A Westerner's View Of Sri Dasam Granth Sahib Ji

[Inder Singh]

It's true the question of parkash is separate from whether Guru Gobind Singh ji wrote Dasam Bani.

The point about the British is this: Some Dasam Granth opponents say the British introduced the DG to Punjab. My question to them is, why would the British promote a work that encourages people to bear arms?

Did the British encourage residents of their other colonies (such as America, Kenya, Ireland, etc.) to take up weapons? So why would they encourage Sikhs to take up weapons?

British theory is rubbish especially when there are manuscripts preserved in Punjab university library of 1723( Charitropakhyan) and 1765 of whole dasam granth.

I reproduce one of the replies to Dr Mann on learning-zone by a friend of minewho has digitized copies of manuscripts.

[learning-zone] Re: Dasam Granth and the Truth...Thu, October 26, 2006 7:07:04 PMFrom:JOGINDER AHLUWALIA ...Add to ContactsTo:learning-zone@yahoogroups.com

18th Century DG Mss.

1. Punjab University, Chandigarh has a MS. No. 522 (folios 766), dated 1789 CE.

2. Randhir Singh (Shabad Moorat) and Piara Singh (DG Darshan) describe a Ms. copy of Misal Patna prepared in 1765 CE at Jammu.

3. Randhir Singh also refers to a 18th century DG in a Gurdwara at Kolkata in Shabad Moorat (I am sorry I am away from my base and cannot give the exact reference).

In my opinion the argument that there was no DG in Punjab in the 18th century is not valid regarding the existence of DG. The British conspiracy theory is far fetched.

Joginder Singh

Richmond (Camp Patiala)

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Unquote

I have a lot of stuff of my interaction with Mann and my own research on DG to prove that DG is 100 percent by tenth master.

What Mann can write about DG when he has not read it. If one reads DG one will know that author is one and that is tenth master.

[Inder Singh]

It's true the question of parkash is separate from whether Guru Gobind Singh ji wrote Dasam Bani.

The point about the British is this: Some Dasam Granth opponents say the British introduced the DG to Punjab. My question to them is, why would the British promote a work that encourages people to bear arms?

Did the British encourage residents of their other colonies (such as America, Kenya, Ireland, etc.) to take up weapons? So why would they encourage Sikhs to take up weapons?

British theory is rubbish especially when there are manuscripts preserved in Punjab university library of 1723( Charitropakhyan) and 1765 of whole dasam granth.

I reproduce one of the replies to Dr Mann on learning-zone by a friend of minewho has digitized copies of manuscripts.

[learning-zone] Re: Dasam Granth and the Truth...Thu, October 26, 2006 7:07:04 PMFrom:JOGINDER AHLUWALIA ...Add to ContactsTo:learning-zone@yahoogroups.com

18th Century DG Mss.

1. Punjab University, Chandigarh has a MS. No. 522 (folios 766), dated 1789 CE.

2. Randhir Singh (Shabad Moorat) and Piara Singh (DG Darshan) describe a Ms. copy of Misal Patna prepared in 1765 CE at Jammu.

3. Randhir Singh also refers to a 18th century DG in a Gurdwara at Kolkata in Shabad Moorat (I am sorry I am away from my base and cannot give the exact reference).

In my opinion the argument that there was no DG in Punjab in the 18th century is not valid regarding the existence of DG. The British conspiracy theory is far fetched.

Joginder Singh

Richmond (Camp Patiala)

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Unquote

I have a lot of stuff of my interaction with Mann and my own research on DG to prove that DG is 100 percent by tenth master.

What Mann can write about DG when he has not read it. If one reads DG one will know that author is one and that is tenth master.

We are awakened now and we will expose the tricks of this man shortly.

[BhForce]

When the British defeated the Sikhs for good, they had them deposit their kirpans one by one. They banned Kirpans and weapons, and hunted anyone who didn't comply (the odd Nihang Singh).

"The colonial government, under Lord Lytton as Viceroy (1874 -1880), brought into existence the Indian Arms Act, 1878 (11 of 1878); an act which, exempted Europeans and ensured that no Indian could possess a weapon of any description unless the British masters considered him a "loyal" subject of the British Empire."

The British absolutely did not want anybody (except their men) to bear arms. So how much sense does it make that they would either create or promote a scripture that heavily promotes weapons and fighting?