Want to warn any brothers, active in Sikh fields to beware of this guy. He pretends to be an open-minded person but has over the last year to my knowledge began to support ranjit ghaghri wala through his various media outlets. Ranj himself has been recorded during a phone call saying he doesn't beleive in Sri Dasme Patshah's Granth Sahib. Ranj a few years ago, also said that he will only do parchar dfrom SGGS, which made many people suspicious that he was against SDPGS.
ghaghri no longer follows the SRM but this gurnam has made him out as if he does and that ghaghri is the innocent party.
listen to the video proof from two of nekis fools:
Anyhow this gurnam has started to advocate for ranj over his conflict with Sri Akal Takht Sahib. He works as a presenter for Akaal Channel. Beware of such people in your midst who are ever ready to shake the foundations of Sikhi.
This essay shows the true nature of gurnam's views :
to which this reply has been created :
When we hear of, or read articles written by people with the esteemed honorifics of "Dr/Professor," we assume that the person in question must be a really well-read balanced individual with likeable attributes and personality due to their extensive education and research into particular fields.
Indeed some, by adding these labels try to elevate themselves into some superior status, or level of understanding. Here we have one such example in Dr Gurnam Singh. He has written an article on Ranjit Singh Dhadrianwala in which he has made some observations that it would be wholesome to explore further.
Gurnam's article is nothing but a defence of Ranjit.
The first claim in defence of Ranjit is that he is a popular preacher with a huge following around the world. I'm not sure when and where numbers, or quantity became the benchmark of truth or honesty. Indeed if we were to look at quantative reasoning then there are millions who bow to Mecca every day, and millions who bathe in the Ganges on festivals. Does this give them greater access to the truth over Ranjit who has thousands of followers?
In the same way, the Radha Swami movement has millions of people around the world. Why shouldn't we follow these people then?
Gurbani does not prescribe to truth being validated by numbers.
The second claim in defence of Ranjit by Gurnam is that Ranjit is a staunch defender of the official Akaal Takht Sikh Rehit Maryada (SRM). Maybe he was at one time. Ranjit has for some time denied that he was against Sri Dasme Patshah's Granth. For some, the suspicions arose when Ranjit stated some years ago that he will only preach from Guru Granth Sahib. Now a phone recording has surfaced where Ranjit states he has no faith in Sri Dasme Patshah's Granth Sahib. So therefore 3 of the 5 banis for Khande di Pahul according to the "official Akaal Takht Sikh Rehit Maryada (SRM)" are therefore not recognised by Ranjit.
The Ardas of the Sikhs is not recognised by Ranjit either since this also comes from Sri Dasme Patshah's Granth Sahib.
How is this a staunch defence of the "official Akaal Takht Sikh Rehit Maryada (SRM)" by Ranjit ?
Thirdly, Gurnam refers to a "widespread feeling that the Jathedars, and the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) who employs them, are actually being controlled by a political elite heavily influenced by Parkash Singh Badal and his allies in the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)."
Now if this were true, politicians like Badal would be falling over themselves to acquire Ranjits patronage. Why? Because he has a huge following in Panjab. Politically, a person like Ranjit would be a huge asset to Badal. Politicians go to wherever there are votes. Did Badal not realise how important this was after the Dera Sacha Sauda helped the Congress to power some years ago? So why would a poltician like Badal want to cause any kind of distress to Ranjit ?
Exploring excommunication further, Gurnam then states that this never happened in the times of the Gurus. I beg to differ. I know that Ranjit and his supporters have an aversion to Sikh history, but the point still needs to be made from a historical incident, where Guru Har Rai excommunicated his OWN SON, from Guru Nanak Nirmal Panth for changing Gurbani. From that time, Guru Sahib's son, Ram Rai, was banished from sangat and Sikhs were instructed to have no interaction with him.
This decision making power passed onto the Guru Khalsa Panth, which they also exercised against Guru Gobind Singh, when Guru Sahib tested the resolve of the Khalsa, in Dadu Dwar.
Throughout history, it has been exercised, notably against Sardar Jassa Singh Ramgarhia, and Maharaja Ranjit Singh. Akali Phoola Singh on hearing of Maharaja Sahib's trangressions ordered the Sikhs to have no interaction with Maharaja Sahib and that he was outside of the Panth, for which Maharaja Sahib apologised and took punishment, on which he was then forgiven. And then in 1978, the Sant Nirankaris.
You see, it's very easy to throw around titles such as Professor, Doctor etc, but to be devoid of historical knowledge then makes for dangerous futures. People look upto these kind of people and think "that must be the truth, since when have Professors began to tell lies ..."
Further on in his article, Gurnam, then resorts to emotional outbursts which have no standing or basis. These outbursts are based on their own ignorance, and when coupled with an audience of a subservient nature, seem to make themselves the reasonable party, and the other side the transgressors.
Gurnam tells an outrageous lie, that the Damdami Takal, or the Sant Samaj "explicitly" reject the SRM. This is a complete lie, and one can only wonder how a "Professor" arrives at these conclusions.
If the Taksal had "explicitly" rejected the SRM, I'm sure Gurnam can show us the proof.
Taksal maryada and SRM is identical on most points. However the key is that the Taksal acknowledges the SRM in all the institutions that are controlled by the SGPC. There, there is no conflict. The Taksal follows its own maryada, which they claim was set by Guru Gobind Singh, in the handful of Gurdwaras they run.
So, on the one hand, you have an esteemed "academic activist dedicated to human rights, liberty, equality, social and environmental justice" defending a person who has tried to hide the fact that he does NOT accept the maryada of SRM by denying the place of Sri Dasme Patshah's Granth Sahib, and on the other hand you have the Taksal who whilst not sharing 100% maryada with SRM, do not denigrate the SRM.
What, or who, is behind Gurnam's effort to try and mislead the wider Sikh community?
Gurnam then moves onto issues of religious interpretation. Ranjit views that "Kudrat is God." That the Creator and the Creation are one. Gurbani does not claim this in any way whatsoever.
Gurbani says that the Creator resides everywhere throughout the Universe. Gurbani says that this world was created by the Creator. So how was "Kudrat" God when kudrat was not even created? Did God not exist at that time? If the earth were to vanish tomorrow would God vanish along with it?
What about the Mool Mantar which says that God is Ajooni? The Kudrat is God thinking is strictly against the Mool Mantar concept of God.
In Gurbani the world is described as transitory. If this is true, then how can creation be described as such, when Mool Mantar says it is Akaal Moorat?
Then there is the oft-misquoted line, which is misquoted by Ranjit and repeated by Gurnam : "Man thoo joath saroop hei, apna mool pehchaan” or “O mind you are the embodied light of the divine, recognize this and you will know your true origin"
This doesn't mean that we are God. It means we are a part of God. It doesn't mean that God resides in us, rather we reside in God. The world resides in God. The creation resides in God. The jyot that is in us, is also inside plants, animals, air, and the sea. So have these ALL become God? Or are we all, the creation, nature and space all residing in God?
Gurbani tells us nature itself was created by the Creator through his Word. That nature is inside the Creator himself. This nature is transitory. The Creator is not.
Because of this paradigm shift in the nature of the Creator and creation, in the orbit of Gurmat, especially where it flies completely in the face of Gurbani, Ranjit is facing opposition. He is not the first. The Sodhis faced it when they went against the Gurus. The Bandei Khalsa faced it when they went against the Panth. The Sant Nirankaris faced it when they declared their own person as above Guru Granth Sahib. The Radha Swamis, and Dera Sacha Sauda faced the same.
So why is Ranjit any more special than the others that we should accept his lies about God?
Then Gurnam, further to defend Ranjit says that Ranjit uses "focusses on those Shabads in the Guru Granth Sahib that explicitly challenge the prevailing ritualistic practices of the Hindu pandits and Muslim mullahs."
Both hindu pandit and muslims rise early to make ablutions and prayers. So do Sikhs. We observe amritvela. But how is Ranjit focusing on this practice? By saying that "God created the night for us to sleep. How can someone ignore the kudrat of sleep to wake up and pray to Him? "
So by that defence of Ranjit, maybe Gurnam could clarify whether he or Manjit, both don't observe amritvela now? It would be interesting to know.
Gurnam then moves onto an oft-repeated slogan for their thinking - "Ranjit Singh's self-proclaimed logical, scientific approach to Sikhi" - science DOESN'T believe in God. Logic says that God does not exist.
But let's give Gurnam the benefit of the doubt. Let Gurnam prove that God does exist. Logically. This writeup will be sent to Gurnam and hopefully he will be able to respond to this point first. Prove that God exists Gurnam.
I'm astonished at Gurnam's claim to dedicated to environmental justice. Humans have caused immense damage to the earth's eco-system, and global warming is evident to see. One day us humans could destroy the earth or cause conditions to deteriorate to such a degree that life on earth will become extremely fragile. How could a human affect the "god" of Ranjit in such a way?
Further on, Gurnam (and has previously on numerous occasions) refers to Guru Nanak Dev Ji as "Nanak." What kind of respect is that to Guru Sahib? Maybe Gurnam is used to addressing his own father by his first name, that he feels he can push his disrespect further.
One of the most ludicrous assertions of Gurnam's in his article, is aliging Ranjit with Gyani Ditt Singh and Professor Gurmukh Singh. These men spent their whole lives learning about Gurmat, sikh philosophy and history. What learning/education has Ranjit undertaken? His only education was in learning sakhis and singing them to students. And this lack of education has shown when he tried to peddle his "kudrat is god" nonsense. When did Gurmukh Singh or Ditt Singh ever make such statements?
In end, I would like to emphasise why Ranjit refuses to appear before Sri Akal Takht Sahib. He is afraid that in doing so, he will be exposed, and his own shop - he is so fond of saying "ihna dian dukana band hon lag pia " will end up closed, or visited only by cult followers.
But lastly, I would advise all those, especially those with the titles of Professor/Doctor etc to not be so blinded by charismatic people of Ranjits ilk, especially when he twists the fundamentals of Gurmat.