In Defense of Baba Banda Singh Bahadur

[Guest AjeetSinghPunjabi]

1 hour ago, dallysingh101 said:

It's the same with Baba Deep Singh ji. Unfortunately I can't ask Mr. Bhangu about his omissions, but I appreciate what he did leave us. 

I know i shouldn't be saying this but I wonder sometimes what the actual history is . Have we overglorified our history ? I wonder sometimes, but i quickly ask my mind to STFU lol because it might sow seeds of atheism and un-sharda towards guru sahib in my mind and i don't want that. 

Besides why would it matter if , say, for the sake of argument, it was only Guru Teg bahadur ji who got shaheedi and there were no 3 sikhs with him , and similar incidents in sikh history. Or perhaps Baba Deep Singh ji didn't fight with his head on his hand.  Why would it matter and why should it matter to us ?

As long as these examples help us be better in sikhi, we should overlook them. 

[dallysingh101]

57 minutes ago, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:

I know i shouldn't be saying this but I wonder sometimes what the actual history is . Have we overglorified our history ? I wonder sometimes, but i quickly ask my mind to STFU lol because it might sow seeds of atheism and un-sharda towards guru sahib in my mind and i don't want that. 

Besides why would it matter if , say, for the sake of argument, it was only Guru Teg bahadur ji who got shaheedi and there were no 3 sikhs with him , and similar incidents in sikh history. Or perhaps Baba Deep Singh ji didn't fight with his head on his hand.  Why would it matter and why should it matter to us ?

As long as these examples help us be better in sikhi, we should overlook them. 

I think there is a big problem with any reductionalist approach.  I think acting like we could know everything is the depth of stupidity myself. History is fascinating and interesting, especially when we find new things out. It also depends on how you use it. Let's take the Banda Singh example:

Person 1 might say: "Oh, that's disrespectful to Banda Singh, these writers were motivated for x,y reasons. etc. etc."

Person 2 might say: "Well, we've got fascinating information here, we get to expand our language skills reading this stuff (a continual struggle for the diaspora). It keeps us away from other waste of time stuff like watching BB. Also (crucially) we've got a non-whitewashed example of leadership  during a crisis in the narrative  and we could analyse many of the issues that come up from this and learn from them."

 I'd say people who have problems which such accounts generally do so because they've turned our puratan ancestors into some sort of demi-gods (which I note is post annexation phenomena) and have dehumanised them and in light of this, so now they cannot grasp the importance of the writings because it conflicts with their preconceived notions. The Singh Sabha approach to historiography is largely responsible for this, because many of those people (I imagine through close contact and education with christians and anglos during the colonised period) imbibed their values and worldviews and judged their own ancestors in light of their 'education' or mental conditioning.

What shocks me is that people don't grasp that if hypothetically today, we had to fight it out as a community, we are pretty much guaranteed to see similar issues of some people not being happy with any leader, and differences arising. This will inevitably lead to fractures ala Bandai and Tat Khalsa. One key thing to take from the narrative, is that despite that, Singhs still persevered. 

Another key fact that Bhangu's critics fail to recognise is that Bhangu himself narrates how later (after Banda's demise) when the going got super tough with the moghuls, he records how the Tat Khalsa lamented Banda Singh's loss and wailed about how if he was still there, he'd had dealt with the moghuls and they wouldn't have been suffering like they were. 

[13Mirch]

3 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

I think there is a big problem with any reductionalist approach.  I think acting like we could know everything is the depth of stupidity myself. History is fascinating and interesting, especially when we find new things out. It also depends on how you use it. Let's take the Banda Singh example:

Person 1 might say: "Oh, that's disrespectful to Banda Singh, these writers were motivated for x,y reasons. etc. etc."

Person 2 might say: "Well, we've got fascinating information here, we get to expand our language skills reading this stuff (a continual struggle for the diaspora). It keeps us away from other waste of time stuff like watching BB. Also (crucially) we've got a non-whitewashed example of leadership  during a crisis in the narrative  and we could analyse many of the issues that come up from this and learn from them."

 I'd say people who have problems which such accounts generally do so because they've turned our puratan ancestors into some sort of demi-gods (which I note is post annexation phenomena) and have dehumanised them and in light of this, so now they cannot grasp the importance of the writings because it conflicts with their preconceived notions. The Singh Sabha approach to historiography is largely responsible for this, because many of those people (I imagine through close contact and education with christians and anglos during the colonised period) imbibed their values and worldviews and judged their own ancestors in light of their 'education' or mental conditioning.

What shocks me is that people don't grasp that if hypothetically today, we had to fight it out as a community, we are pretty much guaranteed to see similar issues of some people not being happy with any leader, and differences arising. This will inevitably lead to fractures ala Bandai and Tat Khalsa. One key thing to take from the narrative, is that despite that, Singhs still persevered. 

Another key fact that Bhangu's critics fail to recognise is that Bhangu himself narrates how later (after Banda's demise) when the going got super tough with the moghuls, he records how the Tat Khalsa lamented Banda Singh's loss and wailed about how if he was still there, he'd had dealt with the moghuls and they wouldn't have been suffering like they were. 

There was an Ardass performed for Baba Ji's chardi kala at Sri Darbar Sahib by the Tat Khalsa.

[Akalifauj]

On 12/07/2017 at 9:37 PM, dallysingh101 said:

Bhangu's Panth Prakash is also a great source on Banda Singh Bahadhur. 

There is this strong tendency by many apnay to whitewash (essentially rewrite) history to make it inline with some sort of preconceived (usually romanticised) image they have in their head. I think this way of thinking stems from victorian/anglo/protestant christian values  from the colonial period (that people have imbibed), because prior to that, indigenous Sikh historiography had no problems with warts and all accounts of Sikh history. After the 'annexation' Sikh historians all of a sudden felt compelled to start rewriting/hiding stuff. After a century of that, we've ended up in a strange position where we are overly suspicious of our own pre-colonial literature and whilst our ancestors had no problem with the contents, people today struggle to accept them.  

Today dolly aka moni is saying this about Baba Band Singb.  In several years he will take biased and/ alter data to say Sant Jarnail Singh ji Khalsa is wrong in some fashion.  Panth Parkash is not accepted in totality.  Moni only accepts those part that hurt Sikhs. Gurmukhs only accept that is according to Gurbani.

[dallysingh101]

13 minutes ago, Akalifauj said:

Today dolly aka moni is saying this about Baba Band Singb.  In several years he will take biased and/ alter data to say Sant Jarnail Singh ji Khalsa is wrong in some fashion.  Panth Parkash is not accepted in totality.  Moni only accepts those part that hurt Sikhs. Gurmukhs only accept that is according to Gurbani.

If reading what another Singh historian wrote about 200 years ago is enough to 'hurt' a Sikh, they must be really weak minded. 

Stop crying at every little thing for your own sake. 

[Ashtabhuja]

On ‎13‎/‎07‎/‎2017 at 3:33 AM, PreetamSingh said:

ਬਾਬਾ ਬੰਦਾ ਸਿੰਘ ਜੀ ਬਹਾਦਰ ਸਿਖ ਕੌਮ ਦੇ ਪਹਿਲੇ ਸੁਪਰੀਮ ਲੀਡਰ ਹੋਏ ਹਨ ਅਤੇ ਉਹਨਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਗੋਬਿੰਦ ਸਿੰਘ ਜੀ ਨੇ ਖੁਦ ਆਪ ਇਸ ਅਹੁਦੇ ਤੇ ਸਥਾਪਤ ਕੀਤਾ ਸੀ। ਬਾਬਾ ਜੀ ਨੇ ਪਹਿਲੀ ਵਾਰ ਖਾਲਸਾ ਰਾਜ ਕਾਇਮ ਕੀਤਾ ਸੀ ਅਤੇ ਸਿਖਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਰਾਜ ਕਰਨ ਦੀ ਜਾਚ ਸਿਖਾਈ। ਉਹਨਾਂ ਦੀ ਸ਼ਹੀਦੀ ਵੀ ਬੇਮਿਸਾਲ ਸੀ ਪਰ ਅਫਸੋਸ ਦੀ ਗਲ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਉਹਨਾਂ ਦੀ ਪਵਿਤ੍ਰ ਹਸਤੀ ਉਤੇ ਕਈ ਅਣਜਾਣ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਵਲੋਂ ਗਲਤ ਇਲਜ਼ਾਮ ਲਾ ਕੇ ਚਿਕੜ ਸੁਟਿਆ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ। ਅਸੀਂ ਇਸ ਵੀਡੀਓ ਵਿਚ ਉਹਨਾਂ ਤੇ ਲਾਏ ਜਾਂਦੇ ਤਮਾਮ ਇਲਜ਼ਾਮਾਂ ਦਾ ਖੰਡਨ ਕਰ ਰਹੇ ਹਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਇਹ ਸਾਬਤ ਕਰ ਰਹੇ ਹਾਂ ਕਿ ਉਹ ਨਿਰਮਲ ਅਤੇ ਉਚਕੋਟੀ ਦੇ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਭਗਤ ਸਨ। ਸਾਡੀ ਬੇਨਤੀ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਇਸ ਵੀਡੀਓ ਨੂੰ ਧਿਆਨ ਨਾਲ ਸੁਣੋ ਅਤੇ ਹੋਰਨਾਂ ਨਾਲ ਸ਼ੇਅਰ ਕਰੋ ਤਾਂ ਕੇ ਬਾਬਾ ਜੀ ਨੂੰ ਉਹਨਾਂ ਦਾ ਬਣਦਾ ਸਥਾਨ ਸਿਖ ਜਗਤ ਵਿਚ ਨਸੀਬ ਹੋਵੇ। 
ਆਪ ਜੀ ਦੇ ਮਨ ਵਿਚ ਕੋਈ ਸੁਝਾਓ ਹੋਵੇ ਤਾਂ ਸਾਨੂੰ +1-647-771-5359 ਤੇ ਸੰਪਰਕ ਕਰੋ ਜੀ।
ਜੇਕਰ ਤੁਸੀਂ ਸਾਡੀਆਂ ਵੀਡੀਓ ਪਸੰਦ ਕਰਦੇ ਹੋ ਤਾਂ ਹੋਰਨਾਂ ਨਾਲ ਸ਼ੇਅਰ ਕਰਿਆ ਕਰੋ ਅਤੇ ਸਾਡੇ youtube ਚੈਨਲ ਨੂੰ subscribe ਜ਼ਰੂਰ ਕਰੋ ਜੀ।

Baba Banda Singh jee Bahadur was the first supreme leader of the Sikhs and he was appointed to this position by Guru Sahib jee Himself.  Baba jee uprooted the 800 year old foreign rule from Punjab and established the Khalsa empire for the first time.  He was the greatest leader that Sikhs ever had but unfortunately, falling prey to the wrong propaganda by the government of that time, some Sikhs place wrong allegations on him.  In this video, we refute all the baseless allegations against Baba jee and prove that Baba jee was the greatest leader the Sikhs ever had.  Please watch this video carefully and also share it with others so that they too can benefit from it.  
 If you have any questions or if you have any suggestions, kindly contact us at +1-647-771-5359.  

If you like the videos, please share them liberally and also don’t forget to subscribe to our youtube channel.
 

 

Vaheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Vaheguru Ji Ki Fateh.

Thank you so much for this video. Very nicely presented. Many thanks for proving the innocence of Baba Banda Singh Bahadur ji.

[Akalifauj]

6 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

It's the same with Baba Deep Singh ji. Unfortunately I can't ask Mr. Bhangu about his omissions, but I appreciate what he did leave us. 

Here is another example.  On sikhawareness forum moni fanatically tried to force other to accept goats story around punj pyare.  Even after moni was told of Bhai jeevan singhs written account of what actually happened on 1699.  He tried very hard to dismiss Bhai jeevan singhs account.  The other poster said the samething I am saying today.  The other poster called him out.  How can your account be accepted?  On what merit and authencity.  This extremist could not answer the question and he ran away with his tail between his legs.

 

[Akalifauj]

9 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

If reading what another Singh historian wrote about 200 years ago is enough to 'hurt' a Sikh, they must be really weak minded. 

Stop crying at every little thing for your own sake. 

This shows you are very stupid to accept everything that is written down 200 years ago.  200 years from now dolly aka moni will be your name because your grand child will learn from Mr. Stupid to accept everything written.   On the other hand Gurmukhs have done the hard work of cross checking and going with a more accurate account.  

[Akalifauj]

Moni has been whining on these forums for more than 20 years.  Its always the same argument that has been shown to be proven wrong that he will bring up.  Always attacking the poster and never providing authentic accurate writings.  He's a internet warrior and a troll for last 20 odd years.  The very labels he is, he tries to put on others.  UK sangat need to meet this guy in person and have a face to face debate and record it.  Expose the troll for all to see.

[Jonny101]

18 hours ago, Mahakaal96 said:

Baba Binod Singh didn't disobey anyone, he was never under the command of Banda, rather, as per the wishes of Guru Mahraj Banda was under the command of Panj Singh, one of whom was Baba Binod Singh. If anyone disobeyed, it was Banda when he considered himself above the Khalsa.

Nawab Kapur Singh and the panth accepted jageer from the Mughals to, I suppose you consider him as a 'baba Santa singh of his time'. 

The bottom line is, you know nothing about raj neeti.

Answer @13Mirch, do you want him to put up the audio clip in which Sant Jarnail Singh agrees with the perception of Banda as depicted by Rattan Singh Bhangu? 

Why is there a hukamnama from Mata Sundri Ji commanding all sikhs to abandon Banda because he had abandoned gurmat? 

According to you, Baba Binod Singh was wrong, Mata Sundri Ji was wrong, Rattan Singh Bhangu was wrong & Sant Jarnail Singh was wrong..... but you and your modern historians are right..... clown!!

What are you talking about? Binod Singh was the only one of the Panj Pyaras who left the councel of the Punj Pyaras and abandoned the Singhs. All the other 4 of the 5 Pyaras remained with Baba Ji including Binod SIngh's OWN SON!

Binod Singh had contacts with the Mughals. He then recieved a Jagir from them for his treachery. This treacherous person then uses his influence with his Mughals friends to free his son from death. So this traiter not only broke ranks and disobeyed his leader, he left the councel of the Panj Pyaras, he saves his own son while letting all the other Singh die.

On the other hand, Baba Jee was a Bedaagh Shaksee`at (a blot less personality). He was personally handpicked by Gurus Sahib. He lived and for his Guru's commands. He killed the killers of the Sahibzade, he created the first Sikh state and uprooted 800 years of Muslim rule. He gave land to the peasants who were living like serfs. And if that isn't enough, he died such a unimaginable torturous death but did not waver one bit. He had his own son's beating heart shoved into her mouth  How can you compare this to the traitor who saved his son and accepted Jagir from the Mughals!

I will defend Baba Jee as long as I have swaas in my body. You are doing Nindya of this Brahmgiani Mahapursh. You have no idea how much Paap you are putting on your head by doing this.