every shabad. It is entirely your lack of understanding of Gurmat that prevents you from seeing the truth. Dont blame the Janamsakhis. Are non-amritdharis unhygenic? Are they? Do their sins rub off on the food? Anything done by physical body affects the mind. I have already proved it in the provided link in the last post. This is not a topic for behas. One needs to practice it to understand it and experience it. Gurmat is not understood by study but by practice. If you dont practice it, you will never get it. Guru Rakha

Bhai Moti Mehar couldn’t have been an ordinary person to have the courage to sacrifice his life for Sahibzadas. He must have been in touch with Guru Sahib and His admirer. Keep in mind that when Guru Sahib introduced Khanda Amrit in 1699, not entire Panth converted overnight. It took some years and as the news spread, Sikhs started to become Khalsa. It is an undeniable fact that all the Sikhs who had not taken Khanda Amrit were still Sikhs because they had taken Naam from Satguru via Charan Amrit. For example, Bhai Dalla and numerous other Sikhs took Khanda Amrit later on and as Guru Sahib proceeded towards Deccan, He organized Amrit Sanchaar. Bhai Moti Mehar could’ve been one of those Sikhs who had taken Charan Amrit prior to 1699 but had not taken Khanda Amrit yet. This would make him a Sikh and hence food from him acceptable to Sikhs. Just to clarify, Charan Amrit was discontinued in 1699 and was never given later on to anyone as a form of initiation to Gurmat. Those who had taken it prior to 1699 were Sikhs and encouraged to take Khanda Amrit to foster unity and further strengthen the brotherhood of Khalsa. As clearly stated in Guru Nanak Chamatkaar, Bhai Lalo Ji was given Naam by Guru Sahib first and then his food was accepted. Same goes for Bhai Sajjan, Bhai Bhoomiya, Noorshah, Bhai Jhanda, Bhai Kalyug, Raja Shivnab and countless others. Read the following post for more info: http://www.sikhsangat.com/index.php?/topic/67931-eating-food-withprepared-by-gursikhs-only/#entry547978

How ironic that Sant Ji who died fighting the government controlled by Brahmins is being called a “bippar” and Makhan who considers himself a “true sikh” does not feel an iota of shame for using the last name ‘Purewal’ which is part of the caste system designed and advocated by the Brahmins. Then who is the real bippar here?

Unicode cannot be displayed and the edit function does not work at all. It gives out an error.

Makhan Purewal is simply an old guy losing his senses more and more as he ages. He considers himself an “educated” and “learned” person whereas the fact is that he has no knowledge of critical analysis. His arguments are flawed and irrational. Here are just a few example: ਮੋਰਚੇ ਦੌਰਾਨ ਭਿੰਡਰਾਵਾਲਾ ਬਿਪਰ ਸਾਧ ਕਿਹਾ ਕਰਦਾ ਸੀ ਕਿ ਆਪਣੇ ਕੋਲ ਹਥਿਆਰ ਜਰੂਰ ਰੱਖੋ ਜੇ ਨਹੀਂ ਮਿਲਦੇ ਤਾਂ ਇਹਨਾ ਟੋਪੀਆਂ ਵਾਲਿਆ ਤੋਂ ਖੋਹ ਲਓ। And what is wrong with this statement and how is it against Gurmat? Sikhs kept asking how to obtain weapons and keep themselves armed when the government had made it impossible for Sikhs to legally acquire them. The solution offered was simple: take them from the government officials. Sikhs will either have to obey the government by keeping themselves unarmed (which is against Guru’s Hukam) or abide by Guru’s Hukam and become true Sikhs which the government brands as illegal and extremism. Since when has a bippar ever instructed the Hindu masses to arm them? ਇਹਨਾ ਨੂੰ ਭਲਾ ਪੁੱਛੇ ਕਿ ਹੁਣ ਰਾਖੀ ਕੌਣ ਕਰਦਾ ਹੈ ਜਾਂ ਪਹਿਲਾਂ ਕਉਣ ਕਰਦਾ ਸੀ? This does not change the fact that Sant Ji defended Darbar Sahib’s sanctity. It is the responsibility of every Sikh to protect the Gurdwaras. Sikhs have been doing this since the beginning. Hence the ir mention in the third para of Ardaas. Why didn’t Makhan Purewal himself offer his life or why has he been hiding behind the computer all these years? He calls himself a Sikh yet doesn’t exhibit a single characteristic of courage to match the deed of Sant Ji. Has a bippar ever fought valiantly for the defense of Darbar Sahib? ਮਾਰਕ ਤੁਲੀ ਨੇ ਤਾਂ ਅੰਤਲੀ ਲੜਾਈ ਵਾਲੀ ਕਿਤਾਬ ਵਿੱਚ ਪੰਨਾ 88 ਤੇ ਇਹ ਵੀ ਲਿਖਿਆ ਸੀ ਕਿ 1983 ਦੇ ਗਣਤੰਤਰ ਦਿਵਸ ਤੋਂ ਅਗਲੇ ਦਿਨ ਭਿੰਡਰਾਂਵਾਲੇ ਦੇ ਬੰਦਿਆਂ ਨੇ ਪਹਿਲੀ ਵਾਰ ਬੈਂਕ ਲੁੱਟਿਆ ਸੀ। And where is the proof that a close friend of Indira and an advocate of Indira’s policies, Mark Tully, is telling the truth? Makhan only picks out what he wishes to believe to satisfy his whimsical delusions but offers no valid reasoning to substantiate his invalid false claims. Had Sant Ji been an agent, the government would’ve escorted him out of the complex safely and protected him just like Longowal, Tohra, Talwandi and Badal. True Sikhs sacrifice themselves for the honor of the Panth while government agents malign the image of true shaheeds and all their life commit no single act to benefit the Panth. Makhan Purewal is one of them.

Bhai Mani Singh’s Janamsakhi has been interpolated. Its older manuscripts show Kattak date as per Dr. Trilochan Singh. Oldest copy of Bhai Bala Ji’s Janamsakhi of 1658 shows Kattak date. Bhai Behlo Ji’s (contemporary of Guru Arjan Dev Ji) granth, Soochak Parsang Guru Ka, also shows Kattak date. Some most accurate Gurparnalis such as the one by Gulab Singh show Kattak date as well as the correct total age. Vaisakh Nahin Kattak by Ishar Singh Nara is a good refutation to Sardar Karam Singh’s book. There has been a long discussion on this topic before. Guru Rakha

I have never been asked this question but i would say: Guru Sahib kirpa karke paath karaa lainde. Mein kaun aa karan wala. Or you can ask them about their bank balance and when they say its personal or something, say bani you read is also like your bank balance and you wouldn't disclose the amount. But never say how much you do. Guru Rakha

One has to have knowledge of the language in order to translate it which requires understanding the context and metaphors. Your point is flawed. How can one translate a language and not understand it? There are many sakhis that prove beyond the doubt that Guru Sahib and many Sikhs had the knowledge of Hindu texts. Guru Sahib employed many scholars, poets etc. to translate the works so that Sikhs wouldn’t have to go to Brahmins. My contention is that Sikhs were trained and educated by Guru Sahib and not by Brahmins. Which teekas have you read so far? If “antriv” to you means presenting Vedantic terms and empty Hindu philosophies then this is not in-depth analysis of Gurbani itself. One doesn’t need a Gurbani teeka to know these terms. Gurbani interpretation needs to be in line with Gurmat not Vedant. Your traditional and modern approaches are lacking the middle ground. You fail to understand the point. Guru Sahib had weapons, knowledge and literature of modern age of his time. It is not the principles one needs to give up but the application of them. Is the Indian soceity the same as 300 years ago? Completely irrelevant. Khalsa was established where most needed and it was a modern army and complete break-off from Hinduism. Modern enough for me. But in today’s world, Khalsa should acquire modern weapons. The principle here is to keep arms and be ready to fight the enemy. They utterly fail to present Gurmat and Sikh history using modern methods. I am not talking about giving up Gurmat principles but presenting them using modern day applications. Why not study western philosophy and relate Gurmat to it? Is that so hard for Nirmalas? Why keep sticking to Vedant which hardly anyone studies in India let alone the rest of the world. How many Nirmalas have universities in which one can obtain PhD on various Gurmat topics? Taksal was once a Sikh university but modern day standards have changed and Taksal and sampardas have failed to keep up. Once again, they need to revise the syllabus and setup a curriculum by keeping it to the standards of modern studies, use scientific approaches, study eastern and western philosophies, learn English and be well versed in debates etc. Most scholars writing books on Sikhi come from Punjabi universities and unfortunately most of the works are terribly poor. If sampardas could fill in the void, they can bring back their glory. I know some scholars from sampardas but they are very few. Guru Rakha

Bhai Sahib, Gurdwaras under Udasis and Nirmalas were never and are not their personal property. There is affine line between my personal house and a Gurdwara. Sikhs who sacrificed for Gurdwaras were not goons. The real goons were those who left Gurmat and adopted Hinduism. What kind of so-called traditions were they able to preserve by falling in the hands of Hinduism? This is simply an excuse. A true Sikh wouldn’t leave Gurmat. He rather die but sampardas gave up Gurmat and made alliance with Hinduism. Now where is the part of saving traditions? They turned their back on Gurmat traditions and Sikhs sacrificed to win back their Gurdwaras which udasis considered their personal property. Udasis and Nirmalas held property dearer to save which they gave up Gurmat. There is no written evidence to support this. Even Amrit Sanchaars held by many Taksals do not hold this practice. Oral traditions can be fabricated as is being done by Nihungs and nangs today. Your own point refutes your claim here. If Sikhs destroyed these frescos then why didn’t they destroy all the painting on the walls of Darbar Sahib? Where is the evidence? Or will you hide behind “oral tradition” again? There are plenty of Singh Sabha accounts available and the fact that you cannot present a single evidence proves that your assertions have no claim. Worshipping idols/images is strictly against Gurmat. There is not a single pankti in Gurbani that supports idolizing God. A true Singh of Guru Sahib rejects idol worship and preaches the same. Destroying a picture (though not anti-Gurmat) will not bring about the change in person. I do not know why you present such irrational and invalid arguments. Do you expect to have a siropa by depicting a physical saroop of Shabad Guru? Original Singh Sabha died in 1902. All the supporters of Kala Afghana etc. are the modern Singh Sabha and a disgrace to the original Singh Sabha. The latter revived the Panth while the former is destroying it. Yet again, no response from sampardas. it is foolish to discredit and malign the entire Singh Sabha based on just one person’s misdeeds. Would it be wise to denigrate the Buddha Dal of past and present based on Sant Singh’s treacherous role? Think about it.

This has already been refuted. Singh Sabha ceased to exist in 1902. You blindly ignore facts for no reason. Sikhs not just Singh Sabha wanted Gurdwara practices brought back to Sikhi while pujaris did not. So the latter openly went in the arms of Hinduism to which they already subscribed. Their greed was good enough to show that they held property and materialistic things dearer than Gurmat. No evidence provided. Some 18th century accounts published in the book by Niddar prove that there used to be only one Granth parkash in Sikh Gurdwaras. No doubt, Dal Khalsa kept both saroops but there is no early evidence to suggest that parallel and equal parkash used to be done. When Guru Gobind Singh Ji passed on Guruship, how many granths were parkash at the time? This settles the debate. Pictures, idols etc, are strictly against Gurmat. Pujaris installed idols in Gurdwaras and Sikhs threw them out. What would you say about Gurdwaras in Kabul, U.P. and Bengal from which idols were thrown out? Singh Sabha? Nihungs have been carrying out some of their manmat practices to this day. I do not see them reforming. Some of these Nihungs openly supported mahants and not to mention Buddha Dal supported Indira Gandhi. Thank God Darbar Sahib wasn’t under their control. This has been addressed in another topic already. He was excommunicated by the Panth and need I remind you it was the Singh Sabha supporters who opposed, refuted and played a key role in kicking him out. I see no step taken by any samparda to oppose mahants. You fail to see difference between original and modern so-called Singh Sabha. The latter is opposing Dasam Granth while the former supported it. Bhai Randhir Singh, Bhai Kahan Singh, Bhai Veer Singh, Prof. Sahib Singh etc. were all supporters of Dasam Granth. If one group opposed Gurmat using the name of Taksal, would it be wise to write against Damdami Taksal? I think not. Without actually having your facts and reading the history properly, it is not wise to keep harping on the same anti-Singh Sabha statements. Why not act more like a gursikh and focus more on the positives than the negatives?

I really don’t care about Arya Samaj but what evidence do you have to support your claim against Singh Sabha? Any literature from Singh Sabhias (not Singh Sabha period) would be appreciated.

While there isn’t any controversy on Nirmala order being started by Guru Sahib, there is, however, contention on how it started and the purpose of this order. It is a popular story that five Sikhs were sent to learn Hindu texts from Benaras and upon their return they were exempt from taking Amrit and keep the attire they were wearing. There is hardly any shred of truth in this mythical story. All texts that mention the names of these Sikhs clearly state “Singh” as their last name. This proves that they were Amritdharis. Further, Guru Sahib himself was a great scholar and had scores of erudite scholars in his darbar to teach his Sikhs. There was no need to send anyone to Benaras to learn what couldn’t be taught in Guru’s Darbar. To state something otherwise implies that Guru’s House lacked knowledge. If Guru Harkrishan Ji could enable a deaf/dumb person to recite and interpret Geeta, then why couldn’t Guru Sahib and his learned scholars teach other Sikhs? There is a famous sakhi of a Guru’s ordinary Sikh composing a riddle in intricate poetry which a learned person could not solve. This sakhi proves that even ordinary Sikhs cleaning langar halls and horse stables were very learned and capable of beating learned haughty pandits in a scholarly debate. Many reasons can be put forth to prove that no Sikh was sent to any Hindu Brahmin to learn anything. The fact is that Nirmala order was started by Guru Sahib as a missionary order of the Khalsa. This is why their names have “Singh”. Had they been exempt, they wouldn’t have received “Singh” surname any other way. Their mission was to spread out to different parts of the country and establish their akharas at Hindu holy places where people gathered in large numbers and preach Gurmat by debating learned Brahmins, yogis and pandits. They could easily present Gurmat by comparing it to six Hindu systems and show its uniqueness. They were supposed to present Gurmat by relating it to Hinduism. Their work was successful in the beginning but eventually they fell in the trap of the very system they were supposed to defend Gurmat from. They started presenting Gurmat in Vedantic terms and some of their works are testimony to that fact. After 1849 and even prior to it Sikhs had intermingled with the Hindus so much that it was very difficult to distinguish them. Their practices had become Hinduized. While many Sikhs came back to Gurmat due to Singh Sabha’s preaching, sampardas like Udasis and Nirmalas have been sticking to the old rustic influences of Hinduism to justify their wrongdoings and blame Singh Sabha to have misinterpreted Gurbani. It is an historical fact that Khalsa Panth was started by Guru Sahib and it made mistakes, yet it always revived itself but such has not been observed from sampardas who keep defending their mistakes using the mere excuse of their order being started by Guru Sahib and hence, fail to free themselves from the yoke of Hinduism and Vedanta. They were supposed to be the university of Gurmat scholarship yet they are far behind compared to modern standards. They fail to recognize the importance of Gurbani grammar. Unfortunately, they are not on the progressive path. Their contribution deserves due credit but their lapse into Hinduism is also a grave mistake. Sooner they realize this, the better. Just because the order was started by Guru Sahib does not prove that it has stayed the same throughout history and has been free from errors. This is perhaps one of the foremost reasons why they haven’t been given any importance after Singh Sabha period. They simply lost touch with the Sikh masses and refused to move on. While sampardas complain about not getting due credit for their contribution, they are guilty of the same charges. How many samparda gyanis refer to Sajjan Thug, Bhoomiya thief and Kauda demon as Bhai Sajjan, Bhai Bhoomiya and Bhai Kauda respectively and their great contribution of Sikh parchaar? The life account of these Sikhs is completely unknown to the Sikh nation after they reformed. The point is that the mistakes and bad deeds go a long way and stick to the person’s name forever. No one thinks of Santa Singh’s apology as much as his treachery. This is probably how his name will be remembered in history. In my opinion, the only way for Nirmalas and sampardas to gain more respect and credit for their contribution is by reforming and modernizing themselves. They must keep up with the changing pace and present Gurmat by relating it to modern thought while keeping its purity and essence. They need to adopt new methods of study and let go off Hindu influences. Sikhs also need to be concerned about this order as it used to be the missionary wing of the Panth. I hope one day all sampardas and modern schools join hands and make progressive headway towards Gurmat parchaar. Guru Rakha

About 2-3 months.

If you can read Punjabi then read this article: http://sikhfreedom.com/santmisc.html

It depends on what topic you want to search for. When it comes to Pargat Divas of Guru Sahib, I would say Bhai Bala Ji's Janamsakhi is correct. When it comes to Guru Sahib influencing bhagats, Meharbaan's Janamsakhi is more informational and authentic. All Janamsakhis have mistakes but important information as well. Vilayat and Hafizabad etc are the same in content. Puratan Janamsakhi edited by Bhai Veer Singh Ji is held as the most authentic of all. Guru Rakha

This is the next response to the Hindu blog. We chose to name him Eunuch because he is too coward to reveal his name. Eunuch Debunked Again To our comprehensive four part rebuttal, rather than putting forth a systematic detailed response, Eunuch has published a very pathetic partial response to our Part 1. He has ignored major portions of our response and conveniently picked out points pertaining to Hindu history to give himself some console and self-satisfaction of replying to us. In his entire write-up he repeatedly commits ad-hominem fallacy (personal attacks) and yet boasts of having a debate. We don’t think Eunuch has any comprehension as to what a debate actually is, or what rules are followed in argumentation. Throughout his silly response, he has not provided any page numbers with a reference or even a direct quote. Just by listing some books does not prove that he has actually utilized these works to construct his invalid, weak, unsound and uncogent arguments. Eunuch is either a liar or a hypocrite person because either he has not read the sources listed at the end of his response or he has deliberately concealed the facts exposing the true character of the Marathas. We shall in our response quote from some of the same sources to highlight the facts. Eunuch’s comments are highlighted in red. Before addressing his assertions we wish to refute some of the allegations and unrelated statements made by Eunuch. We note that Khalistani….has not yet had the courage to come and debate Instead the coward hides Don’t worry Mr. Eunuch, we are not going anywhere. Rest assured, your every flawed, hateful and irrational comment will be properly responded to. Show us the proof that you actually sent us a challenge for debate. Putting it on a blog does not prove that we had received it. Mr. Eunuch repeatedly asks us to send him our response which is very visible to him as well as the entire world on our website. We do not need his pathetic blog since we have other independent means of publishing our responses. we find his comments from neo Sikh sites where the very word and idea of a Hindu debating on equal terms is an anathema to them. These sites are deluged in a cesspit of Hindu phobic racist and casteist hatred and are entirely unsuitable for an even debate. He blames our site as not a suitable place for healthy debate because we would not let him speak freely. He has provided no evidence to support his empty claim. In our defense, we never invited him for a debate. We simply responded to his delusional and lethargic statements. Sikhs support freedom of religion and freedom of speech but we do not tolerate any insult to our great religion and heritage. The Sikh religion rejects the caste and varna systems whereas they provide the very foundation of Hindu society. Hindu Simartis such as Mannu Simarti are full of contempt towards the so-called lower caste Shudras. Jadunath Sarkar states: The martial religion of Guru Govind had knit the Sikhs together into organized bands of soldiers, with perfect brotherhood in their ranks and freedom from the distinctions of caste, social gradation, and food, which embarrass and divide the orthodox Hindus. (p. 237) (bold ours) Therefore, it is Hinduism that is riddled with hatred, racism and casteism. the Pakhandis of Khalistan some of whom travel under the banner of the now deceased pseudo fake self-styled holy man Randhir Singh are gripped into twisting an open and spiritual ideology into a monotheistic fascist cult which neatly divides the world into believers and unbelievers. He continues to insult the names of his disputants as well as other respectable Sikhs. This is a clear sign of his fear and cowardice to properly refute our arguments. When one fails to rationally address an opponent’s arguments, one starts to make personal attacks, which is a fallacy according to the rules of logic. On one hand he calls us cowardly but on the other hand he does not have any trait of manhood to even reveal his name. Also, it is hypocritical of Mr. Eunuch to blame us for hatred while giving insulting labels to respected Sikhs for no reason. We are sure that if we started to insult the names of Hindu Marathas, Rajputs and other respected personalities, he would not appreciate it. It is not clear what is meant by “open and spiritual ideology”. Gurmat is always open to everyone. There is still the same Shabad Guru, the same number of doors in Darbar Sahib, the same institution of langar (community kitchen) and the concept of freedom for all. Hindus are welcomed to enter the fold of Gurmat by taking Amrit and leaving the falsehood of Hinduism behind. All those who follow Gurmat are believers and the rest are unbelievers but the latter is not condemned to be killed or persecuted in Gurmat. We are willing to debate Hindus on this subject anytime. Now we address the remaining part of his response: Sikh control was effectively established by leaders like Jassa Singh Ahulwalia and his contempories in the 1770’s. Once again, no evidence is provided. Just by calling it a fact does not make it a fact. Sikhs started the Rakhi system in 1755 according to which all the areas that paid tribute to the Sikhs were given assurances of protection of life and property from all types of invaders. Such a system could only succeed because the people of Punjab accepted the Sikh rule and considered it better than the Mughals and Afghans. According to all history books, Sikhs captured Lahore on April 16, 1765 and released Sikh coins. Official seal included the same inscription that was used by Baba Banda Singh. The inscription is as follows: Deg-o-Tegh-o-Fateh-o-Nusrat-i-bedirang, Yaft Az Nanak Guru Gobind Singh The Kettle and the Sword-the Symbols of Service and Power-Victory and ready Patronage have been obtained from Gurus Nanak-Govind Singh. Even then the war bands were unable to stop the flow of the main Afghan army entering into Punjab until into the 1790’s. Your premise does not support the argument. Just because foreign invaders continued to invade India does not prove that the Sikh rule did not exist. It is as ridiculous as claiming that no Mughal rule existed since Nadir Shah was able to invade India. The fact is that every time a foreigner invaded the country, he was dealt with by the Sikhs. It is worthwhile to note during this period the first Sikh Maharajah Ala Singh and his son Amar Singh continued to pay homage to the Afghan kings to the dismay of his Sikh compatriots. They also vied for Mughal grants (or firmans) of land – Punjab was pressed from the west by the Afghans and from the east by the Marathas – A peace was signed with the Marathas in 1785 by the Sikh chiefs of the area in which they acknowledged the overall rule to the Marathas This again does not prove anything. Even if for the sake of the argument we assume that Maharaja Ala Singh was a tributary to the Afghans, it does not prove that the Sikh rule was absent in Punjab. In fact, there were more Hindu principalities in India that bowed before the Mughals and the Afghans just to keep their kingdoms surviving. Suraj Mal jatt agreed to Abdali’s terms of remaining neutral and then paid the fine of one lakh rupees for helping the surviving Marathas. The backbone of the Marathas was pretty much destroyed in 1761. Although after a decade they were able to recover, they never regained the same position of might and strength they possessed in 1758. During the 5th invasion of Abdali, they quietly left their remaining posts in Lahore and the rest of Punjab without even giving a least amount of resistance to the Afghans. It must be noted that after the battle of Panipat, thousands of Marathas survived and ran away from the battlefield and took shelter in kingdom of Suraj Mal. This highlights the cowardice displayed by the Marathas. History testifies to the fact that such a large number of Sikhs have never ran away from the battle field. At one time only 30 Sikhs fought valiantly against the 30,000 Afghans and the battle ended when every Sikh attained martyrdom. Now we briefly mention the circumstances and treachery of the Marathas in concluding the Treaty of 1785. Shah Alam II sought protection of Mahadji Sindhia who considered it his responsibility to place the emperor in the fort of Delhi and then lead the expedition against the Sikhs. Ghulam Qadir Khan had also been under his protection for years. Sikhs were the only threat Mahadji could see in his way to establishing his own government successfully. Therefore, he opened negotiations with the East India Company who wished to keep Marathas and the Sikhs from forming a union in order to spread its own rule. On February 6, 1785, the Sikh army invaded the area of Daryapur which was part of Ghulam Qadir Khan’s territory. Hearing of the invasion, he quickly offered to pay tribute to the Sikhs and accepted his defeat. This added more to Mahadji’s anxieties and he rushed to sign any treaty with the British. The latter demanded assurance from the Marathas that they would not seek any alliance with the Sikhs and to prove this they must attack the Sikh army. To prove their loyalty and sincerity, Maratha troops under the leadership of Ambaji and Malhar Bapu launched a surprise attack on a body of 500 Sikhs and killed 200 Sikhs. The Sikhs in retaliation raised an army of 20,000 cavalry, a body of infantry and a few guns and attacked the town of Panipat and cut of an entire battalion of the sepoys. The Sikhs at the same time learnt from Lieut. Anderson that the Mahadji had confessed to him about his plan of possessing some of the Sikh territories. Hence, the Sikhs lost all faith in Mahadji. On the other hand, Ambaji feared the continued retaliation of the Sikhs and in order to save himself from disgrace and humiliation in the eyes of his master (Mahadji) he opened reconciliation with the Sikhs through the mediation of Maharao Partap Singh. The latter was already in communication with the Sikhs and managed to have Sikhs sign a treaty with Ambaji. This treaty was signed on March 31, 1785 and a copy was sent to Mahadji Sindhia. According to the treaty, Marathas wanted the help of the Sikhs against kings of Jaipur and Marwar who had not paid their tribute and Sikhs could take over any territory on either side of Jamuna. Further, both parties would stand against a common enemy. When the British learnt of the treaty, they saw in its materialization a danger to their political interests. Lieut. Anderson wished the English and their allies to be included in the treaty as friends and communicated their demands to Mahadji. When Sardar Dulcha Singh arrived to settle all the points of the treaty, to his surprise, Mahadji had taken an opposite standpoint and wished to amend the treaty with new and different terms. When Sardar Dulcha Singh refused, he was detained and forced to sign the new treaty alone on May 10, 1785. He was threatened that if the Sikhs refused they will be facing a war with the Marathas and the British. Sardar Dulcha Singh sent his emissary to the British explaining the treachery and bitter deceit of Mahadji and asking the British stance concerning the Sikhs. The British assured the Sikhs that they would not be attacked and the British would remain neutral in this matter. The Sikh chiefs having learnt of the duplicity of Mahadji decided to break away from the Marathas and the treaty could never be materialized. The Sikhs never acknowledged Maratha sovereignty over any territory. (The Maratha-Sikh Treaty of 1785 by Dr. Ganda Singh) In light of the above circumstances, it is clear that the Marathas were never concerned with forming an alliance with the Sikhs in order to counter the foreign rule. Had Maratha leaders been farsighted they would have stood with the Sikhs against the British which could have changed the course of the Indian history. Alas, Marathas were too narrow-minded and busy with fighting with their own countrymen to accumulate more wealth. Their selfish, self-centeredness and treacherous behavior led them to be played as puppets at the hands of the British who successfully managed to keep two major powers (Marathas and Sikhs) in India disunited to extend their own power and rule. It was only the rise of a Ranjit Singh which prevented Punjab from falling apart. This is partially correct. Maharaja Ranjit Singh solidified and united all the scattered Sikh principalities and formed a kingdom. Once the Sikh kingdom was solidified, the Sikhs began to advance towards the West which reversed the tide and stopped the waves of foreign invaders. This proves that the credit of stopping all foreign invasions goes only to the Sikhs. Quotation from Baji Rao’s letter referring to the invasion of Nadir Shah ‘We will spread our forces from the Narbada to the Chambal to fight Nadir Shah if he comes to us – Only God will decide who will emerge victorious in any battle’ The ignorant Eunuch has not proved anything. Just because Baji Rao wrote something does not prove that the Marathas actually gave a pitched battle to Nadir Shah. Baji Rao died in April 1740 which means he never even faced Nadir Shah. Further, notice the words “if he comes to us” which prove that had Baji Rao lived a little longer, he still would not have faced the Persian King because the Marathas did not care about the rest of the country being looted and depleted of its wealth and people being killed and enslaved. Marathas were willing to fight only if Nadir Shah attacked them but they showed no care otherwise. According to H. G. Keene in his The Fall of the Moghul Empire of Hindustan: The Persians, as is well-known, advanced on Dehli, massacred some 100,000 of the inhabitants, held the survivors to ransom, and ultimately retired to their own country, with plunder that has been estimated at eighty millions sterling, and included the famous Peacock Throne. (p. 22) Furthermore, after this invasion, the areas of Punjab were no longer controlled by Delhi. We ask again. Where were the Marathas then? Perhaps cowardly sitting in their forts amused by their own written letters while Nadir Shah took hundreds of Hindu women as slaves back to Persia. On the other hand, the Sikhs took an offensive approach and attacked Nadir Shah’s army since they were more conscious about the protection of their country. In fact, it is well written in Panth Parkash that while Nadir Shah was returning back to his country through Punjab, the Sikhs did not let him rest and plundered his army. This led Nadir Shah to enquire from Zakariya Khan as to who the Sikhs were. After hearing about the Sikhs, he remarked that the Sikhs will eventually become the rulers if not suppressed. By 1737 they had raided Delhi and then for the next few decades they continued to push under the leadership of the next Peshwa Balaji Baji Rao and finally they controlled Delhi until 1803 under the leadership of the Sindhia family and the great warrior Mahadji Sindhia. Nadir Shah invaded India in 1739 and himself installed Mohammad Shah as the emperor. Ahmad Shah Abdali also personally selected the emperors of Delhi. Sikhs had controlled Delhi under the leadership of Sardar Baghel Singh and Sardar Jassa Singh Ahluwalia for a time period. Therefore, the Marathas did not continuously control Delhi. Furthermore, According to Stewart Gordon in his The Marathas 1600-1818, Volume 2, the Maratha invasions of different areas was not to establish the Maratha rule, but merely to extort money and jewels from Hindus and Muslims alike. It did not benefit the local population or regular Hindus for that matter. The only Hindu group that directly benefitted from these raids was the Brahmins who have a long history of human exploitation. It would not be out of place to briefly describe the differences between the Sikhs and the Marathas. The Marathas had a large kingdom, a paid army, resources and forts for their protection and survival. But on the other hand, the Sikhs did not have any of these conveniences yet they courageously carved out a kingdom of their own. As stated earlier, the Maratha power was at its zenith in 1758 but they failed to resist the Afghans successfully. Although the events and proofs exist in abundance, a few pertinent examples are provided as follows: On 16th January, 1757, Afghan Jahan Khan attacked the Marathas. The Marathas, having put up some resistance under Antaji Makeshvar to the Afghan vanguard, left the city for Kotputli. (Tarikh-i-Alamgir Sani, 89a) Describing Abdali’s 5th invasion in September 1759, Surjit Singh Gandhi in his Sikhs in 18th Century states: On the approach of Ahmad Shah Abdali towards Multan, the Maratha governor with all his troops fled to Lahore….On the northern side, Sabaji vacated Peshawar without offering any resistance. He joined Tukoji at Attock. Here a short engagement took place between Sabaji and the Afghan advance-guard and the Marathas fled towards Lahore. Jahan Khan pursued them to Rohtas. They joined Bapurao. At this place, they made a show of some opposition and then fled away. At Lahore Naroshankar and Narsoji Pandit took to their heels. Narayanrao at Sirhind followed suit. The Marathas from Lahore went to Delhi via Amritsar, Batala, Jullundur and Sirhind, thus avoiding any direct road between Lahore and Sirhind. (p. 140) He further states: Abdali reached Taraori on 24th December 1759. It was here that the Marathas tried to arrest his march, but here they were utterly routed and leaving 400 killed they fled from the battlefield. Abdali reached near Delhi where some Rohella chiefs joined him. He continued his march against the Marathas. Dattaji Sindhia met him at Barari Ghat on the Jamuna, but was slain and his soldiers fled. (p. 141) During the same invasion, Malhar Rao Holkar joined by Jankoji Shinde at Kot Putli quietly absconded without even facing Abdali. At last his forces were defeated at Secundrabad on 4th March, 1760. Malhar Rao, fearing for his life, also fled for Agra and an important Maratha chief Gangadhar Tatya retired to Mathura. Prior to the battle of Panipat in 1761, Abdali wanted to negotiate peace with the Marathas and the latter wished the same but due to other circumstances the battle had to be fought that in turn shattered the Maratha power. The Sikhs on the other hand faced 7 holocausts in the 18th century and the biggest loss came in 1762 which is known as The Great Holocaust. It must be kept in mind that Abdali attacked the Sikhs with a view of completely exterminating them. Yet they were able to give a stalwart battle to Abdali a year later and took over Lahore in 1765. This means that the Sikhs despite incurring great losses, never lost any spirit and courage. Their power and strength continued to increase. Although Marathas contributed to the weakening of the Mughal Empire, they had no intention of establishing a kingdom that would benefit all. They kept their attention focused to looting and plundering. Surjit Singh Gandhi states: The Marathas regarded plunder as their exclusive privilege and were naturally jealous of them (Sikhs) who had the lion’s share in the loot of Sirhind. (p. 124) A closer look at the Maratha history reveals that the Marathas did not even fight for the Hindu cause and looted Hindus and Muslims alike. This became one of the main reasons as to why many of the Hindu kings did not aid the Marathas against Abdali. Agents of Peshwa visited the court of every Hindu prince of Rajputana, but received a cold reception and evasive replies. (Qanungo, History of the Jats, p. 72) Describing reasons for Maratha defeat, Hari Ram Gupta states: His (Balaji Rao) sole ambition was the acquisition of gold from north and south from Hindus and Muslims alike for which purpose even a non-Maratha army could be equally good. Surjit Singh Gandhi further elaborates: Balajirao had alienated the sympathies of almost all the powerful elements in northern India. He dispatched armies to the north not to advance a Maratha or a Hindu cause but to extort money from all and sundry. This was the reason that Hindu chiefs of the Gangetic Doab and the Rajputs did not like the Maratha cause. (p. 146) The same author concludes by saying that the army of Balaji Rao was “unmoved by any consideration of national interests”. Explaining why the Sikhs did not support the Marathas, Surjit Singh Gandhi states: The Rajputs and the Sikhs would have fully supported them. Even the trans-Ganga Rohillas could have been won over. But all these people had been antagonized by the Marathas due to their rapacity and inconsistency. (p. 141) Secondly, the Marathas had made their common cause with the Mughals and were fighting with the Afghans on behalf of the Mughal Emperor and his Wazir. As already stated, half of the tribute collected by the Marathas was to go to the Mughal Emperor and his Wazir. The Marathas were recovering the territories from Afghans in order to establish Mughal rule for which the Sikhs had very bitter memories. (p. 148) According to N. K. Sinha in Part of the Sikh Power, the Marathas signed an agreement with the Mughal emperor in 1752 stating they would fight for him against his own rebels and Abdali in return for being paid. He states: According to this agreement, the Marathas were to defend the Emperor against foreign enemies and domestic rebels. The Emperor was to pay them Rs. thirty lakhs for driving Abdali out and twenty lakhs for suppressing the internal rebels. (p. 17) It becomes amply clear from the presented evidence that the Hindus did not have a united front against the Mughals and the foreign invaders. Furthermore, the Marathas had the sole ambition of accruing wealth whilst being oblivious towards the national cause of subduing the oppressive regimes. Sikhs on the other hand were never paid to do their duty. They willingly fought against Nadir Shah, Abdali and the Mughals. Unlike Marathas, Sikhs did not have an easy way. They were hunted down and official orders were released on three separate occasions to exterminate all the Sikhs. After the battle of Panipat, Maratha power in Punjab was completely obliterated. Abdali amassed great wealth. It is reported that as many as 22,000 men, women and children including the sons and other relatives of the chiefs and officials, were made captives. Beautiful Brahmin women were sold by the Afghans to the Ruhilla and other Indian soldiers at the rate of one tuman (about ten rupees) each. The cash and jewelry were beyond calculation, and the camels and horses innumerable. During every invasion, the foreign invaders would enslave women and children and take them back to their countries to be sold off. The fate of the Maratha women after the Battle of Panipat was the same. It was only the Sikhs who came to their rescue. They attacked Abdali while he was crossing the Beas and he was dispossessed of a large number of the Maratha and other captives whom he was taking home. About 2200 Hindu women who were being taken away as captives by the Afghans were also released at the ferry of Goindwal and restored to their families. (See Kanhiya Lal, Tarikh-i-Punjab, p. 102-103 and Shamsher Khalsa, p. 145) Therefore, it is beyond any doubt that the Sikhs were the only true defenders of the country and its honor while the Marathas kept aloof from the affairs that did not directly involve them. All other Hindu chiefs in the Mughal Empire acted similarly. They allowed the foreign invaders to kill Hindus and enslave their women. Sikhs on the other hand, saved and freed these slaves and not once let any foreign invader pass through Punjab uninterrupted. The likes of Mr. Eunuch are inflicted with hatred, narrow-mindedness and animosity that ignore these facts and spew hateful remarks against the Sikhs and their great contributions. The Jats had a long tradition of resistance against aggressors and Suraj Mal even challenged Abdali after the Battle of Panipat – they ruled the area referred to as the ‘Braj Matsya’ region This is utterly a false statement. Suraj Mal never challenged Abdali because he had no strength of his own to oppose such a formidable Afghan opponent. Jadunath Sarkar writes about helplessness of Suraj Mal during Abdali’s invasion of 1757. As soon as Abdali arrived in Delhi, Suraj Mal sent his envoy professing his submission. The author further states: When on the 4th February the vanquished Antaji reached Mathura, Suraj Mal visited him but positively refused to unite with him in a war against the Afghans, saying, “The Iran Padishah at the head of 50,000 troops has captured the Padishah of Hind, and no one has fired a shot against him, no one has died in resisting him. What then can I do?” (Fall of the Mughal Empire, vol. 2, p. 82) According to Sarkar, Suraj Mal abandoned the Marathas prior to the battle of Panipat and left them to suffer alone. (ibid p. 182) Suraj Mal also accepted Abdali’s terms to remain neutral and not help the Marathas. As stated before, he paid a fine of 100,000 rupees for helping the survivors of Panipat. These facts show that the so-called brave jatt was nothing but a tributary of foreign invaders. According to Manucci the Jats dragged out the bones of Akbar, threw them angrily into fire and burnt them to avenge the death of Gokula. Muhammad Baqa (the Naib of Khan-i-Jahan) who was then at Agra, did nothing to frustrate the rebels This does not show bravery but cowardice on the part of Jatts by disrespecting and disgracing a dead body. Need we remind eunuch the fate of Suraj Mal’s dead body? Sayyad Muhammad Khan Baloch a leading Mughal commander cut off the head and hand from the body of the Jat, and brought and kept with himself for two days. After that these were taken to the presence of Najib-ud-Daula. They only evidence we could partially uncover in this respect is of a Sikh leader – Baghel Singh acting as a mercenary for Ghulam Qadir and his forces in their battles with the Marathas – You cannot call looting, rapine and destructive raids as being conquering a city You need to continue to study more. Ghulam Qadir was under the protection of Mahadji Sindhia and his areas were invaded by Baghel Singh and other Sikh chiefs. The Sikhs attacked, raided and captured Delhi many times, and ruled it on at least three occasions during which they constructed historic Gurdwaras. During this time, Sikhs did not mercilessly kill innocent or enslave women. Unlike Marathas, the Sikhs safeguarded and protected Delhi and its surroundings. Eunuch has provided no evidence that the Sikhs ever engaged in the immoral practice of rapine. On the contrary, Qazi Noor Mohammad, a bitter enemy of the Sikhs, writing spitefully describes Sikhs as highly noble and moral people. He states in his Jangnama written in 1765: Besides their fighting, listen to one more thing in which they excel all other warriors. They never kill a coward who is running away from the battlefield. They do not rob a woman of her wealth or ornaments whether she is rich or a servant ("Kaneez"). There is no adultery among these dogs, nor are they mischievous people. A woman, whether young or old, they call a "Burhi". The word Burhi, means in Indian language, an old lady. There is no thief amongst these dogs, nor is there amongst them any mean people. They do not keep company with adulters and house thieves though all their acts may not be commendable. (bold ours) Dr. Ganda Singh, eminent Sikh historian, in his book Sardar Jassa Singh Ahluwalia states: It is true that in such circumstances, there was some looting, but the Khalsa plundered only the Government treasuries, stores, forts, fortresses, mansions or underground basements of their particular enemies. According to Bute Shah, they would touch neither poor men, nor anybody’s turban, nor women’s ornaments and other goods. (123) (bold ours) Marathas on the other hand considered looting, plundering and rapine as their exclusive rights. When Marathas invaded Bengal in 1742, they committed all sorts of barbaric and sinful acts. Jadunath Sarkar quotes a contemporary account of Bengali Poet Gangaram describing the atrocities committed by the Maratha soldiers: They dragged away the beautiful women, tying their fingers to their necks with ropes. When one Bargi (a Maratha soldier who was supplied with his mount and arms by government) had done with a woman, another seized her; the women shrieked in the agony and ravishment. The Bargis after thus committing all sinful acts, set these women free. Then, after looting in the open, the Bargis entered the villages. They set fire to the houses, large and small, temples and dwelling places. After burning the villages, they roamed about on all sides plundering. Some victims they tied up with their arms twisted behind them. Some they flung down and kicked with their shoes. They constantly shouted, ‘Give us Rupees, Give us Rupees, Give us Rupees.’ (pp. 49-50) (bold ours) In the footnote of the same page, Sarkar writes: The Maratha soldiers were notorious for their practice of gang-rape in invaded territories from a very early time. In 1683 when they invaded Goa districts under the eyes of their king Shambhuji, they committed this kind of outrage. A contemporary Portuguese account of that war states: “These enemies were so barbarous that when a woman appeared very beautiful (lit., best) to them, five or six of them violated her by lying with that woman alone. (p. 49) (bold ours) For similar outrages in Tanjore see Bertrand’s Mission du Madure, iii, 270. We can cite multitude of sources but the evidence provided leaves no doubt that Marathas were not defenders of the country or its honor. Rather, just like foreign invaders, they fully engaged themselves with plundering, looting, killing and raping. Therefore, Eunuch is being mischievous by spewing his hatred towards the Sikhs for no valid reason. Refer to Latifs history and the recent work by Dhavan and you will note that the Malwa Sikhs particularly under the Patiala kings often worked at variance to that of the Sikhs of Doaba and Majha – on one occasion the Rajah of Patiala had to beg forgiveness and went under the protection of Jassa Singh and when he again bowed before the Afghans it was only with difficulty that Jassa Singh could restrain the other Sikhs from wanting to kill the Patiala Sikh Maharajah – Although the Sikhs did unite in moments of overall danger to talk of an overall ‘Sikh army’ is utterly wrong and misleading Just like all other comments, this too is without any evidence or support. Dr. Ganda Singh describes the incident as follows: While returning from India, Ahmed Shah Durrani had conferred the title of ‘King’ on Baba Ala Singh of Patiala who -had accepted all this to mark time. But the Singhs did not approve of this action of Ala Singh. In a way, it amounted to surrender to a foreign invader. The Singhs bore a grouse against Baba Ala Singh for bowing before Durrani…….. When S. Jassa Singh came to know of the whole development, he at once remonstrated with the Khalsa that what was destined to happen had happened. There was no reason for the Singhs to fritter away their energies in mutual conflicts. The Dal Sardars accepted the peace proposal of S. Jassa Singh and they made Baba Ala Singh take Pahul once again, and after charging fine from him pardoned him. (Sardar Jassa Singh Ahluwalia, p. 95, pdf file) Discussing the role of Ala Singh, Principal Satbir Singh in his book Sada Itihaas Vol 2 states that he was a diplomat but not a traitor. He did not help Abdali at all. He relied on the help of the Sikhs and was on good terms with Abdali to keep his area protected. For this reason, the Sikhs punished him and then he was forgiven. He also gave assistance to Marathas in third battle of Panipat. Hence, he was not a traitor but a clever politician. (pp. 248-49) It must be noted that Ala Singh was not the leader of the Sikh nation. He was a politician and managed to appease Abdali by seeking welfare of his subjects. Also, when Abdali tried to negotiate with Sikh leaders, they flatly rejected all the proposals. Dr. Ganda Singh in his book Ahmad Shah Durrani states: “Even the Sikhs could be forgiven by the Shah if they undertook to be obedient to him.'' But they were made of a different mettle. Seasoned into unbending warriors during the last six decades of continuous struggle and sacrifices and having tasted of independence won by the prowess of their arms, they could not be persuaded to submit to a foreigner, much less to one who had slaughtered so many of 'their brethren in the Ghalu-ghara and had demolished and desecrated the holiest of their temples. Moreover, they were then practically masters of the country, which the Shah visited only temporarily. They preferred, therefore, to continue the struggle for a more complete freedom rather than submit for a meaningless honour. (p. 303) The quote above clearly describes the high spirit, mentality and attitude of the Sikhs towards Abdali. Marathas on the other hand, traveled to Punjab to seek negotiations with Abdali. The fact is echoed by Indian historians that Bapuji Mahadev Hingne and Purshotam Hingne were negotiating peace with Abdali while Sikhs suffered a holocaust. (Sardesai, New History of the Marathas, ii, p. 448) Dr. Ganda Singh states that Maharaja Ala Singh did not betray the Sikhs and did not help Abdali which irritated the latter so much that he ordered Zain Khan of Sirhind, his Diwan Lachhmi Narayan and Bhikhan Khan of Malerkotla (Ala Singh's worst enemies) to storm and sack the fort and the town of Barnala and its neighborhood. (Ahmad Shah Durrani, p. 280) One Sikh having some degree of variance with the rest of the nation does not prove that the Sikhs did not unite together against a common enemy. Ala Singh was helped by not only Sardar Jassa Singh but also Baba Deep Singh. According to Panth Parkash of Rattan Singh Bhangu, Ala Singh considered the Sikh Panth as the backbone and support of his kingdom. On the other hand, the Hindus conspired against each other and aligned themselves with foreigners against their own brethren. Marathas felt no uneasiness while attacking territories of other Hindu chiefs and plundering their areas. For example, Raghunath Rao in 1754-55, collected tribute from areas of Jaipur, Kota, Bundi and other Hindu areas. The Hindus essentially helped the foreigners and made it easy for them to slowly take over India. This is a shameful and unforgivable act of the Hindus. Comparably, out of the entire Sikh nation, there stood Malwa states with not significantly large armies, but yet could change the course of history. The facts remain undisputed that the Sikhs were not only better soldiers than Marathas but also had much stronger unity and cohesiveness and were tied together by the same religious ideals. Hindus, in contrast, lacked this terribly. Sarkar writes: In this last respect, as well as in the excellent size breed and fleetness of their horses and their universal use of fire arms, the Sikh far surpassed the Marathas as fighters. (p. 238) Note when the Marathas were fighting on the plains of Punjab and the Golden Temple was desecrated by Abdali in his army marched Ala Singh and thousands of his soldiers who stood quietly by whilst the holy temple was polluted Darbar Sahib was attacked and desecrated in 1757 and 5000 Sikhs gave a strong resistance to Abdali. Most Sikhs were far away in the forests and mountains, due to the countrywide orders of extermination, while Marathas being in Punjab did nothing. We have proved above that the Marathas lacked the courage to openly face Abdali and retreated soon after a small skirmish. When the Sikhs heard the news of the desecration, they allied with Adina Begh and captured the Afghans and brought then back to clean Darbar Sahib. The Sikhs invited the Marathas who went to Darbar Sahib for the very first time in 1758. It is hypocritical of Eunuch to blame Ala Singh for not doing anything while Darbar Sahib was attacked but playing no heed to the facts that Marathas and all other Hindu chiefs paid no heed to the Abdali’s invasion of Mathura in which the Hindu holy city was not only ransacked but thousands of women and children were mercilessly slaughtered. Coward Marathas remained aloof. Sarkar states: Not a single Maratha bled in defense of the holiest of Vaishnav shrines; their pan-Indian suzerainty (Hindupad Padshahi) did not involve the duty to protect. (vol. 2, p. 84) On a side note, the Sikhs never destroyed a temple or a mosque in their areas. This shows their sagacity and tolerance. But Marathas attacked their own brethren and destroyed Hindu temples. According to Dr. Ram Puniyani in his video lecture Facts and Myths, when Marathas attacked Tipu Sultan but were unable to defeat him, on the way back out of spite, destroyed a Hindu temple in Srirang Patnam which was repaired by Tipu Sultan later. The rebellion of Banda Bahadur was a long and determined one against the Mughals – however it remained localised in the Doaba and parts of the Malwa regions – to talk of an 8 year period in which he was constantly at war as being part of an independent state is just pathetic and an insult to those warriors. This is laughable. Mr. Eunuch is not only ignorant but highly imprudent. He fails to show us how crediting Baba Banda Singh of establishing a Sikh state is insult to him or the Sikh warriors? All historical records are unanimous that Baba Banda Singh shook the Mughal Empire from its roots in Northern India. He not only established the Sikh kingdom but also released coins and installed Sikhs as government officials. He successfully reformed the government policies such as Zamindari system. He employed Hindus and Muslims in his army. The fact that he did not have enough time to solidify his short lived kingdom does not negate the fact that the Sikh kingdom existed and it served as a great example for the Sikhs to regain it by defeating the Mughals. Eunuch’s asserts that Baba Ji was constantly in war with the Mughals but does not prove that the Sikh state did not exist. So Eunuch, stop making a fool of yourself and learn some basic rules of logic. Actually the Malwa is the largest part of modern Punjab…..I hear they have a proclivity for farmyard animals in this region Completely irrelevant and pointless statement. Eunuch has pathetically failed to refute our point and instead blabbered about his affection for camels. Another totally misleading and malicious lie. Some proof please – and not from the camel riders from Moga - Your ignorance and lack of accepting the truth does not make our claim false. According to Dr. Ram Puniyani 5 out of 12 generals were Hindus in Gaznavi’s army. These Hindus were Tilak, Saundhi, Arjaandh, Raandh and Hind. (Video lecture Facts and Myths) Further, it was a Hindu Rana Sangha who invited Babar to invade India which led to the establishment of Mughal Empire and enslavement of the country for nearly 300 years. The percentage of Hindu government officials in the reign of Shah Jahan was 24% and it rose to 33% during the reign of Aurangzeb. This shows how Hindus were ancillary of Aurangzeb in his brutal operation of massacring Hindus and forcibly converting them to Islam. This is applicable not where one party has an intention to ‘ethnically and religiously cleanse’ the region of its substantial minorities. Those who complain about being ruled by the ‘brute majority’ of 80% Hindus are fully prepared to impose their own brute majority of 55% in Punjab Where is your evidence Eunuch? Sikhs wish to create a government in which they will have an equal representation. We do not wish to suppress or oppress any majority or minority. From past Sikh rule, we can easily infer that the next Sikh rule will be built upon the same principles and everyone including Hindus will be protected and treated the same way as the Sikhs. A very basic overview of some of the Khalistani literature and writings belie this concern for human rights and equality – the Khalistan issue has nothing to do with human rights or equality – rather it is based on a series of racist and hate filled notions that Sikhs are physically, religiously, morally and in every other way superior to Hindus Once again, care to provide some evidence from your “basic overview” of Khalistani literature? Sikhs strongly believe and follow Gurbani according to which all are created by God and therefore equal. On the other hand, Hinduism follows varna and caste system of Vedas and Simartis according to which all are all created unequal and hence some are superior and some inferior. In our previous rebuttal we have presented enough evidence that human rights abuses have taken place in Punjab on the order of the Hindu regime. We need not repeat it here but a cursory look at reports from human rights commissions reveal the fact that Sikhs were targeted for ethnic cleansing. Deep rooted bigotry, hatred and prejudice does not let Hindus see the truth and keeps them in dark. As far as values are concerned, Gurbani is clear that one’s character makes him a better person so a Sikh following Gurbani and living his life according to the ideals of the Gurus is a better person than those who do not. This does not make Sikhs superior but better indeed. Conclusion Every assertion of Eunuch has been properly addressed, responded to and refuted. We hope to receive a complete, better and rational response next time as well as a response to the rest of part 1 and the remaining 3 parts from Eunuch. We encourage him to shed his ignorance and realize the truth. Sikhs do not hate anyone nor do they promote belittling the Marathas, Rajputs or other Hindus. But since they never fought for the cause of the country, they can never be considered its true heroes. They fought each other for money and wealth and helped foreign invaders in defeating and humiliating their own brethren, thus, making it easier for foreign invaders to conquer India. It was only the Sikhs who stopped all foreign invasions, secured and recovered the annexed areas, and made the country equally peaceful for everyone. Therefore, only Sikhs deserve this credit.

ਬੀਜ ਮੰਤ੍ਰੁ ਸਰਬ ਕੋ ਗਿਆਨੁ ॥ There is no indication of Beej Mantar being Oangkaar. Since Beej Mantar is for everyone, it must be Gurmantar because next pankti talks about Naam which is a singular noun. Since Naam is obtained from Satguru, it has to be Gurmantar. But I have nothing against one meditating upon Oangkaar or any Shabad of Gurbani. It is according to Gurmat. That does not take anything away from Gurmantar itself nor its manmat (how could reciting mantar from gurbani be manmat- if you think its manmat Bhai Sahib, I stated that it is manmat to believe that Gurbani gives option to pick and choose. If one chooses to practice a particular word of an entire shabad then he is practicing Gurbani. That is fine but it cannot be called Gurmantar. Practicing Gurbani and calling it Gurmantar is not correct. That’s all I am asserting. But initially you did not distinguish between Gurmantar and mantar of Vedas. This is why I made that statement. Mantars of Vedas are far inferior to Gurbani. I do not say one word of Gurbani is superior to another. All words of Gurbani are equal. However, one word is specifically called Gurmantar. Hence, rest of Gurbani is not a mantar. Any word can be picked for meditation but not in the place of Gurmantar. One can do jaap of any shabad but Guru Sahib’s Hukam is to recite Gurmantar (Naam) in Amrit Vela. It is a Hukam of Gurbani. No other mantar should be recited in its place. I haven’t read any official AKJ stance on it but in Gurmukh Jeevan I do not recall anywhere him eating meat. Nonetheless, eating meat does not prove that he had less bhagtee. Wouldn’t you agree? Let’s leave speculations out. All I know is he was a great gursikh. Bhai Sahib, the discussion was specifically about Ved mantras versus Gurmantar. In this post I only tried to clarify that I fully agree with you on one practicing Gurbani and picking any shabad for that matter as long as the intent is not to replace Gurmantar. Missionaries these days call the entire Gurbani Gurmantar and we need to be cautious about it because they are trying to eliminate Naam japp and Amrit Vela. Also, it will eliminate Panj Pyare giving Gurmantar. Guru Rakha

Bhai Sahib, the discussion can only proceed further if Gurbani is discussed and quoted rather than certain samparda practices. Gurmat’s foundation is Gurbani not sampardas. Gurbani principles are united together and are not at variance. Why is Gurmantar given then? Why doesn’t Gurbani just give the option to pick and choose any mantar? In this case, do you not think it becomes a path of manmat rather than Gurmat? Gurmat implies following Hukam of Guru after surrendering mind. Manmat implies following what mind says. As long as multiple interpretations do not contradict rest of Gurbani, they are fine. Gur Ka Shabad or Naam is a singular noun. Hence, it cannot refer to multiple mantars or the entire Gurbani. In all sampardas and other religious cults and sects only one particular mantar is given at the time of initiation. What kind of a path lets the devotee decide to pick a mantar that he finds or likes best? Guru knows better and more. This is why He gives us the mantar. Bhai Randhir Singh did not write much on theology. His books deal with philosophy. But do you care to provide any evidence that shows his “lackness”. By which thermometer did you measure this? Books of Bhai Vir Singh show how much bhagtee he had and surely he was one with Guru Sahib. Guru Sahib Himself gave him darshan and told him to write teeka on Gurbani. Both are respected gursikhs but I rather not compare their works. All I can say is both AKJ and Taksal compare their mahapurash to Bhai Vir Singh. Guru Rakha