Niranjana

Veer Singh 47 Sahib, Thanks for your comments. I appreciate your concerns, however I do feel you are perhaps a little over concerned with hidden agendas than you need to be in this case, allow me to elucidate: <<But why use the term ‘pretestant influanced’? if your argument is that the protestants use “masculine vocabulary (He, His etc)”, or that "Lord" "His" "He", "Baptism". Do Catholics not also use these terms? Correct me if I’m wrong but don’t the Catholics also use ‘he, his, Lord, Baptism’ etc? I’ll agree with you that using Christian terms is not correct, but to say that they were ‘protestant influenced’ is also nothing short of an extreme analogy. >> Veer Jee, agreed, however the party responsible for this was the Protestant Church of England, not the Catholics in the main. The domination of the British over India as a whole was predominantly protestant, as was the initial British Chroniclers such as Macaufille. It is not only the translation into gender specific terms that I regard as protestant influence, but also some of the other factors - for instance: the focus predominantly today on "sunday" Gurdwara, "sunday school", the attempts of some people to have "choirs" within the Gurdwara (and in the process do away with Gurmat Sangeet proper), but even this much, today we could argue, is a result of living in the western world and adapting to convenience (which itself is another discussion), but for benefit of doubt, let us allow this point... ...more concerning is the gross lack of "simran", particularly 'swas-swas' type (i.e. meditation, dhyan, samadhi, dharana etc) that is propagated by mainstream Gurdwaras, some even suggesting that we should focus more on Seva and Kirt Karni! Today, it is only when one attends a Jatha, Taksal or Sampradha-affiliated Sangat one finds this practice is propagated, the standard Singh Sabha and Ramgarhia Gurdwaras on the other hand are quite content with only Kirtan and Katha...again, this may appear to some as a gross generalisation, however speak to the mainstream sangat at these Gurdwaras, they will either stop short of saying, "simran means you have to REMEMBER God" or full blown out state "Samadhi/Dhyan nahi lana", as was once stated openly to me by a Granthi from Delhi Gurdwara Bangla Sahib and a member of their management committee too. This is clearly an influence of Protestant attitudes as opposed to Catholic, same again with the attitudes of certain sections of the modern Sikh community in matters concerning pictures, artwork, music, women etc - this is not exclusive to Sikhs alone but the whole of India, which came under such influence. I find it disturbing to think of the Khalsa as "Church Puritan". <<The only Sikhs I have seen that can be considered ‘protestant influenced’ as you put are the ones in India who were or are influenced by the communist ideology which had a strong impact in Punjab and in particular the educated Sikhs who also brought a lot of harm to the Singh Sabha revivals and thought. These communist influenced Sikhs who when translating Sikh scriptures into English used Christian terms and judged everything based on current science rather than spirituality. It is unfortunate that Sikhs in the west are confusing these communist minded Sikhs with Singh Sabhias.>> This is exactly part of what I refer to Veer Jee, and the IOSS in Chandigarh being a prime example of the modern era, however the same occurred during the Singh Sabha reforms as well. Have a look at the articles written by Kamala Rose Kaur on the subject and also the Nihang Thread, where Bikramjit Singh and I had a discussion, there a few quotes I had provided there from the Singh Sabha movement which raise this concern as well [that said, let's be realistic, the entire Singh Sabha is not consisting of a single persons view or opinion, to argue that the entire Singh Sabha is a Protestant machination is akin to suggesting that all "Sanatan" Sampradhas are RSS affiliated, which clearly is not true given gems like Baba Nand Singh, Bhai Sham Singh and others who all had their schooling or affiliation with one or more of the 'sampradhas' and are clearly Panthic figures]. <<The reason I find the term ‘protestant influenced’ so offending is because it seems like a new trend by Sanatanists to use absurd analogies when dealing with Panthic matters. Examples of these absurd analogies are the following: -Babbars and other Sikh freedom fighters are compared to Al-Qaida -Sant Jernail Singh Bhindrawala is compared to Osama Bin Laden. -AKJ and Taksal are compared to Wahabee and Taliban movements. -Singh Sabha is compared to the Christian protestant reformation -Karseva of Gurdwaras carried out by Sants is compared to the destruction of the Buddha statues by the Taliban. These absurd analogies are nothing short of non-sense. >> Veer Jee, terms or analogies used by a particular group of people do not necessarily make the terms themselves bad! <<The person who came up with these bizarre analogies is Bahadur Singh(aka Lalleshwari, Shaka Nyorai etc), an ego-centric Portuguese Hippie who in my opinion is just a charlatan. It’s just unfortunate that we are now seeing Sikhs using these absurd analogies first coined by Bahadur Singh.>> I would like to contest this, as Bahadur Singh is not alone in using these terms and with exception to his use of the term 'heretic' which is clearly a mark of his Semetic ancestral background, comparisons with British Protestanism, the Taliban, Osama etc are hardly unique to him, the very group who mentioned above (communist influenced), although arguably the opposite end of the spectrum to lalleshvari have also drawn such comparisons, be they right or grossly wrong, of course is another debate (for a further look into this have a look at the writings of Puneet Singh Lamba, S. Singh Bal and others). <<Veer Jee, what I’m trying to say is that I’m not against your objections for the use of a certain vocabulary because I actually agree with you one that, but to use these absurd analogies created by the perverse imagination of an eccentric hippie is just offending to many Sikhs especially considering the malicious intent from which these analogies were created by that lunatic.>> I trust one can see that the comment on the Buddhist site did not concern any of the above, aimed to steer any members interested in Sikhi towards Sikh scripture (in this case Jaap Sahib) and wished to caveat any translation they may find online with the forewarning that they maybe biased (in gender terms) as Akal Purakh within Sikh lore has no gender. The only thing, perhaps in hindsight I should have mentioned (since discovering yet another trend arising on the net) is that whilst Sikhs are not a Patriachal religion (i.e. male orientated) we are neither Matriachal (worshippers of any divine mother) given the sheer nonsense being preached by the infamous "Nirmala Devi" on www.adishakti.org These types of sites remind me of the nonsense dreamt up by Dan Brown in the Da Vinci Code - interesting read and almost convincing rather like his "indian" and "sikh" counterparts, except when one really looks at some basic facts (the foundation of the structure if you like), not only are they weak, but down right wrong!!! Gur FAteh! Niranjana. That’s all I’m trying to say.

Gur Fateh! Just seen this...looks like Bhai Amritpal Singh "Amrit" has updated his website: Nihang Dress (New) Old Traditional Wear (Coming soon) The Blue Dress The colors worn by Guru Gobind Singh Ji The colors worn by the 'Sahibzadas' The colors worn by Sikhs The colors worn by Modern Nihangs The 'Chola' The 'Dumaala' The 'Pharla' http://amritworld.com/nihangs/ Amritpal Singh "Amrit" has mentioned that he would like discuss any comments the sangat may have from his research on the following thread: http://www.sikhawareness.com/sikhawareness...p?p=70288#70288 Gur Fateh! Niranjana.

J Singh!!! You are the one speaking nonsense!!! If you cannot digest the writings of Guru Gobind Singh because you have fallen foul of the same propaganda that Khalsa Fauj has been from the Kala Afghana clan, that is your problem, but to start passing your manmatti comments on the Chaupai Sahib path is disgraceful. Look at this thread, "sikhs" cannot even accept the writings of their scriptural heritage and agree on fundamentals of their faith and they consider themselves fit to rule! We had a very real prospect of "Khalistan" under Baba Banda Singh Bahadur until he was betrayed by the "Tat Khalsa" who joined forces with the then Mughul government to fight against Baba Jee. The same has occurred ever since...

Singh47, I'll answer all your points below: 1. What do you mean by 'Protestant-influanced'? As I stated in my original post: "translate the genderless terms used in this composition into masculine vocabulary (He, His etc)". I would have hoped it be clear what I refer to, but in any event: Have a look at some of the translation undertaken during the Singh Sabha period and afterwards and we see numerous references to "Lord" "His" "He" and all the more, in textual references to the "Khalsa" being the "Chuch Puritan" and Amrit Sanchar being "Baptism". These terms and explanations together with many more, have also shaped some of our practices (sermons on "Sunday", 'choirs' etc). If required, I am happy to discuss this further with more examples, however we cannot deny that there has occurred particularly during the early 1900's, be it a concerted or indirect, influence and impact of Protestant type values and mindset upon the scholars and institutions of the Panth. 2. The only people I have seen use this term are the Sanatan bunch i.e. Narsingha, Lalleshwari aka Shaka Nyorai, Sarabloh, Bahadur Singh, Singh47, these people also use the terms Sikh, Gurprashad, Dasam Granth, Guru, Shastar etc - does that mean anyone using these terms is a Sanatanist? If people want to have a real discussion on Sanatan Sikhi, then let's do it - I've tried plenty of times, however all that results is certain people venting their personal fustrations on each other (given the historical precedent set by those engaging in this activity, it would seem that perhaps they should all get married as the build up of testosterone in them is making them too edgy!) 3.Jawan 'Mard'(and I use the term 'Mard' very loosely as he seems anything but a Mard).

"Name and Shame" Amardeep Singh, I would expect a little more thought from you on this - think of the all the times the British Press have tried to undergo 'name and shame' campaigns and got it wrong - the result innocent people sufferred, physically, mentally and emotionally. What type of Sikhi are we trying to propagate? The situation with the French bann is quite different to the case here - which concerns people's private homes. Do we really wish to follow the path down the Talibanistic route? Meat and eggs are one thing, what next, debates about which maryada is kept at home, who does the seva (i.e. non-amritdhari, mona etc?) and how exactly do we intend to "Police" this??? I ask again, when and where did the custom of keeping Maharaj at home begin?

guilt is something that the semetic traditions thrive on, it is a powerful emotional tool which frequently gets abused by those in power. I personally do not consider "guilt" is be a practice in line with Sikh spirit, but then again I usually chat "crap"

How far are we going to take this is an immediate question? Walking into people's homes etc is not really terrority we want to be getting into, likewise the disrespect of Guru Maharaj is not something we wish to tolerate. The question is when did this custom of keeping Maharaj at home begin? Why has it become so popular? Is walking into people's homes to investigate not something akin to dictatorship? What next, inspections on amrit vela? also which maryada will we check them against? there are things that Panthic organisations like the DDT and others undertake as part of their maryada in the hazuri of Maharaj which the Akal Thakt and AKJ would regard as "anti-gurmat" - what then? Let's think this through a little more carefully!!!

Khalsa Fauji is correct, the "Nishan Sahib" has changed in colour, shape and image (Khanda) over the years. Old flags/battle standards captured from the Anglo Sikh wars, I believe were predominantly plain in colour with no Khanda, some were deep Blue. Others were also Red - which is a taboo colour for many Sikhs today. As per the topic of colours amonsgt the Sikhs, we can look forward to the following when updated by Amritpal Singh: http://amritworld.com/nihangs/ Gur Fateh! Niranjana.

Bundha, please be clear about which part of this site is "RSS" and which part is "inaccurate" - my only immediate issue would be the dropping of SINGH from Banda Singh Bahadur's name, but I've not given the entire site a full going over...

None of the phones are being answered!

:doh:

K Singh, it will only prove Sikhs are Hindus for idiotic and paranoid fools who can't see the difference between things when they are not black and white. What's next, we look at the janam sakhi of Guru Nanak Dev Jee and then contemplate if he was a Muslim??? Better still let's ban it and hope know one ever reads it just in case other people start to think the same...much like with most of literature and Dharmic Granths... ...on which point: <<CUE KHALSA FAUJ>> enter with his "anti-Dasam Granth Campaign"

Actually I would not recommend gardening etc - you want to take care of your hands and energy, not fatigue them before you've even started your riyaz!

Militant Singh, What are your thoughts on the use of Jyots during an Akhand Paath and also on the offering of Degh to Guru Sahib? The "Sikh" Rehit Maryada is quite clear on these topics as above, however even outside of the "Sanatan" camp, we can see such practicses in vogue amongst the DDT and Nanaksar institutions.

Dear Sher Punjabi, Firstly, please note I was only relaying the message and not putting forward my personal view - surely if one wishes to understand what others do and why, we need to look at things from their perspective - whether we agree with it or not is another matter. As per your second point: <<Some people honour kings and emperors with animal sacrifices or in some cases human sacrifices, does that mean we should do that as well to show honour and sovereignty to Guru Granth Sahib Ji?>> Strangely enough, yes, you'll probably find that those who practice Aarti with lamps in front of Maharaj (i.e. Nihangs etc) do in fact sacrifice animals (see accounts fo Jatka and Chatanga at Hazoor Sahib during the completion of Chandi Paath or Dasam Granth Akhand Paath). Again, before enough seeks to lynch me personally, I'm only supplying information and not advocating any practice. Gur Fateh! Niranjana.

There are 2 ways to look at this: 1. As per above, Guru Sahib in various shabds, particular Aarti Sohila (Raag Deepaki M1) has expanded on the practice of aarti to explain and give reverence for the Divine (re: the Sun and Moon are thy lamps, vegetation your incense etc etc). From this, some have concluded that physical Aarti is wrong. Modern day enthusiasts have taken this a step further and concluded that it is Brahminvad and therefore definitely wrong. This view is describe amply in the posts above. 2. Aarti is a practice in vogue across India and the subcontinent, typically amongst the royal courts – today this can be found amongst Buddhists, Jains, the various “hindoo” movements (shavism, vaisha etc) and particularly amongst the “Khatri” (Kshatriya) classes. Some have on this basis argued that it is not a Brahmin practice, but in fact one of royal patronage and that Guru Gobind Singh himself did it in front of the Guru Granth Sahib (although I have yet to see the reference for this). On the basis of point (2), it would appear that the events at Hazoor Sahib and in vogue amongst the Nihang Dals are simply a means of affirming the sovereign status of Guru Sahib (in the same way as we commonly see done using other ‘courtly’ and ‘royal’ customs, such as a Thakt Sahib, Chaur Sahib, standing during Ardas, keeping one’s head covered in the presence of the true Emperor, not turning one’s back to the Emperor etc etc) – these are not uniquely “SIKH” customs as some may believe, they are courtly customs that we observe in the presence of our true sovereign the Sri Guru Granth Sahib. Hence, depending on your outlook, either the Aarti is a completely Brahmin concept and should be ditched (but then shall we do the same with the other ‘non-sikh’ customs described above as well?) or it is a courtly ‘rasam’ and we should continue its use alongside other such customs as described (but if so, why then do we not find any reference to such occurrences prior to the 19th century and how does one interpret the Aarti shabds? – the “recreation of the eternal macrocosmic act with the microcosmic?”) Gur Fateh! Niranjana.

<<<The animosity between Namdhari and Singh Sabha took place after the attacks on the butchers. This animosity was between the 'sanatan' Singh Sabha rather than the later Tat Khalsa - Lahore Singh Sabha. The animosity was articulated due to the fact that after 1857 the Sikhs had been favoured by the British and the Sikh elite did not wish this favouritism to be endangered by the anti-British actions of the Namdharis. At the beginning there might not have been much animosity between Nihangs and Namdharis but certainly by the time that the Namdharis attacked the butchers in Amritsar the animosity was certainly there as the Namdharis who carried out the attack left a Chakar and a Blue Turban on the site of the attack which led the British police to arrest and torture many Nihangs. Leaving the Chakar and Blue Turban could only have been meant to deflect attention from the real attackers onto the Nihangs. The lapse into Gurudom also came later when the Jats and other castes left the Namdharis and it became more of a Tarkhan movement. >>> Couple of points: 1. Agree that initially the animosity between the Namdharis and the Singh Sabha, was the Amritsar Sanatan Singh Sabha – however this was initially the only Singh Sabha, until the latter Tat Khalsa Singh Sabha split occurred. So the acrimony lay with the “Singh Sabha” full stop, as even after the split the Tat Khalsa Singh Sabha took an even more hostile outlook on Namdharis than perhaps their Sanatan counterparts (as Baba Khem Singh Bedi himself would visit Baba Ram Singh) who given their “enchanted universe” may well have accepted the Namdharis? We cannot say that the Namdharis were ever really saw eye to eye with any Singh Sabha movement, at inception or today. 2. Concerning the blue dastaar and chakra episode, I recall your infamous debate on Sikhawareness on this same topic with Fateh Singh Namdhari and whilst it is clear that a firm conclusion cannot be drawn from this account, it is not as simple as that which you are making out. Let us not forget that amongst the first Punj Pyare inaugurated by Baba Ram Singh (according to the Namdharis the reestablishment of the Khalsa) one of the Punj was a Nihang Singh and remained so. To this date, one can find Nihang Singhs amongst the Namdharis. There are many sakhia concerning Nihang Singh and Baba Ram Singh. 3. The view that Namdharis are strictly a ‘tarkhan’ movement is popular these days and I also for sometime thought the same, however this is largely incorrect. The Namdhari movement is essentially a movement beginning with Khatri roots (Baba Balak Singh) – linked by some into the Udasis and the view that Jats are never Namdharis is another gross misconception, as there are many Jats within the Namdhari movement even today and holding high posts too (in the UK, Mr Randhawa served as a long standing secretary of the Namdharis) and in India this is the case too, however the Khatri contingent amongst Namdharis in India is very sizeable. The view that it is a tarkhan movement seems to have arisen from two factors (1) that Baba Ram Singh was a Tarkhan and the subsequent Namdhari Gurus were too (2) that following the arrival of the Namdharis during the late 1960s into East Africa, where they won many converts, who later settled in the UK, a large number of visible Namdharis in the UK are from tarkhan background, however this is a skewed result owing to the East African migration and UK settlement. In any event, the main point here is that it is not really conceivable to conclude that Nihangs have always been regarded badly simple on account of the perceived impression we may hold of the Singh Sabha movement or the Namdhari or Nirankari movement. It is important to note that even during the times of this movement, there existed relations between Nihangs and Namdharis (as shown above) and also with the Singh Sabha (both Sanatan and Lahore Tat Khalsa – Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha himself kept sangat with Nihangs from whom he learnt martial arts as per the accounts from his own family). Yes, there were incidents of conflict elsewhere, but this is true of all movements and not exclusive to Nihangs alone. It is only the Nirankaris with whom the Nihangs had a real discontent and that was fully justified as the Nirankaris proposed to change the Ardas from “Sri Bhagauti Ji Sahai” in their fear and misinterpretation of the term Bhagautee. Incidently as shown elsewhere it is sad to find that today in Halifax Canada, one Mr Randhawa (an “Amritdhari” taxi driver) has managed to muscle in way in past the local Gurdwara committee to change this opening invocation to “Pritham Akal Simar Kai” and also banned the reading of the Benti Chaupai Sahib in the Gurdwara. I have informed many groups of this action (SGPC, AKJ and others) however it seems Mr Randhawa stays in power (even if he is not on the committee!) <<<As for the pro-british prophecies, it seems that even in the late 18th century there was a prophecy that the Sikhs would be defeated by the Europeans. One European traveller remarked upon it, I forget who. MacAuliffe may have grafted this prophecy into the Sikhs and British both defeating the Mughals. >>> Again this shows that there certainly existed amongst the British an agenda to subvert and essentially sterilise the Sikhs – I’m not advocating anything radical such as the official split of Sikhi from Hindu Mat occurred at the hands of the British as that is too far fetched given the ample amounts of internal evidence with Sikh sources alone to conclude Sikhs have always been a distinct group within multi-religious India, however to ignore the impact of the British Administration on the Sikhs, religiously, socially, culturally and politically is equally as naïve. <<<The negotiations between Mata Sundri and the Mughals are contained in writings of later Sikh writers. These same writers contend that the defeat suffered by Banda Singh was due not to the overwhelming odds he faced but because he went against the instructions issued to him by Guru Gobind Singh. These instructions one of which was not to marry are discounted by Ganda Singh as not in line with Gurmat and he found no records of any negotiations between Mata Sundri and the Mughals in any of the archives that he visited.>>> The key point here being that Banda Singh was betrayed by certain Sikhs and that they were led by Baba Binod Singh (now claimed to be the first Jathedar of the Buddha Dal, which itself is a questionable assertion). <<<This is an interesting point. If there was a caste issue in the Misls and it was so strong then you would not get Jats fighting in Ahluwalia or Ramgarhia Misls against Misls whose leadership were Jats. Similarly the Jats within the Budha Dal today under Santa Singh would be more likely to have aligned themselves with those Jat leaders within the Dal who were pro-Khalistan. Apart from a few Nihangs taking part in the Khalistan movement there was no large scale support by Jat Nihangs of the Khalistan movement. This of course presupposes that the Jats are as proponderent amongst the Nihangs as they are in the general Sikh population. This does somewhat negate your argument since the locality and leadership regardless of caste were bigger factors than caste solidarity.>>> I note your point and am not in disagreement with this, however the trend is clear concerning the attitudes and directive issued by Misl leaders and more so amongst Nihang Dals and the caste background of their jathedars and this is evident during the 1980s too with those dals which showed solidarity with the movement and those which stand their independent ground through to those which many argue actually went against it (namely, Baba Santa Singh and Ajit Singh Poola). In any event, this was more a passing comment to your initial post, the main thrust of the discussion concerns the assertion that Nihangs have always been on the out skirts of the Sikh masses, which I personally do not agree with from a historical perspective. <<<I'm not sure when the DDT started to refer to Dasam Granth as Guru Granth Sahib. But I do know that when the Dasam Granth was first published entitled Dasam Guru Granth Sahib there was a controversy over this, this was a few years ago and even the publishers, a publishing house of Amritsar weren't sure how it would be received. The word Dasam in the title was in very small print and many people were confused and thought that it was the Guru Granth Sahib. As for Nihangs we agree that they have been referring to it as Dasam Guru Durbar probably since the middle of the 18th century. Of the Takhts especially Takht Sri Hazur Sahib there is not much contemporary (ie 18th century) evidence that both the Guru Granth Sahib and the Dasam Granth were both installed together there. It might have started when the Nihangs ousted the Nirmalas from the Takht and replaced the Nirmala maryada with the Nihang maryada there. For the Takht Sri Harmandir Saihb we have the short description of Charles Wilkins who visited the Takht in 1781. His description is of the place having a number of Pothis but he goes on to describe the ceremony in which though not mentioned as such the Guru Granth Sahib is installed and some verses from Gurbani sung with accompaniment of a drum (tabla?) and cymbals. He then goes on to describe the Ardas. The two Sikhs who strike up a conversation with him tell him that apart from the book of Guru Nanak there is another book which came after and is held in 'almost as much esteem as the former'. It is important no note the 'almost' in the statement of the Sikhs at the Takht. Certainly the present maryada at the Patna Takht although described as Puratan is different in many ways than the one noted in 1781. Charles Wilkins does however describe the students at the Takht as reciting the Dasam Granth. >>> Thanks for this – but essentially we are now speculating (re: “It MIGHT have started when the Nihangs ousted the Nirmalas). I personally believe that the Dasam Granth was placed alongside the Guru Granth Sahib by Sikhs following the episode with Bhai Mani Singh and Bhai Sukha Singh and Bhai Mehtab Singh. The placing alongside the Guru Granth Sahib, does not however in any way belittle the paramount importance of Guru Sahib – even the Nihangs (UK dal included) acknowledge this much as do all who even refer to the Sri Dasam Granth as Dasam Guru Granth Sahib. My main point is that the treatment of the Dasam Granth by way of parkash, matha thek, hukamnama etc etc is not uniquely a Nihang tradition – even the Bhai Desa Singh rehitnama in describing the daily liturgy for a Sikh stipulates at the end of the banis required for daily recital to “learn a new portion of bani from EITHER Granth Sahib”. <<<The dispute over whether the Dasam Granth was all the work of Guru Gobind Singh or just some of it is not a new issue. Apparently there was a dispute over whether the whole of the Dasam Granth should be complete in one or split into two. It was decided that if both Mehtab Singh and Sukha Singh completed their mission and killed Massa Ranghar then the Dasam Granth would be kept in one pothi.>>> Agreed, however this issue was resolved there and then by the Sikhs and concerned in the main only the inclusion of the charitropakhyan within the combined volume, not necessarily because it was disputed as not being Guru Sahib’s works, but because some Sikhs wished to keep it separate from his strictly “dharmic” works as this section of the Dasam Granth effectly forms a “Neeti” shastr. In any case, whatever their motives, the discussion certainly wasn’t as far fetched and ludicrous as it is today, where “Sikhs” cast doubt not only over this portion of these celestial writings, but over the Chandi Banis, 24 Avtars, portions of the Akal Ustat and Gyan Parbodh and even the Shabd Hazare P10.

Singh is NOT a caste - please get your facts right. Besides, the issue is not one of caste being bad per se, the issue is of discrimination on the basis of caste. To argue we should disown our surnames and essentially 'pretend' that caste doesn't exist is rather like saying that to acknowledge one's race makes one a racist! Besides, Guru Sahib does on occasion use his "Khatri" surname when signing off some writings (re: Gobind "Singh" Asi Khalauna "Sodhi Rai").

Gur Fateh Parvaan Hove! I’ll try and keep this short as I can (difficult for me!), however ask that you appreciate that this is a very big topic. Guru Sahib can be found in the Suraj Parkash Granth having a discussion with the Sikhs on this matter, he states to the effect that Kesh has long been the signifier of beauty, wisdom, knighthood, royalty, spirituality, divinity and so on…the fact that others have chosen to shed theirs is not a reflection of changing times (a question raised by one of the Sikhs), as the sun and moon still exist within the 24 hours of the day on this earth, the times have not changed. From this, my personal take on this question is actually to turn it around to you, the question is not so much WHY do Sikh NOT cut their hair, but in fact WHY do OTHERS cut theirs? Here are some possible, not all answers to this question: Fashion? -well, what is fashion? “the prevailing style or custom, as in dress or behaviour following who’s lead is accepted” is a typical dictionary definition. Well, I know who’s lead I wish to follow – Guru Sahib…read on and we’ll come back to this shortly… Convenience? -really? What is so inconvenient about keeping one’s kesh tied and neat? Is it really more convenient to be shaving each day and spending time and money in the barbers shop? Practicality? How? As above, there is nothing impractical about having Kesh as many situations can be easily adjusted to whilst still maintaining one’s Kesh – ultimately there is very little in terms of work, leisure or other activities/requirements that having “long hair” should make impossible to manage – this is nothing but an excuse to shy away from this perceived responsibility so one can indulge into the first item above. “The done thing” ? According to who? – as per above… Ritual observance or tradition? This is the key point, which should be noted as the background to all of the above ‘reasons’. It was customary globally for all persons of high stature and rank to have their kesh unshorn. The trend of men shedding their hair and beard began in the Church with the radical St Paul and predominantly in the western world with Alexander the Great – in the pursuit of ‘youthful’ appearance, which he felt the beard hid. Since his time, this trend has been set for the masses who “accepted his lead” In religious traditions, those who disliked the body and rejected the gift of human birth as something evil, sort to exemplify their rejection of the world through having their head shaved (re: Monks and Nuns) or hair individually plucked. These traditions disown the majesty of the human existence, essentially the majesty of the divine and are replete with renunciation and denial of life, sex, and the world. Beauty? Again, according to whom? Alexander? Brad Pitt? It is well known that hair is intrinsically linked with beauty, sexuality and honour – the reasons why it was most often reserved for those of high stature in certain societies, why it is covered in public, with only your mother, siblings and then your lover (wife/husband) being the only ones to see it in full glory. Kesh has long been the signifiers of classical beauty. A shaved face and head are quite the opposite, as per the above, a signifier of denial of life, guilt, crime, etc. So in summary, I ask you to consider for yourself, why do others cut their hair? Are you a man? If so, why do you shy from being a full man, with a beard and hair – or do you wish to, like others today, subconsciously retain your boyish looks because you don’t wish to handle the responsibility that comes with age, with manhood? Or are you like many today, seeking to be fashionable, if so let’s look at the definition of fashion again and key into “following the lead of who is accepted”…maybe you wish to be fashionable and be clean shaven like the homosexual famous fashion designer, or the promiscuous film actor or indeed the drug addicted rock star…or perhaps you wish to embrace the honour of being keshdhari like that of the most beautiful, handsome, majestic, divine, noble, warrior-poet, spiritual Guru Gobind Singh? I leave you to ponder over this…happy to discuss further as you see fit. Gur Fateh! Niranjana.

Practice this: Dha tirkit tik tirkit x 2 DhoNaGinNa DhaTiDhaGe DhoNaGinNa x 2 (khali) Punjab Gharana – Alla Rakha Khan Sahib. This should get your hands well and truly ready, take it slow and keep it regular.

Jats usually don't marry out of their kin, because they consider themselves separate and distinct by "race" and "habit", regardless of them being Amritdhari or not. As per pratices such as marrying within kin, this can also be witnessed amongst certain parts of the Jat aristocracy for much the same reason: "we know the family...it keeps the money/land within the family". Amongst rural Jat families, it is also well known that polyandry was practised.

Without questioning the abilities or even going into a discussion on Nihang Niddar Singh, I find it extremely immature that people some 20 years after his death have repeated claimed that they could "batter" Bruce Lee... ...where were all these claims when he was alive??? ...those who did put their money where their mouths were, certainly underwent a 'battering' ...from Bruce Lee!

Historically speaking, Aroras are a caste to themselves, which over time (following the Raj Administration and partition) have 'merged' to an extent within the wider Khatri circles, although, as is well known within the Khatri circles, a distinct 'pecking order' does exist and Arora remain at the lower rungs of this (with the obvious Bedis, Sodhis, Sethis, Anands etc at the top).

Bikramjit, <<I think your misunderstand my point. Various sections of Sikhs have differing views about the Dasam Granth. Some accept it all as the work of Guru Gobind Singh, others accept only some parts as Guruji's work. This however is different from explicitly referring to Dasam Granth as Sri 'Guru' Dasam Granth Ji. Only Nihangs refer to it as Dasam Guru Durbar. The Maryada of the Takht Sri Hazur Sahib as well as the Takht Harmandir Sahib at Patna can hardly be relied upon and contrary to UK Nihang claims of 'Puratan' Maryada this maryada owes a great deal to the previous nirmala officiants of the Takht. >> I feel you have also missed my point. If the (UK) Nihangs choose to use the term “Dasam Guru Darbar” that’s their prerogative [– incidentally, the reasons why were explained by Narsingha on Sikhawareness a year back – not that I personally agree with his rationale], however the notion of Dasam Guru Granth Sahib is NOT unique to the Nihangs alone, in addition to the Thakts mentioned, the Taksal also have this tradition (for further references see their Katha from last year concerning raagmala, nanakshahi calendar and the Dasam Granth, during which the Taksal openly state “Dasam Guru Granth Sahib”). The placing of the Dasam Granth alongside the Guru Granth Sahib is not an exclusively Nihang tradition either and the arguments of ‘some and not all’ of the contents being written by Guru Sahib is largely a modern day argument from the Kala Afghana and Teja Singh Bhasauria circles (modern examples here would include Professor Darshan Singh and Gurinder Singh Mann). This tradition cannot be pinned down solely to Nihangs or “Nirmala Officiants”. It was in vogue from the times of Bhai Mani Singh and Bhai Sukha Singh and Mehtab Singh. <<This is exactly my point. A group will lays great stress on puratan maryada is so open to acceptence of the Sarbloh Granth as 'Guru' even though some noted scholars considered the Sarbloh Granth as the work of Sukha Singh>> Again, I think my point has not been fully appreciated. Noted scholars may or may not consider the Sri Sarabloh Parkash as Sri Mukhvak P10, however this in itself does not really add much to either side of the argument – many ‘noted scholars’ continue to disagree on fundamentals like the Mool Mantra, Raagmala, Keski-vis-Kesh etc etc. The question I have is not over the authenticity of the Sri Sarabloh Parkash, however over the claim of lineage from Guru Gobind Singh as put forth by Nihangs and those who share this view, particularly with regard to their appearance and rituals (namely AKJ / Tapoban Singhs/Singhnees). This is why I stated “The Sarabloh Granth is a different matter” (re: its validity), the point we can discuss here, is its parkash alongside the Guru Granth Sahib and Dasam Granth Sahib and its coming into Nihang hands from an Udasi. In any event, here we agree, it calls into question the Nihangs claim to lineage as a Guru ordained sampradha. <<Not really. No other section of the Panth claims to be Guru Diyan Laadliyan Faujan! and neither do they feign preparing for war 24/7. Other Panthic group in some degree took part in the movement. AKJ, DDT, Babbar Khalsa, Dal Khalsa, AISSF, Akali Dal all took part in the movement. What is ironic is that probably more Hindu youth took part in the movement than Nihangs! >> ” Guru Diyan Laadliyan Faujan” and “preparing for war 24/7” are simply “terms” – the ideas behind them can be found in all the groups you mentioned, just they refer to them differently. Any “movement” can be assessed by its long term success – this is applicable to the Nihangs in as much as it is to the Groups that you highlight (and no doubt favour) – however again, this is another topic, just like the validity of the Sri Sarabloh Parkash as being Sri Mukhvak P10. <<The caste base of the Misls was a later development. Initially the Misls leaders chose youth from their own villages or the area around these villages. The Ramgarhia and Ahluwalia misls which have latterly been used to denote the Tarkhan and Teli castes had men of all castes with them. The so-called inter-caste Misl conflicts ( namely between Ramgarhia on one side and Ahluwalia and other Misls on the other ) which some writers in Punjabi journals nowadays seek to highlight today was nothing of the sort. No Misl was strictly based around one caste. It would be highly unusual if Jats had not got a predominate role in the Misls given that they made up a majority of the Sikhs at that time.>> Jats still form the majority today and in terms of politics, not much has really changed. There is a clear link between those Nihang Dals which supported the “movement” during the 1980s and those that did not and the correlation with the caste of the Dal leader does not appear to be sheet coincidence. I agree with your point on the Misls being multi-caste and in some cases, multi-religious, however, the caste-based conflict was evident even then, as these were reflective of the Misl leader’s jaat, just like with the Nihang Dals of today <<Thats a typo, I meant 250 years from 1469.>> Thanks for the clarification. <<With regard to Banda Singh Bahadur we need to be careful with even Sikh sources because given the later animosity between Tat Khalsa and Bandai Khalsa. Sikh writers such as Rattan Singh Bhangu and others have written many things about Banda Singh such as the Mata Sundri writing to Banda Singh asking him to surrender at the request of the Mughals. >> The ‘Bandai Khalsa” that gets frequent mention amongst Sikh scholars and writers today fails to differentiate between the Bandai Khalsa during the time of Banda Singh Bahadur (e.g. Baba Baaj Singh) and those that formed the split after his death – the latter group are those with whom the Tat Khalsa conflict arose and is well documented in Rattan Singh’s Panth Parkash concerning the forcible feeding of pork chops stuffed into the mouths of the Bandai Khalsa outside the Akal Thakt. Nonetheless, many sources point towards Mata Jee coming under the influences of those Sikhs from the lineage of the second and third Gurus, namely Baba Binod Singh, who does come into the employ of the Moghul administration. <<I don't think so. The fact that the Namdharis could formulate an ideology which went against the Nihangs and at one stage (before the killings of the butchers) could carry a large number of Sikh with them shows that the Nihangs at that time were not considered the original Khalsa. Otherwise it would have been difficult to go against the Nihang beliefs and the Namdharis would have been considered as heretic from the onset. >> I see your angle on this, however your argument is somewhat generic. I stand by my initial statement that the Namdharis held an equally if not more dim view of the Singh Sabha elite – in fact, their origins is based on the affluence that Sikhs had gathered during that time and as a result of which ‘fallen from grace’, hence their emphasis on simple living modes, which was more akin with Nihang beliefs, excepting the meat / bhang and blue dress issues, than with that of the Singh Sabha elite or Sikh Aristocracy. The fact that one of the first punj pyare of the Namdharis was himself a Nihang, shows amply that they were not necessarily “against” Nihangs, this is further borne out by their Nitnem maryada, particularly with respect to the Chandi Paath and regular recital of Uggardanti – a uniquely Nihang trait. In some ways, the Namdharis represented a unique mix of Nirmala Sant and Nihang traditions, which perhaps accounts for the ease with which they were able to recruit numbers, given that most Sikhs of the time would have been influenced significantly by both of these groups through their deras and roles in the Gurdwaras. The Singh Sabha, as some would argue and would be correct to do so, were opposed to the Nihangs owing to close proximity to the British – what I do find interesting is why would the British be “surprised” about “how much inroad brahmanical thought had made”??? Moreover, not only be surprised, but then take an active role, as suggested alongside the Singh Sabha to purge such elements from the Sikhs? Whilst I personally cannot agree with all the practices that were in vogue during what H. Oberoi described as the Sanatan Sikh era, I cannot help but be suspicious of the British involvement within this latter period of reform – this is also borne out by the false propaganda means utilised by the Raj. For instance the ‘Topi Wale Sikhs’ prophecy, which is nothing but a sham, a means of recruiting Sikh loyalty and interests for the service of the British Empire and likewise the writings of the Max Arthur Macauliffe. In the case of the latter, let’s consider the following commentary by his close associate, Bhai Laskhman Singh: “He had a grievance against the Government which refused to recognisze his work. He believed that he had done a signal service to it by earning the gratitude of the Sikh community for Government in allowing him to undo the mischief which Dr. Ernest Trump, a German , missionary, had done to them by his caricature of the Sikh scriptures. He was offered a paltry sum of rupees five thousands as a gift by the Government of India which he indignantly refused. He had also a grievance against the Amritsar Sikhs against whom he wrote a satire and sent it to me with a request that I should get it published.“ Singh, 1965:123-4 Clearly, from this paragraph we can see, Macaufille’s work was not exempt from an underlying agenda, much like all Orientalist scholars – the key points to note are that he sought to “signal service to it by earning the gratitude of the Sikh community for Government in allowing him to undo the mischief which Dr. Ernest Trump, a German , missionary“ clearly pointing to the need to recruit Sikh sentiments and favour. So what exactly was the role of the British Administration within the shaping of future events? <<Whatever faults the British may have had in their divide and rule policies and creation of pro-british prophecies, one cannot deny the fact that the British compared the rites and rituals of the Sikhs at that time with reference to the teachings of the Guru Granth Sahib. Although Oberoi and lately the UK Nihangs would have us believe that this was British interference in their 'enchanted universe', even before the British took over the Punjab there was a reform movement which looked to just the Guru Granth Sahib to evolve the Gursikh lifestyle. The Nirankaris were totally against the Brahmanical practices that had infiltrated into Sikhism at that time. This reform movement which began decades before the annexation of the Punjab shows that far from a 'sanatan' Sikh world at ease with itself taking part in rites and rituals contary to Gurbani there was unease especially amongst the more religiously minded in the Panth at the state of Sikhism at that time. It is certainly ironic that before the annexation the British administrators of the area of Ganga doab would write with considerable distain of the increasing number of Sikhs going to pilgrimage to the Ganga each year considering it against Sikh teachings yet the Sikhs going to the Ganga were blissfully ignorant of it!>> The occurrence of the Nirankaris (and the Namdharis) need to be assess with care – both ultimately resulted in legacies which kept the groups well within the “enchanted universe” through the lineage of Gurus, worship of the Sandals, use of Havans etc. There was a clear agenda on part of the British Administration, which you and I both acknowledge, whilst we may differ on extent to which this was applied and if it was responsible for the rift between Sikhs and Hindoos as the Sanatan Sikhs claim, the Agenda certainly did have its impact on Sikh institutions and modes of conduct and this is evident today even outside of the ‘Sanatan Sikh’ camp, given the numerous issues that exists as contentious points between groups like the AKJ / Bhasaur Singh Sabha and SGPC, both offshoots following the impact of the Raj administration with each other and with others like the Sant Deras, Taksal etc. <<This is largely a mythical construction, the UK Nihang myth of a sanatan sikh society united and everyone getting along with each other until the big bad Singh Sabha ruined everything! The so-called sampardhas were distrustful of each other.>> I would agree whole heartedly and surprising for some, so would the (UK) Nihangs – particularly for the relationships between Nihangs and Nirmalas (which to this day remain weak, as typified by the attitude of Baba Santa Singh). This is no different, much like the point above concerning the “movement” today for the various Jathas and institutions, one only has to look on this forum to have a feel for the animosity between the Taksal (one time supporters of the Sanatan Sikhi ideal when they too were listed as a ‘Sampradha’) and the AKJ and SGPC. <<Most wore Black clothes and Turbans but in later stages of the movement the colour was blue as it has been ever since then>> Noted.