Research On Nihangs

[>Bikramjit Singh<]

Interesting discussion. I agree with Niranjana (probably a first!) that the Nihangs are not the original Khalsa. Yes, they may believe in and have usages that are the same as or similar to what the rest of the Sikhs believe but that does not mean that Guru Gobind Singh created the Nihangs in 1699, Guruji created the Khalsa and the Khalsa is not the same as the Nihangs, no matter how many myths the UK Nihangs make up to try and prove this.

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! 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 is also an important point as my personal view is that the Nihangs of today are just a left over from the Misl Shaheedan or the Nishanwalia Misl. This Misl unlike the others which were concerned with perpetuating the Khalsa Raj through annexation of land to their authority, the Misl Shaheedan looked after the Gurdwaras and whilst the other Misls settled down to rule their areas, the Shaheedan Misl carried on living the liefstyle that the whole of the Khalsa lived between 1708-1770, ie travelling from place to place, the chakarvarti existence.

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.

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. The Nihang lifestyle came as a matter of circumstances when the Sikhs had to move from place to place due to the persecution by the Mughals.

After the Khalsa became predominant in Punjab, the rest of the Sikhs settled down, many would have gone back to their villages to farm their lands and many would have gone back to their hereditary occupations within the villages and the towns. The Shaheedan Misl instead of taking over land continued to live the nomadic lifestyle and looking after the main Gurdwaras. The main body of the Khalsa, the other Misls started to rule their areas under their leaders. These Misls became kingdoms and some were finally swallowed up by the kingdom of Maharaja Ranjit Singh. 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.

During the period 1770-1849 both sets of Sikhs, the Nihangs and the settled Sikhs were affected by the prevalent customs and popular religion of the times. The settled Sikhs because of the large numbers if non-Sikhs who converted to Sikhism also assimilated many of the non-Sikh beliefs of these new converts. The Nihangs were affected by the Tantric rites of the Hindus of the hills as well as the Devi worshippers of southern Punjab. The ease in which a newly discovered Sarbloh Granth in the 1790's was given the status of Guruship shows that the Nihangs were not really strict about keeping the purity of their beliefs. Although the Uk Nihangs now ply the theory that the Sarbloh Granth was a 'hidden' Granth which apparently only the Nihangs had and which they kept secret. The fact is that even the Udasi writer that Santa Singh got to publish the Sarbloh Granth states in the forward that the Sarbloh Granth came to Punjab in the first decade of the 19th century. So all the great Sikh leaders, Nawab Kapur Singh, Jassa Singh Ahluwalia, Jassa Singh Ramgarhia and others did not have the Sarbloh Granth with them. Considering the UK Nihangs rage about the Bir Ras of the Sarbloh Granth, yet the generation that needed the Bir Ras the most was without this Granth. I've laboured this point a bit but this is just to show that the Nihangs were not very stringent in keeping their beliefs pure and allowed a new Granth to be given the Guruship. This shows how easy it could have been for other non-Sikh beliefs to also gain a foothold amongst the Nihangs.

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.

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).

This is becoming a bit of a 'war and peace' post so I'll stop here. I look forward to the views of the other members

[AKJ Chandigarh]

The views expressed by Bhai amritpal Singh are shocking for many people. he says that nihangs are not the original form of khalsa. bhai amritpal singh has expressed his views on dumala and farla and blue bana. in fact his articles on these topics are like reply to comments of baba nihal singh hariyavela wale: - http://panthkhalsa.org/BabaNihalSinghJi/index.php

on page: http://www.amritworld.com/nihangs/resources.html bhai amritpal singh talked about Recordings of 'Katha' by Nihang chiefs . it seems he meant katha by santa singh and baba nihal singh.

as far as nihangs are concerned bhai amritpal singh's research is more shocking when he tells that nihangs took part against sikh army of Lahore darbar. they also took part against indian rebels in 1857. this is quite opposite to what uk nangs say.

[Niranjana]

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.

[Jai Tegang!]

What I see from both sides is biased research. The UK Nihangs selectively posted portions from various granths and from interviews, and now I see the same happening with Amritpal Singh’s approach.

Either people want to reduce Nihangs to a side group, or they want to prop the Nihangs as being the sole keepers of Rehit.

For people like me who don’t have the time or resources to verify, look-up, various historical granths and rehitnamas, we’re left to follow one biased side.

But at least Sikhs are finally doing research in the western style, whereas we had left this to non-Sikhs in the past.

Thank you to Niranjana and Bikramjit Singh for the informative posts.

[Niranjana]

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!

[>Bikramjit Singh<]

Niranjana

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.

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.

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).

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

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.

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!

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…

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.

I presume you don’t mean 1469 and this is a typo?

Thats a typo, I meant 250 years from 1469.

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).

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.

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?

Something that the UK Nihangs need to consider when promoting the Nihang Maryada as 'Puratan'

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. o this can be discounted to a degree.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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?

Most wore Black clothes and Turbans but in later stages of the movement the colour was blue as it has been ever since then.

[Niranjana]

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.

[>Bikramjit Singh<]

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

[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.

[The Khalsa Fauj]

Want to turn this thread into Dasam Granth debate thread?