Who Is Responsible For The Hate Towards Dasam Granth?

[dallysingh101 2,807]

Just to give some evidence for my previous point about doubts creeping after annexation, here's an example of the legendary scholar Kahn Singh Nabha (of Mahan Kosh fame), making less than positive remarks about CP in a book call Gurmat Martand:

[chatanga 1,058]

There was also a LOT of projection. They started to imagine Sikhs and Sikhi as they would have liked it, according to their own biases and values - and even more so according to their own economic and colonialist agenda. They found that they could easily mould a lot of Sikhs to their own purposes. And did.

It makes me wonder how they managed it so easily, as when writing their earlier reports on Panjab they noticed how education here was far more advanced and widespread than in England and India. Although after conquest they claimed that there was little education to speak of.

The prophecies of the white man in hats coming to rule may have had something to do with it.

[dallysingh101 2,807]

It makes me wonder how they managed it so easily, as when writing their earlier reports on Panjab they noticed how education here was far more advanced and widespread than in England and India. Although after conquest they claimed that there was little education to speak of.

The prophecies of the white man in hats coming to rule may have had something to do with it.

It wasn't just this, they employed a wide range of strategies to concrete their rule: They bought off key people via their ambition and greed, and undermined more independent-minded leaders. They had Panjabis at each others throats over religion (which you allude to with the whole Arya Samaj vs Singh Sabha thing), expending their energy in arguing amongst themselves instead of outmaneuvering the Anglos. They redistributed land and wealth to those who supported their agenda (politically and militarily) taking it away from 'rebels' giving it to the loyal. Their master card was to subvert Khalsa ideology to subordinate it to their colonialist ambitions - so you had Amritdharis thinking fighting in a whiteman's war far from home, or defending Anglo interests as a guard in some other colonised location, was somehow fulfilling his religious duty. It's all deeply psychological.

That article from Dawn magazine I posted on SA claims that as well as the weaponry, they were taking away cartloads of books immediately after annexation. Plus maybe our lot are a bit simple-minded in these respects? I think the word is gullible.

I think they had a really easy time in taming us compared to say Pathaans.

Back to the OP, I think it was 1) this conflict with Hindus and the pressure to try and remove any perceived links to Hinduism and 2) sexual frigidness imbibed from Victorian Protestant values in relation to Charitrio Pakyaan that were key factors in causing the sidelining of DG.

[WaljinderSingh 834]

Edited

[InderjitS 1,244]

I think the hate actually has its antecedents from the colonial period.

That's when you start getting the movement to distance SIkhs from anything remotely considered Hindu (which I think it would be more accurate to call Indic).

Prior to this, there was no problems with DG in the panth. Then after colonisation we get a different attitude towards the granth - 'it contains Hinduism', 'They are full of "erotic" tales', 'they deify Hindu devtays' etc. etc.

I think a part of the negative attitude towards Charitrio Pakyaan stems from the prudish, repressed Victorian attitudes towards sexual matters that seeped into our community whilst being colonised by these said people. By the time they had finished 'educating' us with their values, some of us began to feel that such tales could never come from dasmesh pita.

Singhs in the past were solid in their faith, had large swathes of Bani from SGGS and DG memorised, plus knowledge of Hindu texts and thus did not have a fear of being hinduised which is a more modern mindset. There is nothing at all wrong with mingling with people of different faiths and having discourses, but nowadays, anyone caught talking to a Hindu will probably be accused of being RSS.

The big difference between past/present was that Hindu priests were better versed in their scriptures and a mutual respect of each others faith was present, therefore intelligent discussions could be held. Now Hindu priests are at a loss to even explain why they shave their heads when historically their own devi devte and to this day the most advanced of them keep long hair and beards.

[Singh559 2,653]

It makes me wonder how they managed it so easily, as when writing their earlier reports on Panjab they noticed how education here was far more advanced and widespread than in England and India. Although after conquest they claimed that there was little education to speak of.

The prophecies of the white man in hats coming to rule may have had something to do with it.

There are first hand accounts of Dutch travelers during time of British annexing Punjab where they recorded that every Tehseel in the Pind would gather all the education material into a pile and then have it burnt.

Gore sau sau saal sochde ah, te ehs kam de karam assi aj vi dekhi jaande ah.

Great posts GPS and Chatanga - really informative. Shows without a shadow of a doubt that the missionary agenda is nonsense.

[GPS 1,327]

But aren't our Sri Guru Saib jis considered avatars of Sri Paramatma Sahib ji? Can't everything be seen as a creation of God, even forms of God themselves? Since everything that exists is a creation.

Guru Gobind Singh ji writes in Bachittar Natak

ਜੋ ਹਮ ਕੋ ਪਰਮੇਸਰ ਉਚਰਿ ਹੈਂ ॥ ਤੇ ਸਭ ਨਰਕਿ ਕੁੰਡ ਮਹਿ ਪਰਿਹੈਂ ॥

जो हम को परमेसर उचरि हैं ॥ ते सभ नरकि कुंड महि परिहैं ॥

Whosoever shall call me the Lord, shall fall into hell.

ਮੋ ਕੌ ਦਾਸ ਤਵਨ ਕਾ ਜਾਨੋ ॥ ਯਾ ਮੈ ਭੇਦ ਨ ਰੰਚ ਪਛਾਨੋ ॥੩੨॥

मो कौ दास तवन का जानो ॥ या मै भेद न रंच पछानो ॥३२॥

Consider me as His servant and do not think of any difference between me and the Lord.32.

ਮੈ ਹੋ ਪਰਮ ਪੁਰਖ ਕੋ ਦਾਸਾ ॥ ਦੇਖਨਿ ਆਯੋ ਜਗਤ ਤਮਾਸਾ ॥

मै हो परम पुरख को दासा ॥ देखनि आयो जगत तमासा ॥

I am the servant of the Supreme Purusha and hath come to see the Sport of the world.

Sri Dasam Granth sahib

Guru sahib writes in bachittar Natak about these hindu avatars under

ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਬਾਚ ਇਸ ਕੀਟ ਪ੍ਰਤਿ ॥

अकाल पुरख बाच इस कीट प्रति ॥

The Words of the Non-temporal Lord to this insect:

ਤੇ ਹਮ ਤਮਕਿ ਤਨਕ ਮੋ ਖਾਪੇ ॥ ਤਿਨ ਕੀ ਠਉਰ ਦੇਵਤਾ ਥਾਪੇ ॥

ते हम तमकि तनक मो खापे ॥ तिन की ठउर देवता थापे ॥

I destroyed them in no time and created gods in their place.

ਤੇ ਭੀ ਬਲਿ ਪੂਜਾ ਉਰਝਾਏ ॥ ਆਪਨ ਹੀ ਪਰਮੇਸੁਰ ਕਹਾਏ ॥੭॥

ते भी बलि पूजा उरझाए ॥ आपन ही परमेसुर कहाए ॥७॥

They were also absorbed in the worship of power and called themselves Ominipotednt.7.

ਮਹਾਦੇਵ ਅਚੁੱਤ ਕਹਾਯੋ ॥ ਬਿਸਨ ਆਪ ਹੀ ਕੋ ਠਹਿਰਾਯੋ ॥

Mahadeo (Shiva) was called Achyuta (blotless), Vishnu considered himself the Supreme.

ਬ੍ਰਹਮਾ ਆਪ ਪਾਰਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਬਖਾਨਾ ॥ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਕੋ ਪ੍ਰਭੂ ਨ ਕਿਨਹੂੰ ਜਾਨਾ ॥੮॥

ब्रहमा आप पारब्रहम बखाना ॥ प्रभ को प्रभू न किनहूं जाना ॥८॥

Brahma called himself Para Brahman, none could comprehend the Lord.8.

Bachittar natak,Sri Dasam Granth sahib

Obviously there was no difference between akal purakh and Guru sahib as Guru sahib had realized Him before .Where these avatars whom Hindus consider as incarnation of God were not able to realize Akal purakh and went away deluded.

In sikhism guru is that in whom light of akal purakh shines completely.

ਗੁਰ ਨਾਨਕ ਦੇਵ ਗੋਵਿੰਦ ਰੂਪ ॥੮॥੧॥

“Guru Nanak is embodiment of the Light of God.”

(Ang 1192)

That light passed from first to last guru sahib.

​

[JSinghnz 1,086]

Singhs in the past were solid in their faith, had large swathes of Bani from SGGS and DG memorised, plus knowledge of Hindu texts and thus did not have a fear of being hinduised which is a more modern mindset. There is nothing at all wrong with mingling with people of different faiths and having discourses, but nowadays, anyone caught talking to a Hindu will probably be accused of being RSS.

The big difference between past/present was that Hindu priests were better versed in their scriptures and a mutual respect of each others faith was present, therefore intelligent discussions could be held. Now Hindu priests are at a loss to even explain why they shave their heads when historically their own devi devte and to this day the most advanced of them keep long hair and beards.

One thing I cannot understand is if the Sikhs in the past were that solid in their faith,

why did they bow down to the trechourous pommies who took their rule.

So much so they became their loyal slaves and that kind of slave mentality is still found in some posters here.

[GPS 1,327]

One part confuses me, it says "Whosoever shall call me the Lord, shall fall into hell." and then it says "Consider me as His servant and do not think of any difference between me and the Lord.32.". So first it says not to call Sri Guru Sahib ji God, then it says not to see a difference between him and Sri Paramatma Sahib ji??

There is nothing to get confused. Once you realize Akal purakh there is no difference between seeker and akal purakh.

Point is how you conduct yourself. In bachittar natak guru sahib tells about his mission for which He was sent.He says that he has come to uproot oppression and save humanity. His life testifies to that .

[chatanga 1,058]

They had Panjabis at each others throats over religion (which you allude to with the whole Arya Samaj vs Singh Sabha thing),

The Arya Samaj Singh Sabha spat came about 40 years later.

[InderjitS 1,244]

One thing I cannot understand is if the Sikhs in the past were that solid in their faith,

why did they bow down to the trechourous pommies who took their rule.

So much so they became their loyal slaves and that kind of slave mentality is still found in some posters here.

You mean to deny our ancestors were more pakke in their Sikhi than us?

[dallysingh101 2,807]

The Arya Samaj Singh Sabha spat came about 40 years later.

And the repercussions of that still resound today.

It's weird (for me anyway) to have to look at our inherited literature today and see that our scholars felt strongly compelled to start discreetly changing or hiding stuff - instead of countering arguments against Hindus in a more confident, honest fashion.

[dallysingh101 2,807]

You mean to deny our ancestors were more pakke in their Sikhi than us?

Let's be real, Jsinghnz has a point.

I think the brits firstly waited until most of the major powerhouse leaders (under whom Sikhs would've united) were dead (Hari Singh Nalwa, Ranjit Singh, Akali Phoola Singh). Then we do have accounts of A LOT of shaheedi taking place during the Anglo-Sikh wars suggesting that many staunch, pukkay Singhs preferred death to surrender or accepting defeat.

Those that were left were probably of a different calibre (more worldly), and for a variety of reasons (animosity against poorbias, job opportunities, loot, money, land) subordinated themselves.

[chatanga 1,058]

And the repercussions of that still resound today.

It's weird (for me anyway) to have to look at our inherited literature today and see that our scholars felt strongly compelled to start discreetly changing or hiding stuff - instead of countering arguments against Hindus in a more confident, honest fashion.

Leaving literature aside some Sikhs even went as far as to suggest Guru Granth Sahib needing "editing".

[WaljinderSingh 834]

A Sikh shouldn't be afraid of going to hell. Whatever Guru Sahib have written is because His humbleness.

"Gur Parmeshar Eiko jaan " (SGGS)