Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
BhagatBalmik

Bhai Hakikat Rai Wasnt a Sahajdhari

Recommended Posts

A great article written by Dr. Sukhpreet Singh Udoke on Bhai Hakikat Singh. Some hindu organizations are promoting the idea that Bhai Hakikat Singh was not Amritdhari but a sahajdhari and wore a topi. Dr. Sukhpreet Singh answers back for the Sikh view. This was published in Sant Sipahi Magazine Sept. 2002

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes I see such things as 'revisionist'.

Truth is that you meet a good few Amritdharis who appear to have issues with the idea of accepting prominent Sikhs of the past as being sehajdhari. Another example is the one of Bhai Nand Lal and the periodical controversy over his being Amritdhari or not that pops up.

Whether the above is a manifestation of this is another issue (I don't know?) but at some stage we should face the wider topic.

History shows us that Khalsa Amritdharis did remarkable things in the past - no one is ever denying that, but trying to write out sehajdhari contributions isn't on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bhai Sahib

I believe its also mentioned in Bhatt Vehis that Hakikat Rai took Amrit and became a Singh. There is effort by some hindu groups to rewrite sikh history to show that Gursikhs like Bhia Mani Singh and Bhai Nand Lal Ji didn't take Amrit. Here is a great example of this http://www.info-sikh.com/PageRSS2.html

Also, about Bhai Nand Lal Ji does anyone know of any source that mentions if Bhai Sahib took Amrit so we can put this argument to rest. Waheguru

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another example is the one of Bhai Nand Lal and the periodical controversy over his being Amritdhari or not that pops up.

There is no controversy over Bhai Nand Lal Ji being a true Sikh of Guru Sahib. He had obtained Naam from Satguru and become a Sikh. Even before 1699, he was an Amritdhari because he had taken charan Amrit. His name along with Bhai Kanhaiya Ji are being misused by monas to justify their apostasy. Sehajdhari refers to someone who is a non-Sikh and slowly adopting the Sikh rehat. Term Sehajdhari after 1947 has been exploited to the extent of including monas and patits whereas this was never the case in the past.

Bhai Hakikat Singh is being misrepresented in the history to make him part of the Hindu society but the fact doesn’t change that he was a Sikh.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about Kaura Mal?

A respected Sikh who actually smoked - of all things!

That's not excuse smoking but another example of revisionism. Also about mona's excusing their apostasy. What about teh majority cowardly Amritdharis who NEVER put themselves forward when violent action needs to be taken against outsiders in the diaspora.

What kind of <edited> in a tiger skins are they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about Kaura Mal?

A respected Sikh who actually smoked - of all things!

  1. Where is the evidence that he was a Sikh? Which source claims that he actually took Naam/Amrit?
  2. Smoking is against Gurmat. One cannot be a smoker and a Sikh at the same time. Granted he helped Sikhs and he was respected by the Sikhs but that doesn’t make him a Sikh.

Your attempt to justify people’s anti-Gurmat behavior and practices as “Sikhi” and trying to define Sikhi based on history rather than Gurbani and Vaars is a clear example of revisionism.

What about teh majority cowardly Amritdharis who NEVER put themselves forward when violent action needs to be taken against outsiders in the diaspora.

What kind of fake jackasses in a tiger skins are they?

Completely irrelevant. Is this another attempt to justify your own apostasy? You think you can do better? Then take Amrit and lead by example rather than trying to look at others’ faults just to give yourself some consolation of your own weakness. Is there any rehatnama that advocates Sikhs to take violent actions or else they are apostates?

You fail to understand the fact that there is a fine line between making mistakes, taking wrong decisions etc. and committing bajjar kurehats. Latter makes one an apostate whereas the former doesn’t. This topic is about Bhai Hakikat Singh. Do you have any evidence to prove that he was a Hindu?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where is the evidence that he was a Sikh? Which source claims that he actually took Naam/Amrit?

Smoking is against Gurmat. One cannot be a smoker and a Sikh at the same time. Granted he helped Sikhs and he was respected by the Sikhs but that doesn’t make him a Sikh.

So I take it you think Rattan Singh Bhangu made that up or something?

Completely irrelevant. Is this another attempt to justify your own apostasy? You think you can do better? Then take Amrit and lead by example rather than trying to look at others’ faults just to give yourself some consolation of your own weakness. Is there any rehatnama that advocates Sikhs to take violent actions or else they are apostates?

Nope, COMPLETELY relevant. It says a lot that pub brawlers types have to defend the Sikh community these days and people like yourself hide behind dogma as if it will cover up your own weaknesses.

The point being made regards people's failings - there are a lot going on - and if we are going to point fingers (fair enough) , lets widen the context to get a truer picture of what is going on in terms of abject failures of meeting what being Sikh entails. That old game of dogmatic types to hide behind their physical form and castigate those who fail in this department whilst cowardly ducking any action requiring some courage and risk, whereas those being condemned as apostates and whatnot step up like MEN is an issue that rears its head periodically and needs to be nailed at the outset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I take it you think Rattan Singh Bhangu made that up or something?

You did not address my points.

It says a lot that pub brawlers types have to defend the Sikh community these days and people like yourself hide behind dogma as if it will cover up your own weaknesses.

You are sidetracking the discussion here. Let’s assume I am weak and hiding behind my computer (even though you have not presented any evidence), how does that make a mona a Sikh? How does that make you a better person? You have not presented any evidence to show that Amritdharis are not defending the Sikh community and the Panth now has to rely on “pub brawlers”. I commend those who stand up but that doesn’t make them Sikhs.

lets widen the context to get a truer picture of what is going on in terms of abject failures of meeting what being Sikh entails.

The first thing for you would be to look at yourself and then point at others. You seem to have problem with the fact that an Amritdhari is a Sikh and not anyone else. Those who take Amrit and fail to keep any rehat are no different if not worse.

That old game of dogmatic types to hide behind their physical form and castigate those who fail in this department whilst cowardly ducking any action requiring some courage and risk, whereas those being condemned as apostates and whatnot step up like MEN is an issue that rears its head periodically and needs to be nailed at the outset.

Once again, you are defending monas like they are all angels and true heroes. It is foolish to categorically call them good based on a few good men. At the same time, you are categorizing all Amritdharis as cowards. Where is the evidence? Even if I assume for the sake of argument that Amritdharis are not showing enough courage, it does not make monas Sikhs. Amritdharis being weak does not support the argument of monas being Sikhs. An apostate will always be an apostate regardless of his courage. Not too long ago, majority of the Panth was Amritdhari and when things changed, the majority became apostates and the sad affairs of the community are in front of us. It is Gurbani that defines a Sikh and one who commits bajjar kurehat is not a Sikh. Those who deny this fact turn their back on Gurbani which is not the character of a Sikh.

I do not mean to say that monas are bad or inferior people or Amritdharis are better and superior. My simple point is that Bhai Hakikat Singh was a Sikh and those who commit bejjar kurehats are apostates whether they are courageous or cowards is irrelevant.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first thing for you would be to look at yourself and then point at others.

<edited> Try taking that advice yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not the one throwing insults, hiding behind others’ faults to make myself look good or distorting Sikhi to justify my own weaknesses. Don’t hijack the topic. Do you have any evidence to prove Bhai Hakikat Singh was a mona?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hiding behind others’ faults to make myself look good or distorting Sikhi to justify my own weaknesses

That is EXACTLY what you are doing.

And every other pious, holier than thou <edited> like you.

You can keep deluding yourself, but anyone with half a brain and a just a smattering of integrity knows just how far removed people like yourself are from the original Singhs you try and imitate and whose reputation you try and hide behind to throw around haughty condemnation of others who can't match your self perceived 'strength'.

Keep hiding behind your 'technical Sikhi' without any spirit or heart behind it. <edited>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dalsingh veer, I didn't expect a rude backlash from your side. In fact I look upon you and veer Bija Singh as a handful of the few knowledgeable members we have on this forum. Its really not at all helping to see you two exchange "pleasantries". This could have been a really thought provoking discussion.

Humble request to both, please engage in constructive discussion. This is one thread I personally would hate to lock as it has come as an eye opener.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have some problem with Amritdharis then resolve them on your own. Puratan Singhs were far better than me and I will never be their match in any field of Sikhi. I accept it as a fact. This topic is about Bhai Hakikat Singh which you have not written a single word on and right from the beginning without considering the ample amount of evidence presented, you started to accuse Amritdharis of “revisionism”. So much for rationality and integrity. Those who cut hair are called manmukhs and niguras in Gurbani. Your denial of this fact is not the characteristic of a Sikh. You can call me weak, coward or whatever you want but that doesn’t change the fact that monas are not Sikhs. Your post reminds me of Gurbani pankti: ਜਿਉ ਨਿਗੁਰਾ ਬਹੁ ਬਾਤਾ ਜਾਣੈ ਓਹੁ ਹਰਿ ਦਰਗਹ ਹੈ ਭ੍ਰਸਟੀ ॥1॥

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bijla is confused.

How can someone who has never taken Amrit become apostate by cutting his hair?

Plus does anyone here deny the existence and contribution of sehajdhari Sikhs even after 1699. Because if you do, you obviously haven't been making much effort to understand Sikh itihaas.

We even had a thread here recently with pictures of shaheeds of 1984 who were sehajdharis or monas (whatever you want to call them?).

I guess too Bijla's mind those guys weren't as good a Sikh as he is and they were manmukhs. Maybe? But I tell you one thing straight, they are bigger men than you'll ever be.

Stop using the faith as some ego prop - for your own sake. Find some less obnoxious way to prop up your confidence and self-image for everyone's sake.

And where do we go if we accept Bijla's assertion that all sehajdharis or monay aren't Sikh? Where does that leave us? The smallest faith in the world? Whether we like it or not, the majority of the Sikh panth is now mona. How we got to this can, and should be discussed. Attempts to, in effect, excommunicate the majority of people who consider themselves Sikh by Bijla types is mind boggling.

I know our Sikh forefathers were remarkable people, made up of both Amritdharis AND Sehajdharis. That simple fact needs to be asserted today more than ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use