Panth Prakash By Rattan Singh Bhangu (translated Into English By Kulwant Singh)

[Bijla Singh]

That being said I do think he may have had some difficulties shaking off some of his old ways i.e. the onion/garlic thing.

One can resort to assumptions and conjectures in positive and negative ways but that does not become an historical fact. You will need to provide some historical evidence to prove your point. There is no evidence that tells us about the type of food he used to eat before and after becoming a Sikh. I disagree with your statement because he was given Amrit by Guru Sahib Himself and stayed in the company of great gursikhs of the time such as Baba Deep Singh, Bhai Mani Singh, Baba Binod Singh and Bhai Baaj Singh. There are sakhis of numerous gursikhs who were from Hindu, Muslim and other background and once adopted Sikhi did not indulge in their previous practices. Had Baba Banda Singh not been able to let go off his earlier practices, Guru Sahib would never have made him the leader of the Khalsa army. Only a true Sikh could be appointed to such a position by Guru Sahib. Surely, he could’ve fallen into ego but this again is an assumption and not an historical fact. Being egotist and going against fundamental principles of Gurmat are two different things. Jassa Singh Raamgariya fell into ego and so did many others but they never equated themselves to Guru Sahib. Sardar Jassa Singh was excommunicated for killing his daughter which is against Gurmat and he had to seek apology from the Panth in order to become Khalsa again. Had Baba Banda Singh acted against Gurmat, Sikhs would’ve reacted, given him tankah and the event would’ve been recorded in history but nothing of the sort happened. When Sikhs like Baba Deep Singh and Bhai Mani Singh did not say anything to Baba Banda Singh it proves that he did nothing against Sikhi. i believe enough has been said.

[dalsingh101]

One can resort to assumptions and conjectures in positive and negative ways but that does not become an historical fact.

Are you not doing that yourself? Making assumptions and conjectures based on your understanding?

There is no evidence that tells us about the type of food he used to eat before and after becoming a Sikh.

There is the sakhi of killing the pregnant deer whilst hunting and this being the cause of his vegetarianism.

Besides, it is strange that a hukum was released about the onion and garlic. I think Guru Amar Das used to just have just plain boiled rice and daal for langaar. But I don't think there is anything in gurmat that would make one not eat onion and garlic.

Bijla, relax a bit veer. No need to get all tightened up over a little khoj man!

Yes, I am just hypothesising. And for the record, I don't believe I will ever know what actually happened for sure. You mentioned Baba Deep Singh and Bhai Mani Singh being there, but Baba ji was a young man then and Mani Singh was probably busy doing all manner of things, including fighting.

[Bijla Singh]

Are you not doing that yourself? Making assumptions and conjectures based on your understanding?

Yes but the difference is that I look at the situation and provide my reasoning to justify my assumptions whereas you simply base your assumptions on “possibility”. Using your way any person can justify anything. There are scholars who accuse Guru Sahib of eating meat and drinking bhang and not to mention the current Hindu propaganda against Sikhi. They can easily say it might have happened because it is a possibility. Not a true way of studying history. When I disagreed with you I provided my reasoning.

There is the sakhi of killing the pregnant deer whilst hunting and this being the cause of his vegetarianism.

What I meant was the type of food he ate when he was a sadhu. His food and rehat would not have been different from Singhs he stayed with. I do not know what you mean by Baba Ji being a young man. It has nothing to do with rehat. Baba Deep Singh and Bhai Mani Singh stayed with Guru Gobind Singh Ji and took Amrit from him. They were the most respected personalities in the Panth. Baba Ji fought in the army of Baba Banda Singh and Bhai Mani Singh was consulted in every religious manner since he was the head granthi of Darbar Sahib. They were busy but in panthic matters not in personal matters. You should look at the situation of the time and how Singhs lived their lives only then make assumptions and also provide some reasoning using some real evidence. Making assumptions is acceptable if you can back them up with some solid evidence. Anyways, I do not want to drag it further. Guru Rakha

p.s.- I am relaxed.

[dalsingh101]

Yes but the difference is that I look at the situation and provide my reasoning to justify my assumptions whereas you simply base your assumptions on “possibility”. Using your way any person can justify anything.

I don't really see anything anymore conclusive in your statements than others. You do formulate hypothy based on your understanding of gurmat and project them onto history. This may be your faith and all power to you for it, but to think that your way is any better than another is plain wrong. Using your way you can shape anything to fit into your own preconceptions. The fact is that certain things cannot be determined 100%. Attractive as your theories are, they are as susceptable to being wrong as any others. So I would say that your own opinions (and thats what they are), are only another possibility of what happened. The difference between us is whereas I might entertain possibilities that go contrary to your understanding of what gurmat is, you fit everything into your interpretation of gurmat.

What I meant was the type of food he ate when he was a sadhu. His food and rehat would not have been different from Singhs he stayed with. I do not know what you mean by Baba Ji being a young man.

We know what food he ate as a sadhu from many sakhis, he was a strict vegetarian. We also have a sakhi that explains how he changed from being a hunter (presumably he ate meat then), to a vegetarian with the pregnant deer episode. This is what I mean by Baba ji being a young man i.e. his life prior to meeting Dasmesh Pita. We also know he banned onions and garlic sometime between 1708 and 1716 AD.

Your notion that all Singhs shared the same diet is also false. Well at least regarding the latter part of the 1700s onwards. It is indisputably on record that some Amritdhari Singhs ate meat. Just take a look at the earliest European accounts. We also know some didn't. Before you say the writers of those accounts were lying, I say they had no reason to do this in the late 1700s. Instead they were just trying to fathom Singhs out for a later clash, which took place some 70/80 odd years after some of the accounts were written.

Your alright Bijla, I respect your knowledge and your commitment to the faith, but you can be a bit "kuttarh" sometimes mate.

All respect.

[_=singhni=_]

Sri Guru Panth Prakash: Volume 1 By Rattan Singh Bhangoo (English Translation by Kulwant Singh)

Published by the Institute Of Sikh Studies (IOSS), Chandigarh.

Reviewed by Daljit Singh (London)

Reviewers notes: Because of the length of the material and the importance of its contents, I will be discussing the episodes covering the events after Banda Singh's martyrdom separately sometime in the future. This review consists of observations (and views) on some of the material I found interesting in the text, briefly covering aspects of Guru Gobind Singh's life and mission up until the account of Banda Singh and his companions capture and transfer to Delhi. This is not a comprehensive review but more of an attempt to draw some attention to a few points I feel are worthy of attention. I do not claim to be anything other than someone with an interest in Sikh history and all opinions are my own. I put them forward in the spirit of honest debate. History to me is the ongoing debate about the interpretation of the past by the present. It is a dynamic process. More often that not, we cannot claim to know what has happened in the past definitively, our picture can be sketchy due to a scarcity of available information or stark contradictions in what information does survive. It is our job in the community to piece together what we can and present a truthful account of our history. By "our" I mean the modern day Panth in all its variation. We need also to be confident enough to be unashamedly subjective when doing so as this is our own history. It belongs to us and not others. I say this because I have noticed that historians, academics and people projecting themselves as ecclesiastic classes often lay claim to history in a way that attempts to exclude the true owners of the cultural heritage under the guise of research or orthodoxy and rewrite it for their own objectives. This is not unique to the field of Sikh history but some of the work produced as "academic" ventures over the last few decades makes one raise an eyebrow regarding motives.

We should be aware of the fact that other community's accounts of their own (and others!) history often provide a biased and utilitarian narrative despite presenting themselves as particularly scholarly or objective. For example the Anglo-Saxon "mainstream" narrative plays down dark episodes from their own past, examples being slavery, imperialism and both the immediate and long-term effects of colonalisation on indigenous communities. They offer a portrayal which I can best describe as "white washed". As Sikhs we should avoid resorting to such tactics. Let the truth set us free. This brings me nicely to Rattan Singh Bhangoo and the background of this book. It was his desire to provide a valid Sikh perspective of events to the encroaching British, who were questioning the Sikh right to sovereignty, that led him to produce this work. A key concern was the rebuttal of the testimony of a Muslim maulvi who was providing information on Sikh history to the expansionist British colonists prior to the Anglo-Sikh wars. In my opinion he also used the opportunity to record oral traditions that he probably knew would disappear forever, unless recorded. The evidence plainly points at a man who actively sought information on his own people's history. His own family background gave him unique access to people closely linked with leading Khalsa soldiers and generals of the early 18th century.

Rattan draws freely from the oral testimony of the community when writing and I admire the way he records what he encounters without gloss. He doesn't try and whitewash the account as many would have been tempted to do. The Khalsa is presented honestly, even when the account doesn't necessarily present them in the most flattering of light. Although I do not believe in the strict accuracy of all of the contents of the work, I respect the author's openness in the endeavor. Where possible I have juxtapositioned contemporary Mughal recollections of events with the later version as recorded in Panth Prakash for the sake of comparison. There are those of the mind that we must bury our historical "skeletons" deep within metaphoric cupboards, I do not share this view. Learning from the past is something that can ensure not only an individual's progression but also that of a community, even if this is a painful process. Failing to do so has its obvious consequences:

So the Khalsa Singhs pleaded with the Bandhayee Singhs,

It was improper for them to strife against each other

Incase they indulged in an internecine war amongst themselves

The Mughals would harm the entire community

Like two sparrows fighting each other who are devoured by a wily cat

Similarly, the Mughals would pounce upon us (Panth Prakash, page 437)

[Please note I have very occasionally slightly reworded the text of the translation to clarify meaning when I felt the translation could be improved]

Review

I have come across passing comments on various parts of Rattan Singh Bhangoo's Panth Prakash over the years. These snippets were usually exceptionally brief but tantalising references in other published accounts on Sikh history. The fact that the author of Panth Prakash was the grandson of the celebrated Mehtab Singh, who famously beheaded the notorious Massa Ranghar for defiling the Sikh's holiest shrine in 1740 AD, added another dimension to my interest in the contents. This authors close proximity to Singhs during a defining and blood soaked period of Sikh history was not lost on me. I wanted to know just what did happen during this little understood period of our history. However, the text was never available in an accessible format. My own Panjabi reading ability being very basic, meant that I was unable to enlighten myself with the various Panjabi editions that have been published over the years. So as you can probably imagine, I was a tad bit excited when I heard that an English translation was finally being released.

Having just read volume I, I can say the experience has been mind expanding and challenging – all at the same time. Whilst the accounts of the Gurus do not contain much that would surprise the average Sikh reader, the tales of Banda Singh Bahadur are markedly different from the stories many of us would have heard from a mainstream Sikh perspective.

I found the writings on Guru Gobind Singh particularly fascinating. Their style is unlike anything I have read before. One thing that struck me was the very rational explanations of events. Miracles and supranatural events are generally muted. The mentioning of otherwise small details provide an account that seems to get into the nitty gritty of his times and the relationships he had with his own Sikhs and outsiders. Bhangoo mentions things that could have only been known by people physically very close to Dasmesh Pita. For example, in one episode he describes an extremely caustic remark relating to the sahibzada's shaheedi from a Sikh when Guru ji was talking of Sikh sovereignty:

<B>

Satguru, thereafter, proposed to his devout follower Rai Dalla Singh,

That he should accompany him to the South .

The Guru promised to bestow on upon him the sovereignty over Delhi

After destroying the sovereignty of the Mughals over Delhi

The younger brother of Rai Dalla Singh, who was standing close to him,

Whispered something into his elder brother's ears

He remarked (sarcastically) that the Guru would bestow such a sovereignty on him,

As he (the Guru) had bestowed it on his own sons.

The Guru's Brahmin cook who overheard these taunting words,

Reported this to the Guru with a deep sense of shock. (Panth Prakash, page 173)

</B>

Amongst the many things of interest covered in the pages, the contentious issue of meat eating is mentioned on numerous occasions, with the author presenting it as acceptable Khalsa practice. Bhangoo also gives importance to the casteless ideology behind the Khalsa mentioning it more than once. He describes Guru Gobind Singh's thoughts on forming the Khalsa thus:

<B>

The needy alone deserve to be endowed with rare gifts

What is the use of empowering those who are already powerful.

The house of Nanak is known for its compassion and generosity,

And [is] known as the protector of the needy and poor.

Those who belong to the various offshoots of lowly twelve subcastes,

And know nothing about the game of power politics.

Who are contemptuously known as rustic peasants in society,

Or known as traders small time shop keepers and petty fighters.

Those who belong to the low castes of blacksmiths and carpenters,

And the lowly placed tailors and wine vendors who receive his benediction.

This fraternity would also include the low caste cattle grazers, rustics and cow herds,

And the ignoble vegetable growers (kambojs) and scheduled castes.

Water carriers, barbers, small vendors and potters will also join this community,

Sainis, goldsmiths, sweepers and cobblers will form part of this brotherhood……..

…..I shall confer sovereignty on these poor and needy,

So that they may remember my patronage and benediction.

Saying this the True Guru challenged his followers,

That they should pick up swords and attack the Mughals. (Panth Prakash, page 79)

</B>

It is difficult not to draw the conclusion that Bhangoo wants to portray the Sikh struggle as a popular people's revolution, that drew support from all of the common folk, hence his extensive list of the backgrounds of the everyday people who made/make up the panth.

Banda Singh Bahadur's portrayal in Panth Prakash

The first meeting between Dasmesh Pita and Banda is remarkably similar to a reputed near contemporary account I have read by Dhadhi Nathmal (although we cannot rule out the possibility that the Dhadhi Nathmal account is actually a later product that is derived from this source). Guru ji visits the mischievous Narain Das's (Banda's previous name) ashram and slaughters some goats there in his absence. An enraged Banda turns up and is chastised by the Guru and his followers after which he becomes a disciple of the Guru. It is interesting to note that Bhangoo records some early resentment at the promotion of Banda to commander by some Singhs, who apparently strip him of a symbolic khanda (double edge sword), that the Guru has given him as a sign of leadership. The Guru finds this amusing and says that now the Khalsa have learnt to forcible take what is their right, his mission of empowerment was complete. (Page 195)

Unlike the material that precedes it, the account of Banda Singh quickly takes on a "fantastic" quality, in that the relatively rational narration characterising the previous material changes. The account of Banda portrays him as an aggressive, powerful but ultimately egotistical holy man. The information on Banda Singh and the clashes his followers have with the "Tat Khalsa" after his martyrdom take up a large part of the publication. A central theme mentioned many times by Bhangoo is Banda's ability to harness occult power. A lengthy list of his "abilities" is provided. Banda is in possession of a magic book, which gives him these powers. These references to occult abilities are supported by contemporary Persian accounts which also make mention of Banda's reputation as a sorcerer and the negative impact it was having on Mughul troop morale. Militarily and psychologically speaking, the strategic value of such a reputation in a war context is obvious.

The fear from this force of rebels and the sorceries of that rebellious manikin had so deeply struck the hearts of the commanders of this army that all the time they raised their hands in prayer begging of God that he [banda] come out of his fort (garhi) and take to flight, as on previous occasions, so that the need for employment and the credit and prestige of the [imperial] servants might continue to be on the increase. Ibratnama – Muhammad Qasim (1723 AD). From Sikh History From Persian Sources. Eds. J.S.Grewal & Irfan Habib.

It was repeatedly represented to the Emperor, by both young and old that the ill fated wretch was so expert in magic and sorcery as to exceed in skill the Samaritan sorcerers. Flames of fire would come out of his banners and rockets, and his followers seldom received wounds from swords and spears. From such baseless talk the Emperor, nobles and soldiery were much worried and perplexed. Tazkiratu Salatin Chaghata by Muhammad Hadi Kamwar Khan (1724 AD). From Sikh History From Persian Sources. Eds. J.S.Grewal & Irfan Habib.

Banda is described as having become haughty because of his successes against the Mughals and seeking to establish himself as a sovereign ruler and this leads to an estrangement with the Singhs, who steadfastedly hold onto the promise of power (patshahi) given by Guru Gobind Singh. The Panjabi text of this is well worth reading (Page 342). Ideological differences between what are termed "Bandayee" Sikhs and "Tat Khalsa" Sikhs are mentioned on page 347. Amongst the things mentioned is the changing of the tradition greeting "Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Kee Fateh" to "Fateh Darshan". Altering the colour of Khalsa apparel from blue to red and enforcing vegetarianism. Relationships between the two groups deteriorate to the point of antipathy.

There is a serious claim that the "Tat Khalsa" collaborate with the Mughals against Banda under Kahan Singh (Page 355). I find this hard to believe. The Persian accounts of the time feverishly record events. The Mughal Empire was being internally challenged like it had never been before. There is a fair amount of detail in these accounts but to my knowledge, no accounts mention any such collaboration or negotiation. Panth Prakash continues to describe various intrigues at the Mughal court, where Emperor Farrukhsiar actively encourages his agents to ferment discord between the Tat Khalsa and Bandayee Khalsa.

<B>

As Banda Singh was alleged to be a very dangerous person,

They [the Mughals] should be wary of getting their forces annihilated.

Since the Mughals could not afford to break negotiations with Singhs as well,

They must keep Singhs in good humour through means fair or foul.

Even if Singhs behaved defiantly with them,

They should not react angrily to snap their ties with the Singhs.

They should keep the Singhs alienated from Banda Singh by offering money,

So that the Singhs never get reunited with Banda Singh. (Panth Prakash, page 359)

</B>

Occasionally when reading, you can come across something familiar. Many people have probably heard variations of this particular episode on oath breaking on the Koran before:

<B>

(The Mughal emperor), after a long deliberation, summoned,

Himmat Khan, The (Pathan) chief of Kasoor

He was directed to eliminate Banda in any manner

Even if he had to swear on the Koran, a million times [the original uses the word "lakh" which has been translated as a million]

The emperor Farrukhsiar briefed him so thoroughly,

He must eliminate Banda through any means, fair or foul,

(The emperor) stressed upon the need to do away with Banda repeatedly,

Even if he had to swear a thousand times upon the Koran [hazaar = thousand]

The emperor asked him to imagine the dipping of one's arm in oil.

And the number of sesame seeds [tilh] that could stick around the oil smeared arm.

If one could succeed in killing a Hindu,

One should not feel guilty of swearing this many times. (Panth Prakash, page 361)

</B>

Banda's capture and journey to Delhi

The description of Banda and the Sikhs final capture and transit to Delhi generally conform to the Persian records, although Bhangoo gets the execution date wrong by five years. Strange mythological references to sacrifices to the Goddess Kali are interwoven with the depiction of the last stages of resistance in the surrounded fort at Gurdaspur. The remaining Sikhs are starved prior to their capture. Bhangoo hauntingly describes their condition:

<B>

People were scared of the phantom figures of emaciated bodies,

As if they had tumbled out of and were fleeing their graves.

All the flesh had disappeared from their bones,

It appeared as if dead bodies were struggling to breathe.

It appeared as if dead corpses ware made to walk,

By sewing up these corpses by the hands of a magician.

Each bone of their emaciated skelton was transparently visible,

And it seemed as if a single breath of air would blow them into the sky (Panth Prakash, page 407)

</B>

Mughals record this as follows:

Nearly two hundred men, half alive, half dead, who came out of the fort were put in chains were handed over to custodians. Ibratnama – Muhammad Qasim (1723 AD). From Sikh History From Persian Sources. Eds. J.S.Grewal & Irfan Habib

Comparing the contemporary Persian accounts of their journey from Panjab to Delhi with this later Sikh one provides us with the following:

<B>

Taking Banda out of his place of confinement,

They imprisoned him by putting him inside an iron cage.

After tying his whole body with four iron chains,

They put fetters on his feet and an iron ring around his neck.

With handcuffs around his wrists and a chain around his waist,

They chained Banda in such a tough manner.

Positioning two soldiers on both sides of Banda Singh

Both of them were chained to Banda Singh's body. (Panth Prakash, page 411)

</B>

The Mughal version goes as follows:

On the 11th of March 171, the victorious holy warriors brought the "Guru-"* as prisoner and under the custody to the capital Shahjahanabad, and entered the fort in this state that the above named was sitting in an iron cage placed on the back of an elephant, wearing a court dress of pomegranate-flowered gold brocade, and a gold embroidered turban of fine red cotton cloth. [Note how they mockingly dress him up as an important official, reminds me of the "crown" given to Jesus prior to his crucification]. One of the soldiers from amongst the Turani Mughal retainers of Muhhamad Amin Khan, with a drawn sword, stood behind him. . Ibratnama by Mirza Muhammad (1724 AD). From Sikh History From Persian Sources. Eds. J.S.Grewal & Irfan Habib.

The descriptions of the awe inspiring way in which Banda Singh and his Sikhs faced their imminent deaths after their capture leave quite an impression on the mind. An enduring example of chardhi kala for Sikhs. Again the combination of Bhangoo's and Persian chroniclers' accounts provoke striking images. Remember Bhangoo was writing some 100 years after the event. The account which follows his, is by someone who personally witnessed the arrival of Banda and the Singhs at Delhi:

<B>

All the arrested Singhs were taken together,

As they kept reciting Gurbani without any fear.

Some with their free single hands were playing on the Rabab,

Although they were too weak to pick up their weapons.

They recited Gurbani hymns which regarded life as an illusion.

The hymns which equated the world with the valley of death,

Where no one could stay permanently and eternally. (Panth Prakash, page 411)

They kept reciting Gurbani hymns and praying to God,

For the decimation of the wicked Mughals (for their tyranny).

They prayed that wherever the Khalsa existed,

They should die for their religion in true spirit

The Mughals felt outraged after hearing these sentiments,

That the Singhs were so dauntless as to invite death.

But they having faith in God, feared no human being,

And their one hope was for the Lord. (Panth Prakash, page 413)

</B>

Mirza Muhhamad remembers the day as follows:

On this day I had gone to see the spectacle (tamasha) as far as the salt market and thence accompanied the procession to the Imperial Fort. There was hardly anyone in the city who had not come out to see the tamasha or to enjoy the show of the extirpation of the accused ones [sikhs]. Such a crowd in the bazaars and lanes had been rarely seen. And the Musalman could contain themselves for joy. But those unfortunate Sikhs, who had been reduced to this last extremity, were quite happy and contented with their fate; not the slightest sign of dejection or humility was seen on their faces. In fact, most of them, as they passed along on their camels, seemed happy and cheerful, joyfully singing the sacred hymns of their scripture. And if anyone from amongst those in the lanes and bazaars called out to them that there own excesses had reduced them to that condition, they quickly retorted saying that it had been so willed by the Almighty and that their capture and misfortune was in accordance to His Will. And, if anyone said, "Now you will be killed," they shouted, "Kill us. When were we afraid of death? Had we been afraid of it, would we have fought so many battles with you? It was merely through starvation or want of food that we fell into your hands, otherwise you already know what deeds we are capable of."

Ibratnama by Mirza Muhhamad as translated by Ganda Singh in Life of Banda Singh Bahadur. Quoted in Sicques, Tigers and Thieves Eds. A. S. Madra and P. Singh. An alternative translation is available in Sikh History from Persian Sources (page 140).

Final thoughts:

I have seen that the later account provided by Bhangoo agrees in many ways to contemporary and near contemporary Persian sources despite the writer's affiliations to opposing sides in the conflict. This clearly demonstrates that each source has its own truth despite its biases. Sometimes zealous Sikhs discount the Persian sources citing bias and claiming that this renders them unreliable. This must clearly stop, there is much we can learn from them and they can be invaluable for verifying latter Sikh accounts.

What I have read also shows me that Gurmukhi accounts too, written some time after the events they depict, can be as valuable a source of historical information as the contemporary kind. But we should avoid blindly accepting their contents. The reason for this can be amply demonstrated by Bhangoo's depiction of Banda Singh. Why is it so negative in places? There could be a number of reasons; I will explore one hypothesis knowing that there will be many more with as valid a claim to possibility as this one.

Perhaps Banda Singh's autocratic style of leadership did not appeal to some of the older Singhs and they genuinely viewed it as a deviation from Khalsa ideology. This is not difficult to imagine. Banda had only been exposed to Sikh doctrine for a relatively short period of time. This could be the cause of a rift as recorded by Bhangoo. But we should also ask why Baaj Singh (deputed by Dasmesh Pita himself to support Banda), remained loyal to Banda till the end.

If we pursue this hypothesis, we can see that Bhangoo could have been exposed to the opinions and perspective of the camp that opposed Banda i.e. he is a direct descendant of the "Tat Khalsa" Singhs and his work reflects their own recollection of the events. This may well involve the amplification of the perceived shortcomings of Banda according to their own thoughts and beliefs. Plainly speaking, some of this may well be the repetition of propaganda used against the powerful Banda Singh.

Bhangoo is plainly wrong on some matters. For example, he highlights Banda as compromising the egalitarian principles of sharing meals regardless of caste (langar). This is starkly contradicted by Mughal accounts that do not fail to take note of the caste blind partaking of langar encouraged by Banda Singh himself. Also the stories of collaboration with Mughals by the Tat Khalsa against what Bhangoo calls "Bandayee" Sikhs find no support in any Persian sources (as previously mentioned). In the face of such a serious threat to Mughal rule, is it possible that no one would have made any note of this defection anywhere? Which Mughals did these supposed defectors liaise with? Surely such an event would have been big news worthy of mentioning in at least one of the many Mughal accounts written by people directly involved in the battles? Given the detail in the available accounts, it seems unlikely that such an event occurred, or someone would have mentioned it, even if in passing.

Despite all of this the work is of immense importance and value for Sikh history and Panjabi lexicography provided it is used prudently. I felt that the translation could be improved in places, for example the translator occasionally projects additional words such as Khalsa where the original does not use the word. But this is undeniably a laudable first effort at translation and pioneering in nature. A number of typos are present in the volume and the publishers should be more effective when proofreading in future. As with all good works, this opens up as many questions as it answers. The next logical area of study in my opinion would be one that seeks to compare the published version with older manuscript versions, highlighting any divergence. This is important because of claims that expunging has taking place. Overall, I consider this to be a fascinating piece of literature and I look forward to reading volume II.

nice

[ssingh_5]

Bijla veer. Your opinion would be appreciated. Please feel free to comment.

Dal Singh and Bijla Singh,

Great debate indeed. I had a few questions:

a) Do we know about the ancestry of Banda Bahadur?

b) On his return from Nander to Punjab did he meet people in rajasthan?

c) Where did he learn his guerilla warfare tactics?

d) Who invented the Khanda symbol?

e) Do we have any evidence that Degh Tegh Fateh was used by Guru Gobind SIngh

or any of the earlier gurus?

f) Was Degh Tegh Fateh used by Banda Bahadur for the first time?

Regards,

Shiv

[SunSingh]

Garlic is not allowed in Guru ka langar b/c it is too rajsic, it is a very strong aphrodesiac. I'm not sure about onions though. I know that buddhists banned them from some monastaries b/c of the strong smell proved a distraction for meditators (people are at all different levels).

[aartee]

liked 2 read