Niranjana

Can you please clarify your point on this? I am little confused. Baba Banda Singh Ji took Amrit in 1708 and the account is well recorded in Bhatt Vahis. Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh 123209[/snapback] Gur Fateh! Clarification as requested: The Taksal state no women can be part of the Punj because no one women answered the call of Guru Sahib in 1699 and this is the way he intended it to be (i.e. the Punj are "Singhs"). I am asking how far the Taksal wish to take that view - as there is no record of any WOMEN (Sikhni) taking Khanda-da-Pahul in 1699 (such as the wives of the Gurus etc). This has led 'some' to conclude that the Khalsa was male only initially - on the same grounds that the Taksal argue for not allowing women to undertake seva of the Punj - namely that no women answered the initial call in 1699. I cannot see how your point on Banda Singh Bahadur is relevant here - for avoidance of doubt, Baba Banda Singh Bahadur was Amritdhari, and a better source than the much edited Bhat Vahies /Guru Ki Sakhia etc is Kesar Singh Chibber's "Bansavalinama Patshahi 10 ka" in which he clearly states that "Banda" received Amrit from Guru Sahib and "Singh sajya".

Jai Tegang, Gur Fateh and thanks for you kind comments. As per the upcoming works of Bhai Amritpal Singh, please could you indicate how you consider him to have been "selectively posted portions from various granths and from interviews"? In fact he states very clearly that whilst he has interviewed many Nihangs, press reporters and other, he has not used this in the main body of his works as presentation of any particular conclusion. Moreover, which text do you consider has been quoted selectively? If there are any, I know Amritpal Singh is still working on some final touches and I would recommend we hammer him now with suggestions to update these areas, appropriately. Nonetheless, the synopsis provided at the outset clearly shows the scope of the project and the areas which will be covered, hence why there is no 'overall' conclusion presented on all subject areas, other than those mentioned and even at that it still allows the reader to make up their own minds. What it certainly doesn't do, as per the recently circulated article by one Gurmukh Singh is make a set of contradictory and unreferenced statements about Nihangs being some form of 'cub scout' group within the Khalsa! Nor does it seek to quote two lines and use one highlighted word from that line to invent a whole series of religious traditions!

Interesting post Bobby Boy and thanks for remembering me. Just a point of interest, it is not the UK Nihangs alone who propose the view that Guru Sahib inaugurated the ‘Akali Nihang Singh Khalsa’, this is something shared by the Buddha Dal and Tarna Dal – let’s focus on the latter, as Baba Nihal Singh is a favourite modern era Nihang personality amongst many Sikhs, particularly those affiliated with DDT and the AKJ. His interview on FortPanthKhalsa clearly shares the same view. Perhaps the forum can share their thoughts on the following items: <<“As MS514 Bhaji said the Nihangs follow 5 kakkar rehat and follow Guru Granth Sahib but they also refer to Dasam Granth and Sarbloh Granth as Guru. This is an arbitary decision taken sometime in the 1770's because Guru Gobind Singh only gave Guruship to the Guru Granth Sahib. Later in the early 1800's the Sarbloh Granth suddenly appeared and this too was arbitarily given the status of Guru!”>> Is this really a fair assessment? I feel to the contrary, particularly concerning the Sri Dasam Granth, which is not only elevated to equal status to the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Jee by Nihangs, but many puratan sampradhas and other groups (Taksal, ,many Sant Deras/Nirmalas, Namdharis, the original Singh Sabha movement) and Thakts (Hazoor Sahib and Patna Sahib) have held this practice and still do. The claim that it was given Guruship by the ‘Akali Nihang Singh Khalsa’ is one that I would personally challenge rather that the practice of having the Sri Guru Granth Sahib and Sri Dasam Granth kept in Parkash within a Gurdwara. The Sarabloh Granth is a different matter, whilst it is true that having Parkash of all three Granth Sahibs is no ‘puratan’ maryada as the Nihangs (whether UK or India) like to make out and is in fact a recent innovation and even then is not followed in all Nihang Deras, it is a useful means by which to assess the wider issue of Nihangs being “the” Khalsa Panth inaugurated by Guru Sahib, since why would this text have to come into their possession through an Udasi, particularly since they are supposed to have a “lineage” back to Guru Gobind Singh? Moreover, relations between these sampradhas are not really as cushy as made out by some (see the 6 puratan rehitnamas, there is explicit reference within these for the Khalsa NOT to have sangat with various groups, in one case, Udasis are included within this group). <<“Your reference to Nihangs sewa of the sword is a bit of a fallacy given that most Nihangs stood by whilst the cream of the Sikh youth were killed in fake encounters. I'm sure you would agree that were the Nihangs the 'true' Khalsa they would have definately done something to stop of killings of Sikh youths, I mean the True Khalsa would have defended the youth of any religion let alone just Sikhs. Although this could be argued as politics and due to Santa Singh's links to Indira Gandhi, yet it is still important because a True Khalsa does not get involved in dharraybandiyan ( factionalism)”>> This analysis is again that can be easily applied across all sections of the Panth who see themselves as the “True Khalsa”, most are hardly doing much to do anything against the killings of Sikh youths, much less any other youths, given the increased levels of Sikh militant groups in the past 2 decades who have taken to using tactics previously the hallmark of Islamic groups. <<“I am sure we are all aware of the Misl politics, when there was no common danger to the Khalsa, the Misls would fight amongst themselves. Later on some would even ally themselves with the enemies of the Sikhs to fight their petty rivalries. The politics of the Nihangs in the 1980's was similar to how a Misl would have behaved say in the 1790's. They allied themselves not based on any common cause, not for the Khalsa brotherhood but on the personal whim of their leader. “>> The politics of the Nihangs during the 1980s was indeed like that of the Misl period, where the Singhs aligned themselves predominantly on caste lines and by nothing other than sheer numerical majority, Jat Sikhs rose to power and owing to their predominance were able no doubt to convince the Sikh masses that they were acting on behalf of the ‘Panth’. The same is true for the 1980s, and the Nihangs have also behaved in the same way as there is more than just one leader (Baba Santa Singh) who take a stand on the events that unfolded, many (like Baba Balbir Singh Akali) didn’t agree with him, others like Baba Nihal Singh went onto support the Khalistanis full fledged – interestingly the Nihang Chiefs of smaller dals were spit in their support for the Kharkoos on the same lines as the Misls were… <<“In considering whether the Nihangs are the orginal Khalsa we also need to consider that given the Nihang lifestyle of today, is this what Guru Gobind Singh had in mind for the Khalsa. For 230 years before 1469 the Sikhs lived a relatively settled existence when the time came for Sikhs to fight for their rights under Guru Hargobind Sahib they proved themselves to be good fighters.“>> I presume you don’t mean 1469 and this is a typo? “As the Shaheedan Misl controlled the main Gurdwaras it came under their authority to give Khanday Di Pahul to new Sikhs. Whilst the Misls were locked in their struggle against the Mughals, a significant number of Khalsa lived within the jangal des area (modern Malwa) in settled communities under the rule of one or another of the Phul Rajas or their own Chaudharis. These Sikhs didn't live a Nihang lifestyle moving from place to place. The Shaheedan Misl became the Nihangs.” What are forums views on the following points: 1. The Nihang Khalsa was under the employ of the Hill Rajas and also the Moghul administration? On Sikhawareness, the moderators ran a 101 discussion on the Sanatan Sikhs as part of which was a discussion on Banda Singh Bahadur and the role played in his defeat by Baba Binod Singh (the claimed first Jathedar of the Buddha Dal) who was in the employ of the blue dressing Moghul government). 2. The Misl Shaheedan as the historic Nihangs, upon becoming custodians of the Gurdwaras managed the distribution of Khande-d-Pahul, so where then does the customs of Kirpan/Kard da Amrit materialise, why does the banis recited during the preparation of the Pahul and those prescribed for recitation by new Singhs vary so considerably if this was in the hands of a single institution? <<The majority Sikhs, those who settled down after the Mughal rule had ended in Punjab were affected by the popular religion of Punjab and it came as a surprise to the British when they annexed the Punjab as to how much inroad brahmanical thought had made. This necessitated the Singh Sabha movement of the 1870's and it is to be noted that none of the Singh Sabha leaders placed much store by the liefstyle of the Nihangs. Other Sikh reform movements particularly the Namdharis were hostile to the Nihangs and although some may argue that Singh Sabha view of to Nihangs was due to their closeness to the British, yet the same cannot be argued for the Namdharis were were anti-British yet still had a dim view of the Nihangs.>> The Namdharis were bound to have a “dim view of the Nihangs” as they disagreed on many points such as meat, blue dress etc. This is not really a valid argument, as the Namdharis held arguably (and still do) an even dimmer view of the Singh Sabha elite. So this can be discounted to a degree. 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? <<Niranjana is correct that many modern Jathas of the Panth have taken the Nihang to be the original Khalsa and have tried to replicate their organisational structure. This first came about during the Akali movement to take over the Gurdwaras from the Mahants. The Akali movement took the Blue colour of the Nihangs and wore blue Dastars, they referred to their Akali leaders as Jathedars (none of the later Misl leaders were referred to as Jathedar, mostly just Sardar) similar to how the Nihangs refer to their leader, they also took the term Dal, Punjabi for army for their political organisation (Akali Dal). >> A couple interesting points are related to this point: 1. The morcha against the largely Udasi mahants was also supported by the Nihangs, so again it is surprising to see in view of real life events and the rehitnama literature, that relations between these groups are made out to as close as they are by some. 2. Correct me if I’m wrong, but were the Akalis not dressed in Black and also later supportive and active in the ‘ahimsa’ ideology of Gandhi? 3. The title Jathedar is indeed a uniquely Nihang term and certainly not found within the Sikhs prior to the establishment of the historic Nihang Groups. 4. Today, the 2 predominant non-Nihang groups to have taken this step of propagating the bana of Nihang Singhs as the one and only form of the Khalsa are both related themselves and ironically do not see eye to eye with the Buddha Dal Nihangs on many points despite a shared external observance of strict rehit, one is the AKJ (in particular their Tapoban faction) and the other the Babbar Khalsa International, an AKJ affiliated body founded by the wife of the late Bhai Fauja Singh Shaheed, now a body listed as a banned international terrorist group since the 9/11 bombings.

Veer JaskeeratGyan Singh Khalsa Taksali, OK, we’ll leave the ‘spokesman’ part out of here, nonetheless you are a student of the Mehta based Taksal and having seen you in action previously, a fairly accomplished one at that too when it comes to Gurbani Ucharan and Santhia. With reference to the above quote from your past post – allow me first to clarify my stance, this is not my view, it is simply showing what can be argued with the same logic as that you presented from Sant Jee for the non-participation of women. Secondly, I cannot see how you can agree to “a white SINGH is at the highest level of Sikhee then OF COURSE he is able to perform the seva of the panj” but in the same tone still consider it unacceptable for bibian to do so – Veer, you also make me laugh. Let’s consider this point by point: 1. You state it is a “great sin to even look at the caste/background of a Gursikh”. You stated EVEN “LOOK” at one’s caste – I personally feel differently (as for the purposes for marriage it is critical to understand gotra to avoid incest relations for instance), as the issue is not so much caste within Sikhi, but discrimination on the basis of caste which is the issue, however, for now, let’s go with your thoughts (which I’m certain them majority of Gursikhs will agree with on this forum). Fine, it is a “great sin to EVEN “LOOK” at the caste/background” – yet you (and the ‘maryada’ of the Taksal) are willing to DISCRIMINATE on the basis of gender??? Not only that, but seek to back it up by alluding to Guru Jee wanting it this way? Please kindly reconsider my proposition, as it is as pathetic an argument as that which you are suggesting for not allowing female Punj Pyare. 2. The point on white Sikhs was made to highlight what can happen with the “logic” you / the Taksal have proposed for not allowing Bibian to be part of the Punj – you are discriminating on the basis of gender. You found my caste scenario hard to digest and let’s face it, caste is a lot more subjective in the global world than gender and race, which is why the latter is also raised to show how ridiculous an argument it is, presented by yourself for not allowing ladies into the Punj. Anyhow, let’s not allow this to get in the way of wider discussions – let’s say the Taksal are correct in their stance. I present the following to you for consider (in addition to the Pati-Parmeasur –surely with the wealth of educated Taksali Singhs in Leeds, there must be someone who could answer this part?): If, on the grounds that no woman answered the call in 1699, they are not permitted to be part of the Punj, how about the whole notion of them being part of the Amritdhari Khalsa? Allow me to continue (and note, these are not necessarily my views, I’m playing devil’s advocate in order to look at this point from every angle)…in 1699, in fact right up to the Misl Period, we do not hear of any Sikhi receiving Khande-da-Amrit (e.g. the Guru wives, wives of famous Singhs of Guru Sahibs time etc). Then with the uprising of the Misls, we see examples of Bibi Shamsher Kaur (a Hindoo girl who along with her sister was taken in my Jassa Singh Ramgarhia after her own community disowned them because Pathans had previously kidnapped them) – this is some time after 1699. Secondly we have the case of Namdhari Baba Ram Singh who is also accredited with beginning the progress of distributing Khande-da-Amrit to both men and women. I have a video recording of Sant Jee pre-1984 criticising the practice amongst the Nihang Singhs and Hazoori Singhs of distributing “kirpan da amrit” to women because “there is only one Khalsa, not Khalsa and Khalsee” – yet it seems ironic on one hand the Taksal follow this hukam of Sant Jee (i.e. Khande-da-Amrit for both sexes) and at the same time suggest that women cannot be part of the Punj Pyare on the basis of history, despite the same history indicating that women taking any form of Amrit initiation (be it Khande-da-Amrit or the innovation that arose later within certain communities of Kirpan da Amrit) didn’t occur during 1699 either??? How far is the Taksal wanting to take this stance?

Gur Fateh! Dear Veer JaskeeratGyan Singh "Khalsa" (aka Taksali Singh), Please answer the questions posed earlier on, rather than diverting the conversation onto matters which are nothing more than "political" in nature. The stance on meat, number of banis and raagmala are unnecessary here. I'll spell them out for you again and would appreciate your view on these matters as the internet "Taksal" spokesperson in order to clarify the position. 1. Why does the Taksal promote as part of their maryada, the Bipran concept of Pati-Parmeasur? This is not in line with the teaching of Gurbani an is clearly a legacy of the Bipar combined with that emerging from the Victorian Era of the 1900s. 2. If women cannot be part of the Punj because Sant Jee presumably argued that no women got up during the initial Vasaikhi call for 5 heads, does this also mean, that a Sikh of say, Bhatra and Lohar backgrounds, although can become Amritdhari, cannot be part of the Punj, because no Bhatra or Lohar was present in the original 5? Let's take it a step further, by the same logic, there were no Caucasian Sikhs present during 1699, so whilst we can have 'white' Sikhs today, they also can't be part of the Punj? This would seem to be the logical conclusion on the grounds you stipulate for the Taksal not permitting women to do seva in the Punj? Look forward to hearing from you. Gur Fateh! Niranjana.

We have been over this 1001 times, le'ts leave this discussion to one side. The Akal Thakt ruling is clear, stick with it - an Amritdhari Singh can eat NON-Halal Meat. This does not mean that you HAVE TO eat meat, I don't, but I have no problem with someone who does, provided that follow this directive. Let's move onto more interesting matters - PLEASE!!! Or is Sikhi about meat and how many layers of material who wrap around your head and body and which colour????

MS Veera, I concur that Nihangs are part and parcel of the Panth - no where have I stated to the contrary, my point is that people or even "scholars" draw the conclusion that all Sikhs were Nihangs and essentially that in 1699, Guru Sahib established the "Akali Nihang Singh Khalsa Panth", which is a flawed concept. The term "Nihang" did not come into vogue as a reference for a group of people until much later, previously it was simply a adjective term to describe their bravery. What you have shown is all the qualities people associate with Nihangs are nothing but qualities of Sikhs. The additional items over above these aspects are unique to Nihangs (i.e. Neela Bana, Aad Chand, Sukha, Chatka, Sarabloh Parkash, Sarabloh Bibek etc) and are clearly part and parcel of when the 'dal' splits for organisational purposes occurred (much later than 1699). So the assertion that Nihangs are "the" original saroop of the Khalsa is not a clear cut as made out by most people, pro-or-anti Nihang in their thoughts. Anyhow, I'll allow the forum to follow up this discussion to their own conclusions when further material is made publically accessible.

I can’t see how Taksali Singh has explained anything “wicked”. How are the historical course of events (i.e. 5 men getting up) equated to ‘maryada’ – this is but mindless ritualistic observance. The whole idea of Maryada is to remind (yaad) us of death (mar), i.e. be in bhao of/linked to Maharaj – how does this do anything of the sort? By your logic, Jas, presumably the following is also maryada: In 1699, Guru Sahib pitched a tent and summoned everyone to Anandpur Sahib – why then do we permit Amrit Sanchars inside buildings, surely we should also maintain this as maryada? Should we not all travel to Anandpur Sahib for our Amrit Sanchar? You state that women and children went afterwards, please give me a reference for this? There is none – in fact during Guru Sahib’s time we find no reference for any Women being Amritdhari or named “Kaur” by virtue of this – which is why some ‘lineages’ have concluded that women shouldn’t be given Amrit? Much like you conclude that they should participate in the Amrit ceremony. Also, in 1699, the Punj Pyare came from different castes, however not all castes were present in the Punj – for instance there were no Bhatra Sikhs or Jat Sikhs (although this has been cleverly adjusted over time such that one thesedays finds the word JAT always capitalized when describing the castes of the original Punj), in any event does this mean we should ensure today that Punj must also be of the same corresponding castes? That an Amritdhari of Bhatra, Lohar or Achoot Jaat cannot be part of the Punj??? By your logic, perhaps this is what we should do and call it “Gurmaryada”. Please answer the point concerning Pati Parmeasur – why does the Damdami Taksal on their official website MIS-translate the // of Bhai Gurdas Jee to introduce this Bipar concept?

Gur Fateh! MS Veera, please clarify what you have stated, this is a comment made by a lot of people at their whim with no support whatsoever – how do we know that “at one time, being a Sikh meant being a Nihang”. On what basis is such a conclusion drawn? You state that “many of the attributes that are trademarks of Nihangs are actually trademarks of being a Sikh” We’ll leave the contentious issues of Sukha and Chatka, however this statement is too vague – there are many attributes/trademarks of Nihangs, Nirmalas, Sevapanthis, Namdharis etc which are trademarks of being a Sikh, what value does that add to the discussion. Please qualify your assertion – of course Nihangs are Sikhs and they have contributed immensely to the Panth, however the question here is, are they the ‘original form of the Khalsa’ i.e. a “Guru-ordained sampradha” as the phrase goes? If so, why? If not, then why do the AKJ and Taksali youth like to dress with the so called “uniform” of the Khalsa? Do they consider the Nihang Singh saroop to be the definitive “Khalsa Roop”?

This is exactly my point MS Bhaji and I'm glad you can see this - it seems that it was conveniently being ignored on the Tapoban forum when Singh brought it up there. Let's hope we can understand the Taksal stance on this matter on this forum.

I guess here as well, everyone seems to think it is "sikhi" for a wife to treat her husband like God - "pati parmeasur" reeks of bipran influence, yet all the anti-RSS and anti-"Nang" crusaders here blissfully glance over this blantant anti-Sikh statement. Interesting...

Jai Tegang! Gur Fateh! I concur with what you are suggested re: each group claiming itself to be the one and only true holder of the original rehit etc. As per the Nihangs research and that of the Damdami Taksal, it is not in fact as accurate as people make out. There are many flaws in some of the quotations and conclusions drawn, however that is a subject of further debate and discussion. As per Amritpal Singh, he is a Hazoori Singh.

Perhaps we also pick up this discussion on Taksal and attitudes towards women from Tapoban: http://tapoban.org/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=4...165#reply_48618 Where the following quote from the DDT rehit maryada is being discussed: "Be faithful to your one wife, see others as your daughters and sisters, (for women you must be faithful to one husband and see others as your sons and brothers)." (//. 6, Pauri 8, Bhai Gurdas Jee) (is) interpreted as follows: A Singh must look upon his wife as his faithful Singhni and a SINGHNI SHOULD LOOK UPON HER HUSBAND AS PARMESHWAR(GOD). Does this sound like Sikhi?

Bikramjit, I have already mentioned a topic related to Nihangs – [see my post above concerning the Dastaar Boonga, Blue Chola and White Kachera being the one and only true form of the Khalsa, and this being some form of official ‘uniform’ for the Khalsa]. I have no need to present any references for this assertion; the UK Nihang sites speak for themselves as to why they derive this conclusion. Likewise, browse this forum or Tapoban, Gursikhijeevan, Sikhawareness, Sikhnet etc etc and you’ll find plenty of posts from AKJ and Taksal affiliated Singhs and Singhnia who will argue the same, as will most of the blogs of some of our more famous members on this forum. Even a recent article, by Gurmukh Singh, which attempted to criticise the UK Nihangs and make a case for ‘true Nihangs’, could not in the end differentiate or provide a clear few on whom he regarded as a Nihang and ultimately made a series of contradictory statements concerning their origins and his views on their role in the Panth. It is clear therefore to see that whilst many groups today speak strongly against the (UK) Nihangs and the Budha Dal, they cannot in the end separate themselves from many practices and ideologies derived directly or indirectly from that of the Nihang Singhs, the main one being the issue of appearance and the modes of conduct that go hand in hand with that (e.g. the chola should be of a certain length and cut, a hazooria must only be white, etc etc). It would appear if we look at pictorial evidence that the mass bulk of this change was initiated during the late 1970s and early-mid 1980s, however many non-Nihang institutions have for a long time being influenced by their practices and now consider these to be some form of oral puratan tradition, which may also account for this outlook. As I also mentioned, this is not a discussion relating solely to UK Nihangs nor is the attitude of reliance on anecdotes relayed by Sants, Babas and Bhai Sahibs. This is a discussion concerning all Sikhs. Look forward to hearing from you as you initially mentioned that you already have reached some conclusions on this topic.

Bikramjit, I have already mentioned a topic related to Nihangs – [see my post above concerning the Dastaar Boonga, Blue Chola and White Kachera being the one and only true form of the Khalsa, and this being some form of official ‘uniform’ for the Khalsa]. I have no need to present any references for this assertion; the UK Nihang sites speak for themselves as to why they derive this conclusion. Likewise, browse this forum or Tapoban, Gursikhijeevan, Sikhawareness, Sikhnet etc etc and you’ll find plenty of posts from AKJ and Taksal affiliated Singhs and Singhnia who will argue the same, as will most of the blogs of some of our more famous members on this forum. Even a recent article, by Gurmukh Singh, which attempted to criticise the UK Nihangs and make a case for ‘true Nihangs’, could not in the end differentiate or provide a clear few on whom he regarded as a Nihang and ultimately made a series of contradictory statements concerning their origins and his views on their role in the Panth. It is clear therefore to see that whilst many groups today speak strongly against the (UK) Nihangs and the Budha Dal, they cannot in the end separate themselves from many practices and ideologies derived directly or indirectly from that of the Nihang Singhs, the main one being the issue of appearance and the modes of conduct that go hand in hand with that (e.g. the chola should be of a certain length and cut, a hazooria must only be white, etc etc). It would appear if we look at pictorial evidence that the mass bulk of this change was initiated during the late 1970s and early-mid 1980s, however many non-Nihang institutions have for a long time being influenced by their practices and now consider these to be some form of oral puratan tradition, which may also account for this outlook. As I also mentioned, this is not a discussion relating solely to UK Nihangs nor is the attitude of reliance on anecdotes relayed by Sants, Babas and Bhai Sahibs. This is a discussion concerning all Sikhs. Look forward to hearing from you as you initially mentioned that you already have reached some conclusions on this topic.

Mintu Prava! Gur Fateh! I know Bhai Sahib will have all of this discussed, I'm interested to know what the forum thinks as there are so many learned individuals here, many with their own personal libraries and resources, who could definately contribute handsomely to this discussion.

<<Btw the A Sect or the Original Form of Khalsa? chapter looks very interesting. i have my own views whether the Nihangs were ever the original form of the Khalsa but it would be good to read Amritpal Singh's views on the subject. >> Gur Fateh! Whilst we await Bhai Sahib's recovery and update, let's share some thoughts on this point - as it concerns more than just the "Nihangs" of the Buddha Dal, Tarna Dal be they in India, Europe or North America. We are all familiar with the regular sights of young Singhs today adorning themselves with Dumalas and Cholas as well young Singhnia (some who also wish to wear the Chola and Kachera in the same manner as their male counterparts -i.e. no pyjama underneath) all based on the view that this saroop (namely "blue" coloured chola, with "white" kachera and "Dastaar Boonga" is "the" original form of the Khalsa). These Singhs and Singhnia are rarely, if at all, associated with Nihang Dals and in many instances are actually anti-Nihangs in many ways, yet all seem to agree on this one point concerning the supposed "bana" of the Khalsa as being strictly blue, with a white kachera and blue chola. Let's share some thoughts on this front...

Singh47, the only other "sikh" poster on that forum was me - and please could you for the benefit of all, explain how what I have written concerning Jaap Sahib and its universal non-gender biased praises and deep contemplative nature has anything to do with "the usual Bakwas" or helping to "push the Sanatan agenda further"???

Khalsa Fauj, Singhs are always great, they are today as well - except we like to moan and groan about why NOT this and why NOT that (rather like poker players moaning about the cards dealt to them, rather than making the most with what they have). There are many great Sikhs today as there were in yesteryears, maybe when they die and a century or so later, we'll hear about their greatness with equal zeal, BUT just like today in a world full of Badals and late Mr Torah, we have had bad apples and Baba Vadhbhag Singh is one of them. Deal with it - it's fact. Just because the texts contain items in them, which we find hard to digest today doesn't mean we should disown them - they are OUR legacy!!! People with your mindset are the reason why the RSS agents that you fear so much have an easy ride abusing our history. Its a fact that the 18th century Khalsa believed in the Devi and her role in the Khalsa - simple. It DOESN'T mean however that they were right - this is the problem with some who believe all that they read and some, like you who can't handle what you read. The events surrounding Vadhbhag Singh cannot be ignored simply because they leave a blot on the otherwise pristine example set by Singhs like Baba Deep Singh, Bhai Sukha Singh, Jassa Singh, Bhai Sangtia, Bhai Lalo and Bibi Samsher Kaur, Mai Bhago, Baba Banda SINGH Bahadur etc. Gur Fateh! Niranjana.

Gur Fateh! I also have seen these articles in the “hidden” section of Amritpal Singh’s website and will agree with the view above; they certainly have been well researched using both references from Gurbani and puratan Sikh texts and literature and no doubt Bhai Amritpal Singh will have spent a long time with many months burning the midnight oil during the collation of this very informative material. When I last had the chance of contacting Amritpal Singh, unfortunately his health had not been too good and he was also busy with preparations for the 1st barsi of his father, the late Bhai Sahib Avtar Singh. I pray that he has recovered since that time and will soon be bringing on this material online more formally. It is refreshing to see online Sikh history in a format which provides full references and allows the reader to come to their own conclusions. Looking forward to reading more. Niranjana.

Ah yes, "the Khalsa Fauj" - our enlightened friend who know all and sundry about what happened back in the 18th and 19th century. Unfortunately history is not ALL that we want or desire it to be - yes, WE ALL have BAD APPLES and the above is a good example of this. You'll also note that the same text gives a detailed account of the TAT KHALSA Singhs stuffing pork into the mouths of the Bandai Khalsa outside the Akal Thakt. Of course, for you, ALL Singhs are gods and angels and anything even slightly to suggest to the contrary must be the works of bipar agents - man, leave your paranoid mind at the door!

Gur Fateh! The following is taken from the much loved "Rattan Singh Bhangoo", the grandson of Mahtab Singh Meerankotia who murdered Massa Ranghar alongside Bhai Sukha Singh in Harimandir Sahib: Parallel to the conquest of Sirhind many decades later (1757) Jallandhar city was sacked under the leadership of Vadbhag Singh. For the original please refer to page 343, editor Bhai Vir Singh pub.1998). Addressing the gathering of the Sikhs prior to attack Vadbhag Singh then thundered, “ Is there anyone today who dares save Jallandhar?” Unsheathing his Katar (dagger) he flashed it and said.” Having killed him (the ruler of Jallandhar) I shall die of wounds myself. From the Khalsa gathering everyone stood up with folded hands and promised that there is none who would disagree with you today. All the drums were sounded. He also ordered that if Deena (Adina Beg one of the commanders of the Jallandhar ruler known to be favorable to Sikhs) tries to save Jallandhar then plunder him as well. When Deena Beg heard this he feared lest he gets plundered before the attack on Jallandhar. He immediately beat the big drum and hurried to meet the Khalsa. He stood before Vadbhag Singh and said, “Tell me what to do. I shall pay money as penalty and feed the Singhs with Karah in future”. Then Vadbhag Singh said to Khalsa,”First of all get the Pathans slayed, get the tomb of Nasir Ali (a muslim holy person buried in Jallandhar) burnt, all other tasks we shall perform after that.” Vadbhag then again said to the Sikhs,”Any one who claims to be a Sikh, should capture the Turkani (muslim women) of the Turks (muslim men), this is what I insist you should do.” He said to Deena Beg not to come out of his residence, who knows something might happen and you may be killed. Deena Beg then said, “ I am now become your Sikh, I am your Bhoda (hairless, mona) Sikh, As you desire save me. Then Khalsa attacked and entered the city and carried on murdering people, They would leave alone the ones with a Bodi (Hindus with a little pony tail on head), but anyone without bodi (meaning muslims)would be slain. Khalsa did as Vadbhag Singh had ordered. By exhuming the remains of Nasir Ali from the grave they stuffed his mouth with pork. Any Mughal, Pathan, Sheikh, or Sayyad woman was broght in by the Ranghretta Singhs. There was a Sikh named Sarup Singh from Chanarthal (near Chandigarh). Vadbhag Singh asked him take your pick from the Muslim women of Jallandhar. He further said, “Any one who takes and keeps a Turkani (muslim woman) from Jallandhar, I shall be his protector here in this world as well as hereafter”. I shall allow the forum to make their own conclusions concerning (a) the character of Baba Vadbhag Singh (b) the Rangretha Singhs and © the supposed 'flawless' legacy that we have been brought up on concerning ALL Singhs of old.

Militant Singh, tusi sharm karo - why are you judging Guru Sahib by your standards??? There is no ruling on the number of wives, but the fact that we are monogamous people is another matter. There is ample proof that Guru Sahib had more than one wife and that can be seen from the historical evidence that still exists today, namely their tombs, hukamnamas from the different Mata Jis etc. Let's get over this and the meat issue, the SIKH Rehit Maryada is VERY clear on this, relying on English translation of shabds is not going to get you very far nor is the opinion of this Baba or that one. Let's focus on the bigger picture and understand what exactly the person in question has troubling him and answer those issues and address them fully without getting into unecessary bickering between ourselves on small items.

Guru Ka Soulja Your post is both informative and largely correct, we can spend days on a whole load of topics we consider Hindu – from Rakhri, Lohri, Divali etc to even more ridiculous propositions proposed by some frankly paranoid and hysterical “Sikh” minds, such as reciting Barah Maha on Sangrand is a Hindu custom, that taking out 5 portions of Parshad for the Punj Pyare and a sixth for Guru Sahib is akin to Hindu Moorti Puja, that Karah Parshad and the concept of blessed food is taken from Hindu influence as is the Kirpan Bhet (supposedly evidence of the Devi Cult – however it is rare to find a similar practice amongst Tantrik Shakats!) through to the suggestion that even doing Parkarma during Lavan is a Hindu adoption! In short, we are not going to get very far with such thought, only move closer and closer to the ill conceived views of the Kala Afghanites – in whom the seemingly untiring ghost of Teja Singh Bhasauria and others like him continues to take ahold. I am not going argue for or against Rakhri – that is a choice for each individual for make for themselves. However let’s get a few things corrected, the accusations that a Sister tying a symbolic thread on her Brother’s hand is no more sexist than other silly arguments I’ve heard concerning allegations of sexist practice such as the Groom walking ahead of the Bride during Lavan Phera, why can’t they take it in turns or walk at the same level (holding hands one would presume?) or the concept that the “girl has to leave her family and adopt the new family name, why can’t it be the other way around?!!” and so on. Ultimately, I can understand how one could get hung up on things like Rakhri on the grounds that is a pagan festival that results in people belittling their sister’s status and look into religious connotations associated with it, or one can treat it like a purely cultural custom and / or similar to the way one may treat birthdays, anniversaries, Christmas etc – all depends on your if you feel any of these really adversely affect one’s life as a Sikh simply by exchanging gifts, sending cards or going for a holiday. If it is not comfortable for you then fine, but let’s not make a song and dance about it as mentioned above and focus on more important matters… Finally, Guru Ka Souljas article is a good one and explains much in the way of external influence during the 18th century on the Khalsa, where those close to the Rajputs, whom they regarded as Khsatriyas (Warriors) sought to adopt many of their traditions and ways to emulate the much touted Khsatirya Maryada, wherein the strong Devi influence present within the rehitnamas of time and how this expanded to other parts of the Khalsa ways, similarly too was the influence of the Marathas on those settled in the south lured by the Nizaam and adopted many aspects of local dress codes and customs, and like the Devi myth sought to link these with Guru Gobind Singh through selective use of scriptures and texts as the pristine and original form of the Khalsa proper…anyhow that is a separate discussion….

Wow, the great minds of the Panthic Youth at their best...