Panth Prakash

[Bijla Singh]

That is untrue, nearly all contempary Islamic sources accuse Banda Bahadur and his men of henious crimes. Obvioulsy there is a high probability of propoganda, but the accusations match those given by Rattan Singh Bhangu.

Only Khafi Khan exaggerated the truth more than others. All Muslims hated Sikhs but none of them accuse Banda Singh of what Bhangu does. Muslims’ propaganda was that Banda Singh was a criminal and killed Muslims. Not a single Persian source written up till 1734 states that Banda Singh went against Sikhi considering the fact that he was killed for being a "Nanak-Panthi" (Sikh). Had he gone against Sikhi, he wouldn’t have been arrested and killed. I would be interested if you could provide some references that confirm Bhangu's assertions. No historic source (Persian, English, Punjabi) can be declared 100% accurate. We must be careful to separate facts from fiction. Hukamnamas of Banda Singh confirm who he really was: a true Sikh who considered Khalsa as the real jathedar of the Panth.

Read this topic first before you start posting the same old arguments. http://www.sikhsangat.com/index.php?showtopic=39296&hl=

[dalsingh101]

A few things we may consider.

Yes, their may have been some conflict between some Khalsas and Pro-Banda Sikhs due to his leadership style. If you know Sikhs, that is a habit of theirs till today. Bhangu may have been presenting an amplified version of the anti-Banda faction to which his family belonged. So although there may be some truth to some of his allegations, parts are likely to be rumours and propaganda started by the people who were anti-Banda. It is natural that Banda may have introduced at least some of his own innovations as leader. It is also possible that some Singhs saw this as a deviation and resisted these. The change of the "Waheguru Je Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ke Fateh" to "Fateh Darshan" is almost beyond doubt no matter what anyone may say. Bhangu records this as does at least one Persian source.

I noticed some of the worst internal conflict, as recorded by Bhangu, comes after Banda has been executed. The pro-Banda faction and Tat Khalsa are at each each others throats.

One thing that people keep quiet about when talking about the famous wrestling match between both camps that was used to try and resolve the infighting, is the fact that Bhangu clearly states that after the Tat Khalsa Singh had wrestled and locked the Bandai representative down, he called for some jhatka meat to be quickly bought and force fed it to him.

"Bandai" Sikhs are also represented as being jealous of the large donations being offered by Sikh pilgrims visiting Panjab and claim they have a right to half of it. This is another main reason the Tat Khalsa and Bandai Khalsa fight. Over Gurdwara donations (some things never change huh?). Bhangu states that both sides had become hankari for various reasons.

I found it really strange that Bhangu says that the Mughals heavily involved themselves in arbitrating between the two factions (for instance it was a Mughal who was first given the paper slip that arose from the tank at Harmandir Sahib, when each faction threw in a slip with their salution to see which one would float). He also says that older Sikhs were trying hard to prevent the two factions fighting, seeing it as weakening them and giving Mughals an advantage.

When we look at the Persian sources, what happens is that their is a flurry of writing during Banda's time and absolutely nothing until a good few decades later when all of a sudden the Mughals are reporting Singhs are wreaking havoc in the Panjab and surrounding areas.

I wonder why no Persian/Mughal account reports anything about the fighting betwen Bandai and Tat Khalsa in this inbetween period? There are some simple explanations however. Maybe after the dramatic capture and murder of Banda and his Sikhs, the Mughals now thought of the Sikh problem as minor and it was considered so insignificant that it was not worthy of reporting to Delhi?

[dalsingh101]

It could be true since some of his books are not published anymore. Could you provide more details. What is the name of the book (by Bhai Veer Singh)? When was it published? Did he edit it only or also provided translation (in Punjabi) with it? Does it say that only edited version is now published? I have a copy of Panth Parkash in Punjabi without translation and will try to examine it.

Looks like you are right about the books not being available now. I found this on the allaboutsikhs site:

The Prachin Panth Prakash was for the first time purblished in 1914. BhaiVir Singh, famed scholar and poet, came across an old manuscript which he edited and had printed at the WaziriHind Press at Amritsar in that year. Bhai Vir Singh added the word "Prachin" (old or older) to the title of the book to distinguish it from the more recent Panth Prakash by Giani Gian Singh. Another edition of the work, as annotated by Jit Singh Sital, was published by the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee in 1984.

I couldn't find the (Vir Singh) book on offer anywhere online but this could be because better versions have been subsequently published.

I also found this in the introduction of the translation I've got:

As directed by the IOSS, Chandigarh, which has entrusted this project to me for translation, the nicely annotated edition of Gur Panth Prakash (2000), by Dr. Jeet Singh Seetal and published by the Sikh Historical Research Board of the SGPC, Amritsar, has been adopted for this translation [My note: This must be a later edition of the work published in 1984 as recorded in the allaboutsikhs reference]. All the verses quoted in Panjabi in the references relating to each episode have been taken from this edition. But valuable help has been taken to remove spelling mistakes and provide correct and specific explanations of certain events, dates and names from the footnotes of this most nicely edited (2004) edition of this book by Dr. Balwant Singh Dhillon, Dept. of Guru Nanak Studies, GNDU, AMritsar, published by Singh Brothers, Amritsar.

Regarding the Santa Singh version, the author says:

The two volume paraphrased Prachin Panth Prakash by Singh Sahib, Santa Singh "Akali" of the Buddha Dal has also been consulted for understanding the exact nuances and terminology before rendering these into English.

So bear in mind Santa Singh's version is a paraphrased one, in which he presumably simplified the text for general Panjabi consumption.

To add another perspective on it, the following is from the notorious site by Niddar Singh:

In the early 20th century, the surreptitious Bhai Vir Singh decided to publish Rattan Singh Bhangu’s ‘Pracheen Panth Prakash’. He systematically expunged this great text and altered some portions of the original text, but still deviously presented it as an ‘edited’ version. He sought to remove all mention of ‘Chandi Pooja’ and alcohol and from it for such practices, were deemed as being too ‘Hindu’ for the insecure Tat Khalsa Singhs.

The former S.G.P.C.-elected Jathedar of the Akal Takht, Giani Kirpal Singh and editor of ‘Naveen Panth Prakash’ commented on the advice given him by some modern Sikhs:

‘When I was just transliterating the invocatory verses, then many Sikh gentlemen advised me to:

‘Erase those portions of it, which were against Guru’s thinking and Sikh history and in their place insert your own new verses. Like how, from Rattan Singh Bhangu’s work, ‘Panth Prakash’, Bhai Vir Singh removed some portions. In some places [bhai Vir Singh] changed the wording such as that with regards to the invocation of ‘Chandi’ (NB. Chandi Pooja was carried out by Akali Nihang Guru Gobind Singh before the before creation of the Khalsa), etc., and, replacing the word ‘Sura’ (alcohol) with ‘Suda’ (Ambrosia/Khalsa initiation)’

I did not agree with those gentlemen’s above-said thinking, and I said that to cut out some writers original text and insert in new text of your own is a great injustice with the author and in the literary world is considered a great sin. Yes, regards the text the editor in foot notes can give his own views.

‘Siri Guru Panth Prakash’, editor Giani Kirpal Singh, 1970, Vol.1, Pa.3

This still begs the question. Where is the original Rattan Singh Bhangu manuscript (or its copy)?? Is it still available or has it been lost like countless other Sikh manuscripts? Another thing is that given that it seems that quite a lot of the contents of the original work would seriously offend modern day conservatives, has it been purposefully destroyed or surpressed?

[Bijla Singh]

When reading Persian texts we must be aware of the fact that they are written with certain degree of hostility and Sikhs are portrayed as oppressors. They do not care about internal affairs of the Sikhs. Also, none of the Muslims were ever present during Gurmattas or meeting of Khalsa. Muslims can only write about what they witness or hear about Sikhs and that was about how they fight. They wrote about political role of Sikhs but not much about their lifestyle or internal religious affairs in which they were never involved. Only after shaheedi of Tara Singh Wan did Khalsa came out in the open and started fighting so clearly during that period many historians would be silent. Fact is that when Baba Banda Singh died as a true Sikh some of his associates portrayed him as the Guru and started a separate sect. This was due to the revolution he brought and his sudden success that ordinary people started considering him a person with supernatural powers. Bhai Mani Singh intervened and resolved the issue. It was he who performed the Ardaas and threw in the two slips. He was the most trustworthy person. When he picked up the slip that came on top, majority of Bandayees joined Tatt Khalsa and rest were suppressed. This sect ended soon after.

Regarding “Fateh Darshan”: Baba Banda Singh did introduce it but not to replace the original Fateh. When Khalsa rejected it, Baba Banda Singh never reinforced it. Ganda Singh has written specifically on this topic. Other than this none of the allegations of Bhangu are found in earlier sources. I have discussed this in details in the link provided. He lived and died as a Sikh. It was his associates that promoted him to the level of Guru and Baba Ji cannot be blamed for it. Naamdharis promote Baba Raam Singh as the Guru but he always remained a Sikh and his letters confirm it. Similarly, hukamnamas written by Baba Banda Singh confirm his dedication to Sikhi. The fact that he was arrested and executed is the real proof of who he was. Had he left Sikhi, Mughals would have never executed him. Farukh Siyar ordered to release a young man from Baba Ji’s group when his mother said he wasn’t a Sikh. But when the young Sikh said he was a true Sikh he was executed. This shows the government was against Sikhs and Baba Ji was martyred for that. Bhai Baaj Singh, Baba Binod Singh etc were all Sikhs. Till this day descendents of Baba Ji live in Kashmir and follow Sikhi to the core. None of the anti-Sikhi practices are found among them.

Bhangu blamed Baba Banda Singh for the loss of Khalsa Raj. He was a Bhangi and jhatka eater so surely he mixed up these practices in earlier events. He writes about reading Chandi Di Vaar during Amrit Sanchaar which is not found in any of the earlier texts. Giani Gian Singh used to eat ‘afeem’ and wrote the same about Guru Sahib. Bhai Veer Singh would never have removed portions of Panth Parkash with the intent of deceiving the readers. In fact, he has written “Devi Poojan Partaal” in which he examines Panth Parkash and all other sources on historical level and refutes that Guru Sahib never worshipped goddess. Panth Parkash is an important historical source but not 100% correct. He also makes many other mistakes but he is totally wrong about Baba Banda Singh.

[dalsingh101]

When reading Persian texts we must be aware of the fact that they are written with certain degree of hostility and Sikhs are portrayed as oppressors. They do not care about internal affairs of the Sikhs. Also, none of the Muslims were ever present during Gurmattas or meeting of Khalsa. Muslims can only write about what they witness or hear about Sikhs and that was about how they fight. They wrote about political role of Sikhs but not much about their lifestyle or internal religious affairs in which they were never involved.

They did mention things in passing. I noticed comments on the casteless nature of Sikhs under Banda. One also said he promised them mukti "whether bearded or shaven" if they died in battle. Singinhg kirtan is mentioned, when they were captured and sent to Delhi, so I don't agree that nothing is mentioned about beliefs and practices but will say that there is very little mentioned, and that which is, is mentioned only in passing. No one is saying that we must blindly believe everything in Persian sources but we must accept there may be things in there that we may not particularly like, but may be true. The same goes for other sources, even Sikh ones like Panth Prakash.

Only after shaheedi of Tara Singh Wan did Khalsa came out in the open and started fighting so clearly during that period many historians would be silent. Fact is that when Baba Banda Singh died as a true Sikh some of his associates portrayed him as the Guru and started a separate sect. This was due to the revolution he brought and his sudden success that ordinary people started considering him a person with supernatural powers. Bhai Mani Singh intervened and resolved the issue. It was he who performed the Ardaas and threw in the two slips. He was the most trustworthy person. When he picked up the slip that came on top, majority of Bandayees joined Tatt Khalsa and rest were suppressed. This sect ended soon after.

No, you are plainly wrong here. Banda must have fostered the reputation for supernatural powers. The Persian accounts mention this reputation and the fear it inspired amongst imperial soldiers. Even at the end, they would kill animals that came from the surrounded fort because they thought Banda could transform himself into animals. So this isn't something that developed later but was in place during his own life. Rattan also says that later, Tat Khalsa Sikhs weren't impressed by the magic tricks performed by Bandae Sikhs (which they had learnt from Banda himself).

Regarding who first read the slip from the pool, Bhangu says it was a Mughal official, you say Bhai Mani. Are yu sure you are not being biased and reading history as you would like it to be?

I would say that the account probably does give some idea of the conflict between Bandae and Tat Khalsa Sikhs. Because some of the Tat Khalsa Sikhs behaviour is a bit dubious, you seem to want to totally deny it? The work gives an account of the "suppresion" of Bandae Sikhs and at least some of it is probably based on truth. I think Rattan is a bit more honest than many would like him to be. He says that both sides became ahankari.

The fact that he was arrested and executed is the real proof of who he was. Had he left Sikhi, Mughals would have never executed him. Farukh Siyar ordered to release a young man from Baba Ji’s group when his mother said he wasn’t a Sikh. But when the young Sikh said he was a true Sikh he was executed. This shows the government was against Sikhs and Baba Ji was martyred for that.

I'm not saying he wasn't Sikh, I'm just saying he may have introduced things that older Khalsa found objectionable. How else do you explain banning onions and garlic, like he did?

Bhangu blamed Baba Banda Singh for the loss of Khalsa Raj.

Where? The Khalsa raj was still around and hadn't been lost when he wrote the work? What do you mean?

He was a Bhangi and jhatka eater so surely he mixed up these practices in earlier events.

Maybe you should keep your mind open and consider the possibility that they may well have been earlier practices amongst some (if only a small number of Sikhs). The jhatka argument has become so strong now, that peope should just stop arguing against it.

Bhai Veer Singh would never have removed portions of Panth Parkash with the intent of deceiving the readers

I grew up reading his work but how can you draw such a conclusive statement? Bhai Vir Singh may not have intentionally deceived others but removed things because he truly believed that they could not be true. Based on his own interpretation of Gurmat.

[Bijla Singh]

No, you are plainly wrong here. Banda must have fostered the reputation for supernatural powers. The Persian accounts mention this reputation and the fear it inspired amongst imperial soldiers. Even at the end, they would kill animals that came from the surrounded fort because they thought Banda could transform himself into animals. So this isn't something that developed later but was in place during his own life. Rattan also says that later, Tat Khalsa Sikhs weren't impressed by the magic tricks performed by Bandae Sikhs (which they had learnt from Banda himself).

I didn’t say it occurred after his death. His sudden success was mistaken as him possessing supernatural powers (during his life) which became the reason for his associates to promote him as a Guru after his death. Baba Banda Singh never performed any “miracle” after he became a Sikh.

Regarding who first read the slip from the pool, Bhangu says it was a Mughal official, you say Bhai Mani. Are yu sure you are not being biased and reading history as you would like it to be?

I trust what makes more sense. Persian accounts are silent on this issue otherwise someone would’ve mentioned it in 18th century. It happened at Darbar Sahib where Bhai Mani Singh was a granthi. Bhai Mani Singh was respected by Hindus and Muslims as well and he was considered the most trustworthy person among Sikhs. Many misconceptions exist such as Tatt Khalsa sided with the Mughals to defeat Banda Singh and Mata Sundari Ji signed a treaty with the government. This is why Bhangu brought in a mughal at Darbar Sahib but none of the Persian sources mention anything remotely close to it. Perhaps you should read Ganda Singh’s work on it and study his arguments refuting Bhangu’s assertions. Proofs exist in abundance. Bhangu cannot be correct in front of contemporary accounts of Baba Banda Singh.

I would say that the account probably does give some idea of the conflict between Bandae and Tat Khalsa Sikhs. Because some of the Tat Khalsa Sikhs behaviour is a bit dubious, you seem to want to totally deny it? The work gives an account of the "suppresion" of Bandae Sikhs and at least some of it is probably based on truth. I think Rattan is a bit more honest than many would like him to be. He says that both sides became ahankari.

Conflict occurred but doesn’t prove Baba Banda Singh indulged in anti-Sikhi activities. It depends on what you mean by “dubious”.

I'm just saying he may have introduced things that older Khalsa found objectionable.

But he never insisted upon anything and proof that he retraced “Fateh Darshan” proves how he behaved. He considered Khalsa as the leader of the Panth as is clear from his hand written hukamnama.

Where? The Khalsa raj was still around and hadn't been lost when he wrote the work? What do you mean?

Khalsa Raaj established by Khalsa Panth under the leadership of Baba Banda Singh.

I grew up reading his work but how can you draw such a conclusive statement? Bhai Vir Singh may not have intentionally deceived others but removed things because he truly believed that they could not be true.

Comparing his edition with an unedited version can confirm what was removed (if it was) and only then can we determine whether it was right or wrong. Nonetheless, I wanted to inquire about Bhai Veer Singh’s book and will try to get it on my next visit to Punjab. I will also try to find an unedited version of Panth Parkash. Other than that, I do not believe Baba Banda Singh did anything wrong as preached by Bhangu.

[dalsingh101]

It would be great if you can find out about the original Panth Prakash. Where is it?

I know General Subheg Singh (who ws martyred in 1984 at Harmandir Sahib), was also a descendent of Mehtab Singh, maybe the family have the manuscript?

[Matheen]

I think you can get the unedited text from the Buddha Dal, along with Santa Singh's Punjabi translation. Also, the katha I posted a link to earlier is allegedly from the original.

Doesn't Suraj Parkash Granth say similar things about Banda Singh Bahadur? I think it also claims that Baba Binod Singh Ji came back to Hazoor Sahib to ask Guru Sahib for advice regarding Banda Singh's actions. Which of the two Granths are older?

[dalsingh101]

For the record. It is not my aim to defame Baba Banda Singh. His behaviour after his capture is an enduring example to all Sikhs and the source of much inspiration , both to us and our ancestors.

What I am saying is that his life may not have been as black and white as some people think.

[valli singh]

Matheen ji,

From what I've heard, the Buddha Dal version is the edited version (as unedited versions are hard to come by even for Nihangs!)

But Baba Santa Singh ji's commentary is based on the unedited version and comments on things that have been edited.