Jathedar Baba Hanuman Singh Ji Shaheed

[misl shaheedan]

Up Until the late 19th Century only One Takht, the Akal takht existed. All political decisions effecting the Sikhs were decided there by the process known as Sarbat Khalsa.

The most important aspect of a takht is it's decision making and decision enforcing aspect. This was always done at the Akal Takht. This is done through a Hukumnama.

Hazur Sahib was not considered a takht until the 1920's. In a letter written in 1901 to endorse Bhai Kahan Singh's book 'Hum Hindu Nahin', the Pujaris refer to the place as Sri Hazur Abchalnagar Sahib. There is no mention of it being a Takht. Although the Gurdwara at Muktsar sent a Hukumnama as endorsement of the book and refers to Muktsar Sahib as Bada Darbar Sahib and as a Takht.

Sri Keshgarh Sahib was under the control of the Sodhis for a long time upto the 1920's. Although they also sent Hukamnamas but only in the late 1880's and not before that.

The Harmandir Sahib as Patna refered to itself as takht Darbar Hazur Sri Harmadir Sahib in a Hukumnama to Bihari Sikhs in the villages around Kantnagar in 1862.

So the contention is this. Upto about 1862 no 'Takht' other than Akal takht issued a Hukumnama or declared itself to be a Takht. Akal takht was the only takht in existence from 1606 until 1862. Other places started to issued Hukumnamas and to refer to themselves as Takhts only in the last 140 years or so. It was only with the Akali movement in the 1920's that the other three Takhts of Keshgarh Sahib, Patna Sahib, Hazur Sahib were recognised. So for the Nihangs to now have a 'fifth' takht it follows that it must be only since the 1920's that they have been referring to themselves as such.

I find this argument to be a little troublesome. A very "western" approach to Sikh history is being taken. By that I mean you have exclusively relied on surviving documents to "prove" that the Budda Dal was not the Panjva Takhat. At the same time, you have shunned every bit of Seena Baseena Tradition within the Dal Panth. This is a very western approach to doing research - Western academics are notorious for relying exclusively on existing documents and then arriving at conclusions while rejecting the oral traditions of the group they are researching. This is troublesome because "writing things down" is largely a Western concept and for centuries non-white people around the world focused on orally transmitting history. When you ignore the seena baseena traditions of non-western groups and individuals and rely exclusively on "things that were written down" you inevitably arrive at half truths and fallacies

A paragraph from a essay i recently read comes to mind:

"Before an examination of the issue of Sikh identity can take place, it is important to first acknowledge the limitations of the historical, and specifically Western approach to studying the Sikh tradition. Noel Q. King holds the view that using methods of scholarship developed for Christianity and Judaism on other religions, is dangerous. This observation, of course, is very much linked to the debate of Orientalism: a western ethnocentrism that sees the norm as being the West and all other traditions are judged by those standards and considered mutations of the same. In the Sikh tradition, a major method of transmitting history and tradition is oral. This is not acceptable for scholars who would use the Western approach: a codified, written account is needed. A good example of this conflict can be seen in the examinations of the Rehitnama literature. Although rehit is considered to be a comprehensive guide to the Khalsa code of conduct, it was often written as a supplementary guide to the Rehit outlined by the initiating Punj Pyaaray in the Khanday kee Paahul ceremony. Desa Singh writes in the seventh stanza of his rehitnama, “that rehit which the five utter, keep that steadfast in your mind” and later in the ninth stanza writes “that is the first rehit, the one which the five Singhs said in the Paahul ceremony. The other different rehits which are spoken of, that is which I will go on to explain ”. Clearly the written rehit is secondary to the one which was orally elucidated by the Punj Pyaaray. Even to this day, many Sikh groups i.e. Akhand Kirtanee Jatha, keep the rehit and the gurmantra secret and a guard is posted at the doors of Paahul ceremonies to maintain secrecy. The rehit is passed down orally through generations or “seenaa-baseenaa” and the newly initiated are instructed to carefully listen and remember the rehit so that they too may pass it down. The modern day “Sikh Rehit Maryada” which was created in the first half of the twentieth century is in fact a western document which is formally codified in prose with sections and subsections and is not in any way a “traditional” Sikh document...Thus, attempting to analyse and understand the Sikh tradition with a west-centric view is difficult and prone to error...."

So, in my opinion, our ancestors could very well have viewed the Budda Dal as the Panja Takhat and there could very well have been 4 other Takhats (Akal Takhat, Patna Sahib, Kesgarh Sahib, Hazur Sahib). Regarding the argument presented about how "according to written codified evidence" these places didnt refer to themselves as takhats...well imo that is irrelevent as even the Akal Takhat was referred to as the Akal Bunga in many cases, the absence of the word "Takhat" in this situation doesnt mean that it wasnt a Takhat.

Pardon any mistakes I have made. Just trying to provide a prespective opposed to the one presented above. I am not arriving at conclusons. Personally, i myself am undecided on this issue surrounding the Budda Dal.

[Singh559]

Sikhs were scholars and did write the history of Sikhs. Writing an account of your own history can't flat out be deemed as "western" and demonize it.

The letters that the Singh a few pages back talked about provide historical reference in writing that no one orally referred to other places, including the Budha Dal as Takhats...

[Cisco_Singh]

One question Cisco Singh...in your opinion, does Sant Gurbachan Singh Bhindranwale come under the puratan maryada side or the Singh Sabha side?

I dont know enough about the life and times of Sant Gurbachan Singh Bhindranewale to classify which side, but from what I do know and from previous posts I Have read here somebody posted that Sant Gurbachan Singh Bhindranewale had respect for Puratan maryada..i.e: when visiting Budha Dal he would take goats for Jhatka. Theres also writings of Sant Gurbachan Singh Bhindranewale analysing the difference between true jang vidiya and "fake" demonstartion art or jahir Gatka. Theres also Katha of Dasam Granth by Sant Gurbachan Singh Bhindranewale.

The above concepts dont fit in with traits of the Singh sabha movement...under whos tenure the Dasam Granth disapeared / was removed from Harmandir Sahib...probably under British influence, in the book by G.S Maan on Dasam Granth it is written many copies of the Dasam Granth were bought to the UK and labelled "NOT TO BE RETURNED TO INDIA" or something similar..the British saw the Dasam Granth as a source of the Sikhs martial attitude and spirit,

[chatanga]

The reason i personally don't beleive that the Jathedar of Budha Dal automatically is the Jathedar of Sri Akhal Takhat Sahib is becuase Bhai Mani Singh was both the Head Granthi & Sri Akal Takhat Sahib Jathedar

Bhai Mani Singh was the Granthi of Sri Darbar Sahib, but he was never Jathedar of Sri Akal Takht Sahib, during the life of Bhai Mani Singh, it was Diwan Darbara Singh and Nawab Kapoor Singh Ji, who were Jathedars.

[chatanga]

I dont know enough about the life and times of Sant Gurbachan Singh Bhindranewale to classify which side, but from what I do know and from previous posts I Have read here somebody posted that Sant Gurbachan Singh Bhindranewale had respect for Puratan maryada..i.e: when visiting Budha Dal he would take goats for Jhatka.

that is from sarbloh site, and it goes nowhere to say whether this is respect for puratan maryada, as the SIngh Sabha beleive that only Halal is forbidden for Sikhs and Jhatka is perfect for Sikhs. It was the Akali Jatha Sacha Sauda Khara Baar, that held the historical Jhatka Conference in Jacobabad, Panjab, in 1937.

[RebelSingh]

as the SIngh Sabha beleive that only Halal is forbidden for Sikhs and Jhatka is perfect for Sikhs.

so wat do the opposition 2 the singh sabha groups think of halal then? do they not reject or accept it? i thort that dirty halaal gandha kuttha maas was banned by all? it jus seems from ur response ur sayin only singh sabha ppl reject halal. please clarify, coz im usually not very gud regardin meat issue in r dharam, cheers.

[ThunderousDominator]

When you ignore the seena baseena traditions of non-western groups and individuals and rely exclusively on "things that were written down" you inevitably arrive at half truths and fallacies

and oral traditions arent full of half truths and fallacies ever heard of the game chinese whispers

[lsingh]

The point is not that budha dal jathedars were automatically akal takht jathedars. This is not the case. But in a lot of cases the akal takht jathedar and Buddha dal jathedar were the same Peron, why ? Because they are most strict in rehit,they live and die for puratan maryada there is no acceptance of deviation or change to puratan maryada. This is why the British with the help of singh sabhian sympathisers sought to remove the influence of Buddha dal within the panth following the Anglo Sikh wars. Compare Punjab gurdwaras to takht sri hazur sahib and you'll see some of the changes and corruption of puratan maryada that has taken place.

There was a period between the Anglo Sikh wars that ended in 1849 and the start of the Singh Sabha mvement when there was a huge drop in the number of Sikhs ,as Arya Samaj (Hindu sect) told Sikhs to return to the Hindu fold also Christian missionaries grew in number with a few high profile conversions from Sikhism. The Singh Sabha started in reaction to this to prevent a further decline in Sikhism in the late 1870's. So for a period of 30 years there was no Singh Sabha and Sikhism was in a steep decline. Why did the Sikhs not do anything earlier to stop this?

If you are under foreign occupation first British and then Indian all your institutions/organisations will be controlled by the Government including the Buddha Dal re Santa Singh

[Into the Light]

I dont know enough about the life and times of Sant Gurbachan Singh Bhindranewale to classify which side, but from what I do know and from previous posts I Have read here somebody posted that Sant Gurbachan Singh Bhindranewale had respect for Puratan maryada..i.e: when visiting Budha Dal he would take goats for Jhatka. Theres also writings of Sant Gurbachan Singh Bhindranewale analysing the difference between true jang vidiya and "fake" demonstartion art or jahir Gatka. Theres also Katha of Dasam Granth by Sant Gurbachan Singh Bhindranewale.

The above concepts dont fit in with traits of the Singh sabha movement...under whos tenure the Dasam Granth disapeared / was removed from Harmandir Sahib...probably under British influence,

The writings you refer to are Gurbani Paath Darpan, In it Sant Jee discusses the importance of shaster vidiya. May i also mention that in the same Gurbani Paath Darpan, Sant Gurbachan Singh states that do to Arti (or Arti Arta) with a Thaal & Diva is manmatt and something that this not inline with Gurmat. This is something that Hazoori Singh/Nihangs call "puratan maryada".

[THE WARRIOR]

Returning to this site after a good few years I’m so glad I left the Sikh religion. The pure hatred just seems to flow even more so rampant, as the majority have clearly lost reason and understanding of the true essence of their timeless culture and faith. To the few who carry on against the crusaders of false truths your task here is pointless they’re not interested in any truth only their own manufactured belief systems that they have invested so much into. The formula is somewhat repetitive you only need to look at how many movements and mentalities have come and gone and which one remains. The one that remains may well be the minority but it’s the one that was chosen to last the span of time, by the will of the one who started the true tradition.