Bhagat Kabir Ji Da Janam Diwas

[UKLondonSikh]

... is being marked today and I think we as a Panth need to communicate knowledge of Kabir Ji’s shloks in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji Maharaj to a greater degree first of all to members of our community but also the significant population of 40million plus Kabirpanthi’s and Julaha’s of India. Before Indira started splintering Sikhs and other allied communities apart many, many Kabirpathi's hept SGGS Ji in their homes. Since we bow down to SGGS Ji i don’t think we as Sikhs should have any worries about accepting the fact "Guru" Kabir Ji and "Guru" Ravidas are fitting terms of respectful address for the two "Bhagats" we hold most dear. This is particularly relevant because the ancestral leatherworking communities across India number 60million strong. Instead of us thinking of these populations that number 100million as a bunch of Hindu’s from UP we need to realise that they are natural Sikhs simply from a poorer non-Punjabi background.

The other alternative is to follow the line of how Indira wished to split Sikhs. And in the last 28 years we’ve continued to allowed that to happen. Certain folks whose ancestors were Sikh have now begun to call themselves Ravidassia as opposed to Sikh. When the reality is that all true Sikhs have always been true Ravidassia’s in the true sense from the very beginning way before Indira started funding DSB.

Sikhs are already a minority in Doaba (as odd as that might sound to us in the Diaspora where a majority of us have Doaba roots). If all the ancrestral leatherworking population of Malwa and Majha were to suddenly state in the next census of 2021 that they are Ravidassia as opposed to Sikh, it could well be the case that Sikhs would become a minority in Punjab by then.

Now we can address this issue by building links with our Ravidassia and Kabirpanthi brothers and sisters in India and ensuring social justice for all historically disadvantaged communities within Punjab or we can continue to take the exclusionary approach of they do not comply with Maryada. Granted, it’s obvious that certain religious institutions do not maintain Maryada but nevertheless conflict and communalisation should be avoided as a result of that like happened in Vienna and Talhan. As far as us Diaspora Sikhs, we need to clamp down hard on those that discriminate and who are (frankly) happy to see bakhre bakhre Gurdware.

Punjab vich saaray pind’ah vich koyee bakhre bakhre Gurdware ni honay chai’de thay saaray loki de ghar ik saanjay mohr thay hohnay chy’de ‘ah agar Panchayat wale Sikhi de bhallay vasthay bolan.

[HDSH]

It's Bhagat Kabeer Jee, not Satguru Kabeer Jee

[Jonny101]

"Satguru"??

It's one thing If non Sikhs say Satguru to Bhagat Kabir jee or Bhagat Ravidas Jee, but for a Sikh to call them Satguru is blasphemy.

[UKLondonSikh]

It's Bhagat Kabeer Jee, not Satguru Kabeer Jee

I appreciate what you're saying Paji ... but I said it deliberately ... because we get tied up in the whole Bhagat/Guru/Satguru debate ... but Guru Nanak Dev Ji themselves made it clear how they viewed themselves in comparison to True Saints (though we obviously know the level of Guru Nanak Dev Ji Maharaj's humility).

To clarify, I fully believe in the line of GurGadi of our 10 Guru's before Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji Maharaj but I see no harm (nor blasphemy for that matter Jonny Paji) in saying Kabir Ji and Ravidas Ji were in fact Guru's. If we are gana be so kattar on mere words how we can ever bridge the gap (forced wide open by Indira) with our Kabirpanthi and Ravidassia brothers? If we bow down to the words of Kabir Ji and Ravidas Ji we de facto acknowledge their living contribution to our present Guru anyway.

PS: Don't worry I'm not proposing we call all the Bhagats as Guru's overnight - just that I feel there are justified reasons not to worry about whether we as aam insaan some say Bhagat/Guru/Satguru for two of the Highest of the High

[UKLondonSikh]

"Satguru"??

It's one thing If non Sikhs say Satguru to Bhagat Kabir jee or Bhagat Ravidas Jee, but for a Sikh to call them Satguru is blasphemy.

See Paji it's all about emphasis. If we say the only Sikhs are those that adhere to conventional Rehit Maryada drafted in the last 100 years ... then the population of Sikhs according to that would clearly be a small minority even within Punjab.

That's how the RSS want us to view things ... whereby they get stronger ... and we get weaker and smaller as a community.

If we accept the longer historic version of what a general Sikh was (note not true GurSikh) ... then we widen the definition of Sikh to each and every person that has bowed before the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji Maharaj ... that would mean Sikhs are a 95% majority in Punjab even today!

It's all about emphasis Paji. We need to think outside of the box given the enemies we are dealing with.

[Jonny101]

See Paji it's all about emphasis. If we say the only Sikhs are those that adhere to conventional Rehit Maryada drafted in the last 100 years ... then the population of Sikhs according to that would clearly be a small minority even within Punjab.

That's how the RSS want us to view things ... whereby they get stronger ... and we get weaker and smaller as a community.

If we accept the longer historic version of what a general Sikh was (note not true GurSikh) ... then we widen the definition of Sikh to each and every person that has bowed before the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji Maharaj ... that would mean Sikhs are a 95% majority in Punjab even today!

It's all about emphasis Paji. We need to think outside of the box given the enemies we are dealing with.

We cannot blur the meaning of a Sikh. In Guru Granth Sahib Jee, there is a clear distinction between Bhagat and Satguru. the Bhagat Sahibaan are clearly mentioned as Bhagat. It is not up to us to change that and call them Satguru. Satguru is an Akali jyot which has existed since the start. It menifested itself into this world in Kaliyug in the roop of Guru Nanak Dev Jee who gave Naam Dhikhya to the Bhagats (Read Giani Gurdit Singh Jee's book on this matter). This type of thinking is not RSS. In fact, I would say that RSS would want us to blur the distinctions between Sikhs and non Sikhs so eventually the Sikh panth can fade away.

Many Panths have been created in India. Pandit Ganesha Singh Jee has listen many such Panths in his book Bharat Mat Darpan. Just because someone has similar beliefs we cannot say they are Sikhs. Kabir Panthis can be considered our cousins but they are not Sikhs. Even they don't consider themselves as Sikhs. Since the early census began to be taken by the British even then they never listed themselves as Sikhs, so you cannot blame Indira for this one.

[UKLondonSikh]

We cannot blur the meaning of a Sikh. In Guru Granth Sahib Jee, there is a clear distinction between Bhagat and Satguru. the Bhagat Sahibaan are clearly mentioned as Bhagat. It is not up to us to change that and call them Satguru. Satguru is an Akali jyot which has existed since the start. It menifested itself into this world in Kaliyug in the roop of Guru Nanak Dev Jee who gave Naam Dhikhya to the Bhagats (Read Giani Gurdit Singh Jee's book on this matter). This type of thinking is not RSS. In fact, I would say that RSS would want us to blur the distinctions between Sikhs and non Sikhs so eventually the Sikh panth can fade away.

>>UKL = I hear you Paji but I mean Satguru in terms of a true Teacher rather than all the deep meanings that brahmgiani's ascribe. Sikh Panth can't never fade away Paji. The whole of Sikhi being swallowed up is ludicrous. If we stick to what we have always done, but tolerate diversity within an enlarged Panth, Sikhi won't fade ... it will be so powerful that the RSS etc won't even remain a threat to us. Look at it like this Paji. We bow down to SGGS Ji alone, others do matha tek to living human (pakhandi) Baba's of questionable lifestyle. I don't agree with that. But by co-opting them as Sikhs to add to the numerical strength of the Panth, I would suggest that by increased links ... more of those folks would realise that DSB, Jhoota Sauda is not correct and neither is such and such Dera and would come over to conventional Sikhi via pure logic. Imagine if there was a pool of 100million extra sehajdhari Sikhs from which a small percentage of new committed Khalsay would arise. Obviously the new Khalsay would be far more committed in their Sikhi than the aam sehajdhari Punjabi Sikh.

Many Panths have been created in India. Pandit Ganesha Singh Jee has listen many such Panths in his book Bharat Mat Darpan. Just because someone has similar beliefs we cannot say they are Sikhs. Kabir Panthis can be considered our cousins but they are not Sikhs. Even they don't consider themselves as Sikhs. Since the early census began to be taken by the British even then they never listed themselves as Sikhs, so you cannot blame Indira for this one.

>> UKL = You're not wrong on most of the above Paji but I want to instigate debate on whether we need to change our dynamics with our "cousin" communities or do we remain mired in the definition of boundaries and divisions between us ... particularly with how DSB are clearly working to take the entire Ravidassia population outside of the Sikh community. In pragmatic terms, please suggest solutions that you see you can live with on this issue because it's clear to me that Indira + her cronies absolutely loved it when we restrict the definition of a "Sikh" to as small a population as possible ... whereas our clever opponents realise that the more you widen the net of the term "Hindu" the better off their Hindutva ideology is. The fact is that the 800million or so so-called Hindu's who live on less than 20 rupees a day are clearly our spiritual brothers and sisters regardless of what they actually believe today (because they have never read or heard of SGGS Ji)

[VanHelsingh]

@ UKLondonSikh - We don't have to start referring to our bhagats as 'Guru' - or vice versa - in order to change our dynamics with our "cousin communities" as you call them. To suggest that by not changing these labels plays into the hands of anti-Sikh sources is a connection I fail to fathom, however I do feel you are making these statements with tongue firmly in cheek.

[UKLondonSikh]

@ UKLondonSikh - We don't have to start referring to our bhagats as 'Guru' - or vice versa - in order to change our dynamics with our "cousin communities" as you call them. To suggest that by not changing these labels plays into the hands of anti-Sikh sources is a connection I fail to fathom, however I do feel you are making these statements with tongue-in-cheek.

No honestly Paji - not tongue-in-cheek at all (I thought that was your forte :-)

I do realise that within our Panth many would consider this blasphemy. But I put it to you respectfully, in your heart, that should we even worry about the minor differences in address between what were traditionally defined as Bhagats and Guru's? I wholly accept that Kabir Ji Maharaj and Ravidas Ji Maharaj were Bhagats in the context of particular contrast to the line of spiritual succession which led to our present Guru. But with our present Guru containing more of the aforementioned "Bhagats" shloks than Guru Gobind Singh Ji Maharaj, for example, isn't this just an argument about semantics ... and therefore we really need to be a bit more pragmatic over mere terms of respectful address?

[VanHelsingh]

No honestly Paji - not tongue-in-cheek at all (I thought that was your forte :-)

I do realise that within our Panth many would consider this blasphemy. But I put it to you respectfully, in your heart, that should we even worry about the minor differences in address between what were traditionally defined as Bhagats and Guru's? I wholly accept that Kabir Ji Maharaj and Ravidas Ji Maharaj were Bhagats in the context of particular contrast to the line of spiritual succession which led to our present Guru. But with our present Guru containing more of the aforementioned "Bhagats" shloks than Guru Gobind Singh Ji Maharaj, for example, isn't this just an argument about semantics ... and therefore we really need to be a bit more pragmatic over mere terms of respectful address?

If you feel so strongly about it you should draft something for the Akal Takhat Sahib and present your proposal to them. If they agree - and all jathebandyia accept the proposal - then I guess the whole Panth should refer to all bhagats as Guru.