I am not expecting much from the progeny of the clergy of the Golden Temple, led by Arur Singh, who had honoured the massacring Gen Dyer by declaring him a Sikh, on condition that he renounce one cigarette a year.......But I'm forced to continue to reply to such Neo-Sikhs. You see, like them, I'm caught in a trap of my own making -- The Incredible Heaviness of Being Macho. If I ignore your post, it'll be taken as my inability to refute your rank garbage; and if I begin explaining, it'll be perceived as a chicken-hearted retreat in face of the malevolent campaign aimed by London-Toronto-Keshdhari Clowns. What to do. A clean-shaven-Sikh-Hindu can be no less daft. Therefore, let me assert by saying: I do NOT retract a single word of what I said.
Sorry to say this but you appear to be a victim of a fraud perpetrated by oue own people. People who since the day they were beaten by the British badly have been in awe of them. And since then have been making all effort to make Sikhi sound and appear and 'not-much' different from the 'gora-Gods' preachings.
This foundation of deception was built by the Tat Khalsa Singh Sabhia progeny, such as the Shromani Gurdwara Parbandak Committee (S.G.P.C.), another creation of the British by nurturing on narrow-minded puritanical Victorian ideals established by the British Raj. The Tat Khalsa Singh Sabhia movement emerged from the womb of the filthy foreigner in 1879, it began to radically alter Sikhism as it existed so as ensure it conformed to their new British Raj-accommodating perception. In fact, one of the leading figures of this movement was an Irishman, Max Arthur Macauliffe. He is regarded today by many modern Sikhs as being a great scholar and historian.
In 1882, Macauliffe achieved the position of Deputy Commissioner in Punjab. With the help of Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha, Macauliffe wrote the popular Tat Khalsa Singh Sabhia-sanctioned text that outlined Sikh history according to the views of the Tat Khalsa scholars of the time. In it, he states the reasons for writing his extensive work on the Sikhs:
"It is admitted that a knowledge of the religions of the people of India is a desideratum for the British officials who administer its affairs and indirectly for the people who are governed by them so that mutual sympathy may be produced. It seems, at any rate politic to place before the Sikh soldiery their Guru’s prophecies in favor of the English and the texts of their sacred writings which foster their loyalty."
- - - The Sikh Religion’,1909, M.A. Macauliffe, Preface xxii
What you say and believe is the logical conclusion of that fraud played by the British on us...
The Sikh community leaders have commited not some but many mistakes a few of which are as follows :
1) In order to bolster their separateness from Hinduism, Sikh separatists have magnified the Islamic element in Sikhism. An element of this tendency is the replacement of Sanskrit-based terms with Persian terms, e.g. the Hari Mandir, "Vishnu temple", in Amritsar is preferably called Darbar Sahib by the Akalis, "venerable court session (of the Timeless one)".
2) The Akali's propogated the by now widespread story that the foundation stone of the Hari Mandir was laid by the Sufi pir Mian Mir. Repetition of this myth prompted many people including from the Sikh community to carry out a detailed survey of the oldest and modernest sources pertaining to the construction of the Hari Mandir. Found no trace of Mian Mir. But the Hardliners of the Singh-Sabha variety continue to prop up a blatant forgery simply because it has become popular and is being patronised by those who control the neo-Sikh establishment.(Canadian Visa anyone????)
3) Sikh self-historiographers have filled the Sikh history with concoctions, starting with insertions and changes in 19th-century editions of older texts, all of it in unsubtle appropriation of the latest ideological fashions of Anglo-secularists. (Rajendra Singh, a Sikh anti-separatist author claims that even (not to say especially) the key moments of Sikh history are often concoctions. Thus, the founding of the martial Khalsa order by Guru Govind Singh in 1699, with the beard as part of its dress code, is put in doubt by a post-1699 painting of a clean-shaven Govind Singh. He also points out that many stories about the lives of the Gurus are obvious calks on Puranic or Islamic stories.)
4) The Sikh leaders fell for the British who were disappointed with the conclusions of the first scholar who investigated and translated Sikh Scriptures, the German Indologist and missionary Dr. E. Trumpp, who had found Guru Nanak a 'thorough Hindu' and his religion 'a Pantheism derived directly from Hindu sources'. (This was not long after the 1857 Mutiny, when the Sikhs had fought on the British side, and the British were systematically turning the Sikhs into one of the privileged enclaves in native society with whose help they wanted to make governing India easier for themselves.)
5) Other Sikh community scholars started to rewrite Sikh history in the sense desired by the British. Max Arthur Macauliffe, a highly placed British administrator told the Sikhs that Hinduism was like a ‘boa constrictor of the Indian forest’ which ‘winds its opponent and finally causes it to disappear in its capacious interior’. The Sikhs ‘may go that way’, he warned. He was pained to see that the Sikhs regarded themselves as Hindus which was ‘in direct opposition to the teachings of the Gurus’. The influence of scholarship is silent, subtle and long-range. Macauliffe and others provided categories which became the thought-equipment of subsequent Sikh intellectuals.
6) The Akalis in 1909, over 200 years after the Tenth Guru's passing replaced the Dasam Granth with just the one, under the influence of the british oppressors such as maccauliffe, who were trying to Christianise Sikhism.
7) The Akalis in 1909, over 200 years after the Tenth Guru's passing, passed the 'Anand marriage act' under the say so of Wilheim Leitner, (Austro Hungarian) British administrator, who supposedly spoke twenty five languages. And this despite the fact that The Gurus themselves all had Hindu Pandits conduct their weddings, entirely within Hindu tradition.
8) During the late 19th century and early 20th century, scholars such as Bhai Vir Singh came across numerous practices within Sikhism such as ‘Chandi’ worship, use of intoxicants (such as alcohol, cannabis, opium), ‘Chatka’, polygamy, and references to topics such as adultery, homosexuality, lesbianism, ‘napumsak’ (the third gender), etc. Considering such issues as being products of either ‘Hindu’ influence, ‘impure’ thoughts, or ‘manmat’ (practices that go against the teachings of the Sikh Gurus), the Tat Khalsa Singh Sabhia-sponsored scholars began to dismiss, or expunge, or destroy, or alter any text/manuscript that mentioned such subjects.
9) In the early 20th century, the surreptitious Bhai Vir Singh decided to publish Rattan Singh Bhangu’s ‘Pracheen Panth Prakash’. He systematically expunged this great text and altered some portions of the original text, but still deviously presented it as an ‘edited’ version. He sought to remove all mention of ‘Chandi Pooja’ and alcohol and from it for such practices, were deemed as being too ‘Hindu’ for the insecure Tat Khalsa Singhs.
The former S.G.P.C.-elected Jathedar of the Akal Takht, Giani Kirpal Singh and editor of ‘Naveen Panth Prakash’ commented on the advice given him by some modern Sikhs:
"When I was just transliterating the invocatory verses, then many Sikh gentlemen advised me to:
‘Erase those portions of it, which were against Guru’s thinking and Sikh history and in their place insert your own new verses. Like how, from Rattan Singh Bhangu’s work, ‘Panth Prakash’, Bhai Vir Singh removed some portions. In some places [Bhai Vir Singh] changed the wording such as that with regards to the invocation of ‘Chandi’ (NB. Chandi Pooja was carried out by Akali Nihang Guru Gobind Singh before the before creation of the Khalsa), etc., and, replacing the word ‘Sura’ (alcohol) with ‘Suda’ (Ambrosia/Khalsa initiation)’
I did not agree with those gentlemen’s above-said thinking, and I said that to cut out some writers original text and insert in new text of your own is a great injustice with the author and in the literary world is considered a great sin. Yes, regards the text the editor in foot notes can give his own views."
- - - ‘Siri Guru Panth Prakash’, editor Giani Kirpal Singh, 1970, Vol.1, Pa.3
10) In 1899, Kahn Singh published ‘Gurmat Sudhakar’, an anthology of Sikh historical and scriptural texts that became the first Tat Khalsa Singh Sabhia authorized‘Rehit Nama’ (code of conduct). Hew Mcleod, a prominent western scholar of Sikhism speaking of Bhai Kahn’s publication writes:
"In 1901 Kahn Singh Nabha moved a step closer to an authorised rahit-nama when he published Gurmat Sudhakar, a compendium of works relating to the person and period of Guru Gobind Singh. This included a selection from the existing rahitnamas, and in editing the materials available to him Kahn Singh implicitly expressed a particular interpretation of them. Although his selections were presented as abridged versions of extant rahits-namas, they are more accurately described as expurgated versions. In other words, Kahn Singh had cut items that he believed ought not be there. What this implied was that the pure Rahit enunciated by the tenth Guru had subsequently been corrupted by ignorant or malicious transmitters of the tradition. By eliminating all that conflicted with reason and sound tradition (as understood by such men as Kahn Singh) one might hope to restore the pristine Rahit, the uncorrupted original Rahit as the Guru had delivered it."
- - - ‘Sikhism’, by Hew Mcleod, 1997, P.122
- -
- -
The Tat Khalsa Singh Sabias scholars such as Bhai Vir Singh, Kahn Singh Nabha, etc., like their masters before them, the imperialist British Raj, believed in all sincerity that is was righteous to be economical with the truth when required, manipulate it, or dismiss it entirely.
Another classical example of such contortions of historical truths is exemplified by Bhai Randhir Singh, the protégé of Teja Singh Bhasauria, who founded the ‘Bhai Randhir Singh da Jatha’ (later known as the Akhand Kirtani Jatha, A.K.J.). Bhai Randhir Singh’s views with regards to ‘Chatka’, and many other issues were based on the premonition that their interpretation is the truest above all others. The promotion of such fraud and deception is a trademark of Tat Khalsa Singh Sabhia-authorised scholars and historians.
A more recent series of events involves the Sikh historical text ‘Gurblias Patshahi Shemi’. The latest version of this text, is the 1998 reprint edited by the present S.G.P.C.-elected Jathedar of the Akal Takht, Giani Joginder Singh Vedanti. A Canadian-based Sikh named Gurbakhsh Singh Kala Afghana published a series of 10 books named ‘Bipran Ki Reet Sach Da Marg’ in which he accused Vedanti of tampering with the historical work. He also made may other blasphamous statements which lead Kala Afghana being declared a ‘Tankhaiya’ (apostate) by the S.G.P.C. Interestingly, this text was immediately declared as being ‘banned’ by Vedanti and was withdrawn from all bookshelves in Punjab. According to news reports, Kala Afghana wrote a letter to Vedanti calling him a ‘liar’ and a ‘maha pappi’ (great sinner), which lead Vedanti to state that this act was unpardonable.
Even today, as Giani Kirpal Singh found out, there are many Sikhs who prescribe to the thinking of expunging and rewriting ancient Sikh texts. Some even believe in writing their own version of events from scratch. One such Sikh, is the A.K.J.-approved author, J.P. Sangat Singh who writes:
"There is no doubt in this, that we at present have no ancient history, but, due to the foresight of Siri Guru Arjan Dev Patshah, we do have the pure scripture (Siri Guru Granth Sahib) available in original form, under the guidance of who’s light, if we today tried, we can write our ancient history."
- - - ‘Sikh Dharm Teh Mas Sharab’, by J.P. Sangat Singh, 1977, P190
- -
- -
I can go on and on but that should be enough...
Thanks.
Millions are slanderers, millions are apostates and
millions of wicked persons are untrue to their salt.
Unfaithful, ungrateful, thieves, vagabonds and millions
of other infamous persons are there.
Thousands are there who are slayers
of Brahmin, cow, and their own family.
Ctrl + C = Copy then Ctrl + V = paste........dis is wat you did here.
In this post you are directly attacking on Sikh as a religion, which is not good.
If I started writting down about the religion you are supporting....you will be running and seraching for a place to die.
I have replied to your questions in thread like "status of women in Sikh religion and Granth Vs Granthi". Then I have asked you few questions also.....and you have not replied to anyone of them. This proves either you are
shameless or not knowledgable to discuss all this.
I have couple of questions to you again....
Q1) If someone abducted your wife? And now you want that your wife should prove her purity, what you will ask for?
Choices are:
A) Ask her to go through Agni-Pariksha
B) Ask her to go through Agni-Pariksha
C) Ask her to go through Agni-Pariksha
D) Ask her to go through Agni-Pariksha and then also reject her later on.
Q2) "Ek noor se sab jag upjaya"....Everyone is creation of God. Why Brahmins are superior race then shudras?
A) Origin of Brahmin is From God's Head.
B) Origin of Shudra is from lord's feet.
C) Krishna was a Brahmin.
D) God wrote in some Granth Brahmin are superioe race.
Q3) Why a person who do 21 day Hanuman Tap is not suposed to see ladies, not even his mother, whereas he can meet his friends and father.
Q4) Why in some temples, Ladies are not allowed to enter?
My dear friend I can get hundred thousand of such questions but what is the use.
You follow and pursue your religion....and let others follow their choice.
