Remembering Banda Singh Bahadur.

[13Mirch]

To quote a portion:

'The seven years, from 1708-1716, which chart the meteoric rise and execution of Banda Singh Bahadur are a testament to the rugged individualism and grit of the Sikhs. They reflect a prominent pattern of Sikh history viz. the ascent, descent and the re-ascent of the Khalsa over it’s foes. As memories of June 1984 loom ever closer, it would be prudent for Sikhs worldwide to reflect upon the revolutions of both Banda and the Sikhs of ’84 and attempt to identify the similarities in both. It is a given that no two movements can ever be fully compared or even contrasted, but a general consensus can always be agreed upon vis-a-vis their effect and ultimate conclusion. The forced demise of Banda Singh’s revolution did not put it’s spirit to sleep; rather it only bolstered the Sikh spirit and the Khalsa continued it’s struggle for sovereignty and religious freedom in the wilderness of the Punjab. Post-’84, the Sikhs failed to derive inspiration from their past and rather focused solely upon the trauma of ’84. As such, their history was brought to a premature conclusion on the events of the aforementioned period. One need only imagine what the result would have been if the post-Banda Sikhs had focused solely upon their treatment at the hands of the Mughals, rather than taking any conducive steps towards preserving themselves from such atrocities in the future.'

https://tisarpanthdotcom.wordpress.com/2016/06/03/the-stalwarts-revolution/

[MisterrSingh]

He was alpha as anything. A proper "Banda." Liberal Sikhs want to downplay or even write him out of Sikh history because of his aversion for Islam, and the way he went about giving those animals a bloody nose. He perhaps went too far, and like a genuine man, he was all too willing to accept his mistakes, and the following quote of his prior to his execution - in a conversation with a Mughal higher-up - proves he understood the nature of God more than most so-called men of God:

"Whenever men become so corrupt and wicked as to relinquish the path of equity and abandon themselves to all kinds of excesses, then Providence never fails to raise up a scourge like me to chastise a race so depraved; but when the measure of punishment is full then he raises up men like you to bring him to punishment."

[13Mirch]

He was alpha as anything. A proper "Banda." Liberal Sikhs want to downplay or even write him out of Sikh history because of his aversion for Islam, and the way he went about giving those animals a bloody nose. He perhaps went too far, and like a genuine man, he was all too willing to accept his mistakes, and the following quote of his prior to his execution - in a conversation with a Mughal higher-up - proves he understood the nature of God more than most so-called men of God:

"Whenever men become so corrupt and wicked as to relinquish the path of equity and abandon themselves to all kinds of excesses, then Providence never fails to raise up a scourge like me to chastise a race so depraved; but when the measure of punishment is full then he raises up men like you to bring him to punishment."

Banda Singh is an important element of Sikh history. Just as Nawab Kapur Singh was reduced to the margins long ago, so too is Banda now being pushed out. The lives of these men are worth learning from.

[Guest Jacfsing2]

He perhaps went too far, and like a genuine man, he was all too willing to accept his mistakes, and the following quote of his prior to his execution - in a conversation with a Mughal higher-up - proves he understood the nature of God more than most so-called men of God:[/i]

I don't find what he did wrong at all, he brought justice to the people who made many people Shaheed, and he brought justice to the executioners of Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji as well as the Sahibzadey. I don't see how that's a mistake?

[MisterrSingh]

I don't find what he did wrong at all, he brought justice to the people who made many people Shaheed, and he brought justice to the executioners of Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji as well as the Sahibzadey. I don't see how that's a mistake?

Some point to the manner in which Sirhind was razed to the ground. You don't believe empty houses and fields were destroyed whilst the people were allowed the opportunity to observe the destruction in safety? No, it's safe to say the civilian population was adversely affected during those acts of vengeance, hence Banda Singh's honest admission that he'd overstepped the limits of what was acceptable.

[StarStriker]

Only mistakes banda singh bahadur did in their short time as a sikh, was after destroyin muslims n bringin justice to sikhs, he began disobeyin the khalsa and khalsa instructions n wanted ppl to worship him more than the guru. A bit similar to wat ranjit singh did. Both banda n ranjit singh were supposed to make it sikh empires, but both got greedy/egotistical n both raj's failed. But banda singh bahadur did repay the khalsa back, with his shaheedi, which has and will go down in history, as the 1 of most courageous shaheedis.

[Balkaar]

Some point to the manner in which Sirhind was razed to the ground. You don't believe empty houses and fields were destroyed whilst the people were allowed the opportunity to observe the destruction in safety? No, it's safe to say the civilian population was adversely affected during those acts of vengeance, hence Banda Singh's honest admission that he'd overstepped the limits of what was acceptable.

There's a bit of a tendency amongst apnaay these days to make the puraatan Sikhs into something they weren't. It's essentially a legacy of the British colonization of the Punjab and the Sikh pysche - hence the transplanting of Western knightly/chivalric virtues onto the characters in our itihaas. This fiction was conducive to the Brits' agenda for the Sikhs as a source of potential recruits. The true story of early Sikh history, with its cast of half-naked unruly horsemen ransacking settlements and burning everything else to the ground, was not the recipe for producing the docile and obedient European-style line infantry [paid in wages and discouraged from looting] that they required - so they tried to get rid of it.

*Also the very popular idea that 'Sikhs have never attacked first'. [As if to suggest that there is anything wrong with attacking your enemies before they can lash out at you. There isn't] In reality Sikhs have attacked first, it happened all the time in the confederacy era. This seems to me like another Angrezi myth calculated to keep their Sikh ghulaams from rising up and rebelling/attacking first.

[MisterrSingh]

There's a bit of a tendency amongst apnaay these days to make the puraatan Sikhs into something they weren't. It's essentially a legacy of the British colonization of the Punjab and the Sikh pysche - hence the transplanting of Western knightly/chivalric virtues onto the characters in our itihaas. This fiction was conducive to the Brits' agenda for the Sikhs as a source of potential recruits. The true story of early Sikh history, with its cast of half-naked unruly horsemen ransacking settlements and burning everything else to the ground, was not the recipe for producing the docile and obedient European-style line infantry [paid in wages and discouraged from looting] that they required - so they tried to get rid of it.

Absolutely. The slightly naive belief that all puratan Sikhs functioned according to Satjugi behavioural tendencies in a world ravaged by Kaljug is quite amusing. The same people will point to historical Sikh defeats and social misfortunes as divine punishment for erring from those sacred ideals, as if we were spared from violence and death when our Guru Sahibs were at the forefront of Sikh life.

It's a dangerous and, at worst, a deliberately misleading rewriting of Sikh history in order to edit the slightly questionable aspects of human behaviour, in order to present a watered-down version of reality. We've nothing to be ashamed of at all. There's no dishonour in showing humanistic tendencies in those apparently hallowed times; if anything, future generations of sophisticated and intelligent Sikhs will be more inclined to learn about and respect our history if it isn't a mythological white-wash more akin to the folklore of thousands of years ago as opposed to events that barely occurred 500 years in the past, which in the grand scheme of human history is not too long ago.

For clarification, I'm referring to solely to the period post-Guru Sahibs. I'm not casting aspersions on our Guru Sahibs divinity in any way.

[Balkaar]

Absolutely. The slightly naive belief that all puratan Sikhs functioned according to Satjugi behavioural tendencies in a world ravaged by Kaljug is quite amusing. The same people will point to historical Sikh defeats and social misfortunes as divine punishment for erring from those sacred ideals, as if we were spared from violence and death when our Guru Sahibs were at the forefront of Sikh life.

It's a dangerous and, at worst, a deliberately misleading rewriting of Sikh history in order to edit the slightly questionable aspects of human behaviour, in order to present a watered-down version of reality. We've nothing to be ashamed of at all. There's no dishonour in showing humanistic tendencies in those apparently hallowed times; if anything, future generations of sophisticated and intelligent Sikhs will be more inclined to learn about and respect our history if it isn't a mythological white-wash more akin to the folklore of thousands of years ago as opposed to events that barely occurred 500 years in the past, which in the grand scheme of human history is not too long ago.

Demonstrating some of these humanistic/Kaljug tendencies is definitely necessary in war. The Nihang Singhs have always maintained that you need some measure of Tamoguni and Rajoguni instincts to be a sipahi, and they're right, for else would someone be capable of taking a life? Sikhi distinguishes itself from other faiths by inhabiting the real world - it doesn't obsess over the next one like Islam, and it doesn't tell people to run away from it's troubles like Hinduism - it has a very practical and human component which the others do not, partly because it recognizes that nobody can live in this world without being being touched by it in some way. Why try to replace this with the banalities of all the rest?

I also prefer this Sikh history, not least because it doesn't make me feel so defeatist, like I'm aspiring to an impossible standard of human behavior as the other one did. The task of being a Sikh is difficult enough, it's not one that needs to be made even more daunting.

[Jonny101]

Baba jee was a Brahmgiani Mahapush. He has been misunderstood by early Sikh writers. Among the Gupt 96 crore Shaheed Singh Khalsa fauj, he is very much honoured and is one of the top most generals. Even Sant Gurbachan Singh Bhindranwale had Darshan of Baba Banda Singh Bahadur along with respected Shaheed like Baba Deep Singh jee and others. While living, Baba jee had all the Akali Shaktis and used them extensively along with the 5 teers given by Guru Gobind Singh Jee Maharaj in war against the Mughals.