FreshMind13

22 minutes ago, puzzled said:

did they demolish the building built by maharaja ranjit singh or did they just repair that one?

The Indian Government paid Santa Nihung to rebuild the Sri Akal Takht Sahib. The Sikhs at the time did not accept this new Takht and called it the Sarkari Takht, so they tore it down and built a new one.

In reality, they just used Santa Nihung to "legitimize it". He never built it, Indian Government contractors did. Santa would get some his guys to pick up buckets full of rocks to show they were doing something while being recoreded on Doordarshan TV.

That brick is the original Takht built by Guru Sahib. Maharaja Ranjit Singh built on top of it.

I think if you go there today, the brick is exposed behind some glass. Where Parkash is done is on top of the Brick Takht.

2 hours ago, puzzled said:

Thanda burj, chamkaur di ghari, bibi nanakis house, anandpur sahib forts, houses, bungas around harmandir sahib, the wall at sirhind 

Question is are the people who did this genuinely thick and ignorant?  Or has our heritage been systematically destroyed?    I mean who can be ignorant enough to raze down bibi nanakis over 500 year old house? Which "sikh"  would have the heart to do that? 

These guys are illiterate, honestly.

After '84, when they were knocking down the Sarkari Takht and rebuilding the Sri Akal Takht Sahib, some Maha Moorakhs had started hammering away at the original brick Takht that was build by Guru Hargobind Sahib Ji and Bhai Gurdas Ji!!!!

Giani Mohinder Singh (the first secretary of the SGPC, who is retired at the time) had to protest there and tried very hard to convince them to stop destroying the Takht built by Guru Sahib. If it wasn't for him, we would have lost the original Takht!!!!

Here is a photo:

19 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

I mean how nobody in the Kar Sewa crew questioned the idea of destroying a historical building. Instead, they start bellowing jakare when it came tumbling down! How disconnected from reality are these people?

They have done this for years, look at the Tanda Burj recently for example.

Just now, MisterrSingh said:

They probably don't even know such a thing is possible. It's just about bulldozing it down, erecting something in its place, and receiving the plaudits thereafter. There's no love or grace or nurturing involved. And these people are meant to lead us to a brighter future? What a crock of bakwaas. Clueless. Absolutely clueless.

With the money, knowledge, and connections SGPC has, they should be hiring experts to preserve these buildings and solidify them for the coming centuries.

SGPC had to bring international scientists to make sure the Dukh Bhanjani Beri didn't DIE at Sri Darbar Sahib due to the Marble around it (which was put by Kar Seva Babas), the tree roots couldn't get enough nutrients. Why SGPC can't do the same with buildings baffles me.

There are also many other Historical trees in other gurdwaras that are either dead or dying, but no one cares as they aren't popular gurdwaras like Sri Darbar Sahib.

Why can they not just restore it? That is also Kar Seva.

If these Babas really want their name on the building and want $$$ in their pocket, restoring Historical buildings still gives them the same outcome. What incentive to they have to destroy it?

There has to some agenda to destroy our heritage.

21 hours ago, BhForce said:

Well, are you denying that the PSEB published his book?

Or are you questioning whether CM Beant Singh authorized it?

I believe his book was published in 1994? Beant Singh died in 1993, right? But the question is, before his death, did Beant Singh authorize the PSEB to publish Purewal's work?

If so, it totally destroys any fig leaf of pretense that Purewal might have to be pro-Sikh.

Purewal needs to be questioned as to who he met with in order to get funding to publish his work. Did he meet with Beant Singh? I would like to see if he denies or accepts it. And if there is  proof of a meeting (as in visitor logs).

Who was he working for in those days? What was his day job? If calendar dabbling was his day job, who was funding him? The Panth deserves to know.

Specifically if CM Beant Sio authorized it.

Correlation doesn't mean causation.

5 minutes ago, Sikhi4Ever said:

300 <banned word filter activated> in 1999. He based all dates from that year. 

On 3/22/2019 at 7:47 AM, FreshMind13 said:

This argument does not hold up. There is no such thing as a "Base Year". No Nanakshahi Calculations use a base year. The Bikrami Date for 23 Poh (in 1999/2055BK) was January 7th, 1999. The Lunar Date of Poh Sudi 7, 2055BK was on December 25, 1998. If we use the actual year of Guru Sahib's Parkash, it would have been January 1st (check the table I posted earlier).

Where did he use Bikrami of 1999? Nowhere. This is a misunderstanding of how Nanakshahi dates were calculated. Read what I had posted earlier. This isn't some arbitrary date as people people like to make it out.

On 3/23/2019 at 2:40 PM, Jonny101 said:

As Sikhs we follow what our Gurus did. If Gurus celebrated Gurpurbs according to Bikrami calendar then as their faithful Sikhs we will also celebrate Gurpurbs according to Bikrami calendar. 

So we aren't allowed to reform the Bikrami Calendar? If you read my posts above, Nanakshahi is a reformed version of Bikrami. It uses the Tropical Year (sayana) rather than the Sidereal year (niryana). Reason being is that the Sayana year is attached to the Vernal Equinox (or in Nanakshahi, the Summer solstice as Guru Sahib mentioned it in Gurbani in the Asarh month in Barah Maha Tukhari). This means the calendar is linked with the seasons.

Also, I have mentioned that during the time of the Guru's, the Surya Sidhantta was used for Bikrami calculations. Now, a different method of calculation called Drik Gannit is used for Bikrami calculations. Can we really call the modern day Bikrami Calendar the same as the one Guru Sahib used?

And if we have (presumably, as no one pro-Bikrami cares this change happened) accepted the change from Surya Sidhantta to Drik Gannit, why can't we now accept the change from using the Niryana year length to the Sayana Year length?

On 3/23/2019 at 2:40 PM, Jonny101 said:

Dr Anurag Singh who saw him then says how no one took him seriously because of this. 

No one takes Anurag Singh serious on the Nanakshahi calendar issue. He just uses Ad hominem attacks and sets up many strawmans on this FB posts. I was blocked by him from commenting on his posts as I used to argue with him on the calendar issue. I argued on technical grounds only, I wasn't interested in arguing with whatever strawman or political issue he made up.

On 3/23/2019 at 2:40 PM, Jonny101 said:

The calendar was first introduced by purewal who was a lifelong faithless communist. When he came to introduce his calendar he was a Mona during the early 90s.

CM Beanta who had just brutally suppressed the Sikhs then gave purewal his break when the Punjab government of Beanta first published purewal's calendar from the funds intended for the Punjab school board books this resulted in purewal getting backing from the government and somewhat acceptance from universities which until then had discarded his earlier attempts.

Any proof for this? Or it this just Anurag Singh rambling on Facebook creating a false cause. His Jantri 500 has been checked by Western and Indian scholars alike and has been praised for being a good tool to calculate dates in history. Other Panchangs (like An Indian Ephemeris) only differ by a day because of different rules used and which location. Purewal used Punjab Sanskranti rules (similar to Orissa) while others used rules from other states (as Bikrami isn't a singular calendar, there are various versions of it. The actual name of the calendar is not Bikrami, it is Panchang. Bikrami is just a sammat). I have personally checked his calculations using the Pancanga program above. I was only a day off on certain Sangrands. This is because the Japanese professor who made the program studied the calendar in Kerala, where Sangrand rules are much different from Punjab.

On 3/23/2019 at 2:40 PM, Jonny101 said:

At first Sikhs did not understand the science behind calendars

They still don't know the science being both the Nanakshahi calendar and the Bikrami calendar. Anurag Singh blocked me for calling out his lack of knowledge on the technicalities of both calendars.

On 3/23/2019 at 2:40 PM, Jonny101 said:

But as awareness has grown opposition has now also grown. Purewal has been challenged to debates by knowledgeable Singhs like bhai Jaswant Singh ji from California but purewal does not accept out of fear of losing

Yes, he has. The most vocal has been Col. Nishan Singh, which Purewal debated last year in Surrey, BC. There is a video on YouTube that is around 3 hours long of a debate between Purewal and Col. Nishan Singh. Purewal answered all his technical points and Col. Nishan Singh (out of fear of losing I guess) starting going into emotional and political arguments. I don't know who this Bhai Jaswant Singh is, but unless he makes a credible technical argument on the Nanakshahi calendar, I don't see why anyone should waste their time dealing with the nonsense that is the political and emotional strawman arguments made against Nanakshahi.

7 hours ago, chatanga1 said:

Both Guru Sahib and Purewal cannot be right.

I will show other examples aside from Purewal then:

An Indian Ephemeris, Vol VI, Swamikannu Pillai

Pancanga software (version 3.14), By M. YANO and M. FUSHIMI, Kyoto University, Japan.

According to Purewal, if we use 1754 Sammat, Bhadon Sudi 8 comes on Sunday. Maybe Guru Sahib used elapsed years instead of Vartmaan years? This is a question for scholars to look at Puratan Birhs of Sri Dasam Granth or do research in history to figure out why. I have given the math.

Just now, chatanga1 said:

Purewal based his new dates on one calendar. I thought it was on Khalsa tricentary but if not, then SGGS tricentary on 2008. It was on one of these occasions that he based it on.

Nanakshahi was released in 2003, how could he have used a year in the future? 23 Poh, 2064 BK was on January 7, 2008 and Poh Sudi 7, 2064 BK was on January 15, 2008. There was no "base year". I'm still baffled by this as mathematically, when calculating Nanakshahi dates, there is no base year used anywhere.

Just now, chatanga1 said:

"Maybe" purewal got them wrong? Or Guru Sahib got them wrong?

It's one or the other. If purewal could have gotten his dates wrong, why such a fuss to change something in the Panth? Surely it would be better to proceed on sound footing?

Maybe it would have been better for purewal to give up his attempt to change the calendar?

So are we just going to attack Purewal or the Nanakshahi Calendar?

And btw, Purewal's calculation for that date is not wrong. It is corroborated with many Jantris published by other Panchang scholars.

Guru Sahib cannot be wrong, Guru Sahib is perfect. But we have to acknowledge not everything is black and white.

On 3/22/2019 at 11:07 AM, chatanga1 said:

What Gurbani basis? 

Guru Sahib Ji has written 2 Barah Maha's in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, there are two Barah Maha's in Sri Dasam Granth as well. Guru Sahib has written the Ruti Salok bani, and there are three banis that talk about Tithis. 

To say that Guru Sahib talked about the months is an understatement.

Nakakshahi has 12 months, starting from Chet as it is the first month in Barah Maha. Using the Tropical Year, it keeps the calendar in sync with the Ruts given in the Barah Maha and in Ruti Salok. 

In the month of Asarh (Harh), in Barah Mah Tukhari, Guru Nanak Dev Ji says: 

ਰਥੁ ਫਿਰੈ ਛਾਇਆ ਧਨ ਤਾਕੈ ਟੀਡੁ ਲਵੈ ਮੰਝਿ ਬਾਰੇ ॥

ਰਥੁ ਫਿਰੈ refers to the Summer Solstice (Dakhshnayn) which Guru Sahib has described in the month of Harh.

In less than 500 years, around year 2400, the summer solstice will start occurring in the month of Jeth. This is due to Bikrami using the Sidereal Year. Nanakshahi using the Tropical Year will still the Summer Solstice in the month of Harh.

His reason #1 still stands, Bikrami uses the Nirayana Year, not the Sayana Year, so it's not linked to the seasons.

Anyway, I'm not going to comment on his theological arguments for Nanakshahi, I can only support him on a scientific and Gurbani basis.

On 3/22/2019 at 7:19 AM, chatanga1 said:

A discussion I saw from Purewal's conversion of dates concerned the samvats written in Sri Dasme Patshahs Granth Sahib. Purewal concluded that the dates never matched in the actual days according to his calculations. He wrote the the days written were wrong. By his calculations Purewal gave the missionaries so much (false) ammunition to use against Sri Dasme Patshah's Granth Sahib. Anurag Singh showed that his calculations were wrong.

Do you think there may be a chance that Purewal has got some of his other dates wrong?

Maybe Purewal got some dates wrong, he is human. But most of his dates are consistent with other books aside from him using Punjab sangrand rules.

From what I read, Purewal didn't even want to get his book published because his calculations didn't match the dates in Sri Dasam Granth. He has explained that here.

I was also banned from Anurag Singh's facebook comments because I proved him wrong on his points. He does not even know the difference between the Julian Calendar and the Gregorian calendar. I read his facebook posts on Nanakshahi, they don't have much substance aside from attacking Purewal by using ad hominem attacks. 

On 3/22/2019 at 7:19 AM, chatanga1 said:

Nanakshahi samvat was the same calendar just starting from birth of Guru Nanak Dev Ji. Many religions have done this. It has no bearing on the details/accuracy of the calendar.

Yes, it used to only be a sammat, not a full calendar. I mentioned it used Bikrami calculations.

On 3/22/2019 at 7:19 AM, chatanga1 said:

The replacement has to be better. If you replace something with something that is inferior or even the same value, no advance has been made. Now concerning the current divisions in the Panth, I would say that the Purewal has filled a petrol engine with diesel.

Not quite so. Both systems of measuring the length of the year, Sidereal (Nirayana) and Tropical (Sayana) are well mentioned in Indian Astronomy. Nanakshahi uses the Sayana system rather than the Nirayana system used by Bikrami. The reason for this so the calendar stays in-sync with the axis of the Earth, which causes it to stay in sync with the seasons (in Punjab).

On 3/22/2019 at 7:19 AM, chatanga1 said:

The calendar was the result of a phobia of everything related to "Hinduism." Throwing the label "Brahman/bahman/bipper" at others is just a way to denigrate them in the Panth. It is ploy used by missionaries. Anything that the missionaries support should be regarded as a lame duck by the Panth and not be worthy of supporting.

I mentioned this before.

On 3/21/2019 at 7:48 PM, FreshMind13 said:

Yea, these people do more harm then good for the argument for the Nanakshahi calendar. Nanakshahi is based of Bikrami, but it uses different calculations. Saying Bikrami is a Hindu or Brahman calendar would make Nanakshahi the same because it's based off of Bikrami.

The only thing "Brahman" about Bikrami was that you had to go to a Pandit, but now you can do the calculations yourself by reading British translations of their Sanskrit texts (mainly Surya Sidhantta). So that argument doesn't hold up. People who make those arguments are usually missionary types.

I base my argument on the actual math and science behind the calendar. To my surprise, there is much discussion about the Bikrami Calendar in the Hindu world today. Traditional Hindus want to maintain their traditional calculations as mentioned in the Surya Sidhantta Granth, while modern Indians want to use modern calculations called Drik Gannit.

On 3/22/2019 at 7:19 AM, chatanga1 said:

Purewal did eaxctly so. This was one of the things where he fall flat. He used the Bikrami date in 1999 on Khalsa Tricentary year, which gave it Jan 5th. If he had used it in the actual year of Guru Sahib's birth then it would not have been Jan 5th.

This argument does not hold up. There is no such thing as a "Base Year". No Nanakshahi Calculations use a base year. The Bikrami Date for 23 Poh (in 1999/2055BK) was January 7th, 1999. The Lunar Date of Poh Sudi 7, 2055BK was on December 25, 1998. If we use the actual year of Guru Sahib's Parkash, it would have been January 1st (check the table I posted earlier).

Where did he use Bikrami of 1999? Nowhere. This is a misunderstanding of how Nanakshahi dates were calculated. Read what I had posted earlier. This isn't some arbitrary date as people people like to make it out.

On 3/21/2019 at 9:52 PM, FreshMind13 said:

Purewal never fixed the date to January 5th. He converted the Lunar Bikrami Date (Poh Sudi 7, 1723 BK) to the Solar Bikrami Date (23 Poh, 1723 BK). Since Nanakshahi has the same months as Bikrami, 23 Poh became Parkash. In Nanakshahi, Poh Sangrand is December 14. If we add 23 Days to December 14 we get January 5th or 23 Poh.

I recommend reading the English version of the Surya Sidhantta for more detail and research papers on Indian astronomy which is a very old subject, India has been doing astronomy for many centuries and they were very accurate at it too until now where we have computers and satellites to track stars and Earth's movement.

35 minutes ago, Akalifauj said:

They are not personal attacks.  You were trying to be deceiving and I called you out on it.  

Purewal did not fix the date? This right here tells me you don't know anything about purewal calendar.  In purewal calendar the date was fixed for January 5th, just like Christmas lands on the 25th for the gregorian calendar. He wanted to simplify the calendar and in doing so he did not follow the correct calculation.  Col. Surjit Singh nishan makes this point and purewal has no answer other than purewal is wrong.

You don't know what you are talking about, regardless of how much research or reading you have done on the matter.

Did you even read my explanation where the January 5th date comes from? Stop making a strawman.

I have created a table of the dates in various calendars.

Parkash Dates

Gurgaddi Dates

Joti Jot Dates

Other Dates

20 minutes ago, BhForce said:

That's fine (that you're focused on technicalities).

Re: Purewal's ego. I didn't necessarily claim that, but I said it's hard to come to any other conclusion than that was the reason for the rush. If it wasn't then let him state so live.

Based merely on technicalities, he could have submitted his report and that would be that. The rush was to get his name in the history books, as far as I can see.

Can anyone else tell me what the rush was?

The rush was from Gurcharan Singh Tohra who asked Purewal to make the calendar after seeing is work on converting Bikrami dates I believe.

Maybe someone else can elaborate more.

7 minutes ago, BhForce said:

Well, there's an additional consideration: That is that from his perspective, all that matters is getting his name into the pages of Sikh history. What he did not consider is what the wider Panth needs at this time and what benefit it provides at what cost.

That should have been something the Jathedars were supposed to consider, but I believe they did not. I believe the benefits are meager and the cost has been high (division in the Panth).

I fail to see why it was so important to ram through Purewal's calendar when we already faced with so many divisions (long/short Rehras, Amrit banis, Ragmala, Dasam Granth Sahib, nature of Naam, etc.). Why is it that we needed yet another division?

Leaving aside all that Purewal may claim as the reason for his calendar, I want to know from him: What was the emergency?

It's hard to see what other emergency there was than getting his calendar passed in his lifetime so that people could praise him during his funeral as "The Father of the Nanakshahi Calendar".

I won't deny maybe he had ego, but that is more of a motive question. I mentioned earlier that politics got in the way of things, I try to stay focused on the science and technicalities.

2 hours ago, BhForce said:

I believe that this is inadequate to the situation. For a change that would (ideally) be in place for tens of thousands of years (even 100,000), I simply do not see what the rush was to impose the Purewal calendar in a few years (not that that those years were spent in 24x7 meetings, rather just a few meetings here and there).

The entire rushed process set up the possibility (and now reality) for the pushback. Also, the fact is that Purewal is man like any other, and he suffers from kam, krodh, lobh moh, hankar like the rest of us. It's not unreasonable to think that his desire to have his calendar approved in the timeline of years and not decades was based on his personal ego to be proclaimed through the ages as the creator of the Sikh calendar, just like Pope Gregory is for the Western calendar.

I want to see his face, hear his voice, and listen to him engaging in discussion one-on-one with Col. Nishan and others and to answer their points directly, and not buried within a sentence or two of 10s of pages of PDFs on his website.

Yea, first we should have at least Audio Tapes or transcripts from Sri Akal Takht Sahib released. Purewal didn't get to implement his calendar fully though, as Baba Kashmira Singh and others wanted to keep three dates (Parkash Guru Nanak Dev Ji, Holla, and Bandi Shhor/Diwali) as Lunar Dates. There was definitely some criticism of Purewal.

I personally don't agree with him on Guru Nanak Dev Ji's Parkash being on 1 Vaisakh, I still believe its was on Katak Pooranmashi. But this is a issue for historians, not me. 

5 minutes ago, BhForce said:

For a man that wants the entire Panth to follow him, I have never seen this man reveal his face in a large forum. If he wants the entire Panth follow his whims, he should have gone out into the Panth to build consensus and allow for people to criticize his "magnum opus".

It is simply not right for him to go about what he did in the way he did it. He comes up with his desired calendar, goes through a secretive process to impose something on the Panth without the traditional sarab-samati (consensus), and then he wants to complain that people don't like it?

He was at various meetings at Sri Akal Takht Sahib where he presented his ideas there. Many scholars and Sants where there. Maybe SGPC should make transcripts of the meetings available.

5 minutes ago, BhForce said:

Meanwhile, the only defense left for the vast majority of Purewal calendar supporters is to call supporters of the existing calendar "Brahmanists".

Purewal should be man enough to do his own defense instead of leaving up to his fans (who probably don't know much about calendars).

You can go to Purewal's website and read his papers there.

Missionaries don't do the calendar any justice, they support it because of their agendas, not because of the science behind it. Ask any of them what are calculations behind Nanakshahi are and they will fall silent (same can be said for Bikrami supporters, some don't even know its a luni-solor calendar).

51 minutes ago, Akalifauj said:

Listen to the video, now you sound like a purewal extremist.  Purewal fixed Guru Gobind Singh Sahib ji prakash to January 5th every year and this doesn't happen in the bikrami calendar.

I'm not going to reply to the emotional and personal attacks, keeping it strictly on the technicalities.

Purewal never fixed the date to January 5th. He converted the Lunar Bikrami Date (Poh Sudi 7, 1723 BK) to the Solar Bikrami Date (23 Poh, 1723 BK). Since Nanakshahi has the same months as Bikrami, 23 Poh became Parkash. In Nanakshahi, Poh Sangrand is December 14. If we add 23 Days to December 14 we get January 5th or 23 Poh.

I recommend reading the English version of the Surya Sidhantta for more detail and research papers on Indian astronomy which is a very old subject, India has been doing astronomy for many centuries and they were very accurate at it too until now where we have computers and satellites to track stars and Earth's movement.

51 minutes ago, Akalifauj said:

 Had purewal calendar been based on bikrami calendar we would see the prakash celebrated on different  dates as is seen now in the gregorian calendar when we celebrate according to bikrami calendar.

Celebrating on different dates isn't a feature of the Bikrami calendar, it is the method in which the days are calculated.

51 minutes ago, Akalifauj said:

Purewal based his calendar off of the gregorian calendar.   

Do you have any evidence in support of this claim? Nanakshahi is based of Bikrami, however instead of using the Sidereal Year (Nirayana Year), it uses the Tropical Year (Sayana Year) and the Sangrands are not based off of Sankranti (when the sun enters a sidereal zodiac).

51 minutes ago, Akalifauj said:

this is where your extremist side came out.  Purewal fault is that his calendar would be too accurate.  What is this a job interview,  my weakness is that I am too smart.  

Look up calendars such as the revised Julian calendar or the Iranian Solar Hijri Calendar. These have much better rules to match the tropical year than Gregorian. What is so extremist about this? Do some research in astronomy first.

6 minutes ago, Akalifauj said:

Here listen to a Sikh who has studied in the field.  This learned Sikh in the field says purewal made a huge mistake on starting the first day in the calendar and converting from bikrami.

 

I've read Col. Nishan Singh arguments. He makes the mistake of mixing Nanakshahi, Gregorian, and Julian calendars. Purewal never even touched Gregorian or Julian, he only converted between Bikrami calendar systems.

While I do respect Col. Nishan Singh, he wants us to celebrate Parkash of Guru Gobind Singh Ji on January 1st (the Gregorian Date). This completely rids us of any desi months and dates.

21 minutes ago, BhForce said:

Yeah, it is relevant because huge numbers of Purewal calendar supporters (it is not a Nanakshahi calendar) claim that the Bikrami calendar is a Brahmanist calendar. 

Yea, these people do more harm then good for the argument for the Nanakshahi calendar. Nanakshahi is based of Bikrami, but it uses different calculations. Saying Bikrami is a Hindu or Brahman calendar would make Nanakshahi the same because it's based off of Bikrami.

The only thing "Brahman" about Bikrami was that you had to go to a Pandit, but now you can do the calculations yourself by reading British translations of their Sanskrit texts (mainly Surya Sidhantta). So that argument doesn't hold up. People who make those arguments are usually missionary types.

I base my argument on the actual math and science behind the calendar. To my surprise, there is much discussion about the Bikrami Calendar in the Hindu world today. Traditional Hindus want to maintain their traditional calculations as mentioned in the Surya Sidhantta Granth, while modern Indians want to use modern calculations called Drik Gannit.

21 minutes ago, BhForce said:

The discussion of the calendar favored by Guru Nanak ji vs the calendar favored by Pal Singh Purewal can only proceed when proponents of the latter admit that 1) the entire Sikh panth has been using the former for the last three centuries and 2) that does not make them Brahminists.

I don't like saying the calendar Guru Sahib followed or favored by Purewal. The calendar is the same, but the calculations are different. Think of it as replacing the engine of a car.

13 minutes ago, BhForce said:

1. You do know that that "Nanakshahi" calendar was not created by Guru Nanak Dev ji, right?

2. Secondly, could you please inform us what calendar Guru Nanak the Shah used?

1. Yes I am aware, Nanakshahi Sammat was first mentioned by Banda Singh Bahadur and then also mentioned by Giani Gian Singh and Bhai Vir Singh. This calendar used Bikrami Calendar calculations.

2. Is that relevant? Guru Sahib used the Bikrami Sammat as in Punjab. As I mentioned, Nanakshahi Sammat was based of Bikrami calculations. Purewal made suggestions to use modern calculations for the calendar. It still keeps the desi months and uses Bikrami Solar dates.