JustAnotherSingh

@amardeep do you have a link or pdf for Ganda Singh's book? Can't for the life of me seem to find it

Lol, guessed as much. It just seems too convenient to be true. Which authentic hukamname *are* there then? Also, on a sidenote, are there any actual puratan sources that refer to kara or even panj kakkar?

@dalsingh101 That's what's interesting though; some of the hukamname make very obvious sense (the ones asking for the Sangat to bring certain goods). In general, I've also always subscribed to the belief that Sikh philosophy is multi-layered; even rehits are not meant in a sharia law sense, but are meant on general level of community-development, while personal-development comes from the GGS. What's confusing to me, is that certain hukamname like the Kabul hukamname and the 52 hukams are general descriptions of normative behavior just like Rehitname. What also confuses me is the content of said hukams. Let's take the Kabul hukamname, here's a very rough translation with original gurmukhi: Okay, so let's take the kara. I've been doing some research on the kara and what I found really interesting is that in most of the old Sikh literature, references to it are non-existent. The Sarbloh Granth* only refers to "tre Mudrai" as Kachh Kirpan and Kesh, and all the Rehitname never mention it. Nor do they ever mention the term "Panj kakkar." There's no doubt Sikhs of old kept the kara (as can be attested to by British sources), but it just didn't seem like it was so heightened in importance until Singh Sabha and the SGPC Maryada. Yet here you have a hukam from Guru Gobind Singh saying to wear it. Surely, if Guru Sahib had included the kara in his hukamnama and if he had mentioned 5 kakkar...why did that term go extinct for so long in Sikh history? That applies to a lot of things; why are, in general, the kabul hukamname/52 hukams closer to the SGPC Rehit Maryada than to rehitname that were closer in time period to the Guru? My personal belief actually has no problems with this--I believe in the theory that the Guru Sahib would have enforced a code of conduct pretty much what you see in these hukams, and that the path the rehitname took over history was colored by their historical times (e.g., ban on wearing red was reaction to Bandai), hyper-military-culture, and personal biases (e.g., Chaupa Singh Chibber). But I just want to dispel all my doubts before I go on having an absolute opinion on this topic (it's especially important as I'm writing a little thing on the history of the kara and the authenticity of these hukamname/the term panj kakkar is a big deal for that) *--admittedly, I'm a bit skeptical on the authorship of SG being under Guru Gobind Singh as well (Dasam Granth I don't have much doubts, but Sarbloh Granth is questionable). Nonetheless, I take it at the very least that it has some historical authorship and isn't just a random modern work, so it can say something about the mindset of ancient Sikhs.

Hey everyone, Somebody pointed me to these hukamname a while back and I was wondering what y'all think of them--http://www.info-sikh.com/PageG8.html I'm really conflicted on how to feel about them...One reason I'm wary of such hukams in general is that there are a ton of explicit fakes (Guru Hargobind hukamname). Also, one theme I noticed among the famous "52 hukams" is that it just seemed like an abridged version of the SGPC maryada...as much as I would like it to be true (I would probably personally posit that these would generally be pretty in line with what Guru Ji mandated) it just doesn't make sense historically. The 52 hukams seem too tailored to be true and they don't have a Punjabi source. But in general, didn't hukams from the Gurus exist? Surely they had to get their mandates out to people somehow. Wouldn't these have been treated pristinely by Sikhs and preserved through the ages? We know Bluestar destroyed a lot of hukams, so what was in those? If these are hukams, why is it that there was a centuries long gap in Sikh conduct between these supposed hukams from Guru and the SGPC Maryada? Why would Rehitname even exist if hukams existed?

Paapiman's mentality reveals a lot. I grew up among a lot of South Indians and your typical high caste educated North Indians (Guptas, etc). What I noticed was that in general the kids were in pretty poor shape, embodiment of skinny-fat with no muscle. It was mostly because they were pretty enveloped in their studies and had no time to do sports or exercise. Meanwhile, my Punjabi friends were regular gym-goers, all extremely fit, and many excelling at sports. It was such a dichotomy I got non-Desis inquiring about "the cool Indians" versus "the nerdy Indians." I belonged to the latter group in my early childhood personally, it took a tight-knit group of Punjabi buddies to really push me into pursuing fitness. Even then, I was always considered "skinny" by Punjabi standards and ripped by the other Indians' standards. Anyway, when I started going to the gym, I noticed the complete opposite. There were a ton of absolutely shredded South Indians and the like hammering it out there--all in their late 30s or 40s, and it seemed like they had started working out recently. Meanwhile, most Punjabis seem to go from being buff gabroos and patla mutiyaaran to being fat-ass uncles and aunties. My parents' South Indian/Delhiites friends would go on hikes to actually hike, their Punjabi friends would go on hikes to sit down under the shade and eat Paronthe. My grandfather was an absolute beast in his youth (so much he was renamed for his athletic prowess) but now he's lazy and doesn't even want to walk or bike anymore. For some reason, apne mentality seems to be "work-out to look good in your youth, and don't worry about it afterwards because you're going to die eventually." It's honestly an absolute shameful and pathetic mentality. One should pursue fitness for its other massive benefits. Baba Deep Singh was able to step out of copying Guru Granth Sahib birs to picking up a massive Khanda and leading on the battlefield--THAT should be our inspiration, not the Punjab policeman with a tidh as big as his lathi.

@paapiman Ah, that's seli topi. I don't know the authenticity of it. To be honest, the early Gurus' headgear in general confuses me, as it's not easily contextualized the way the Khalsa pagh is. I was just referring to Koenraad Elst's argument from the artwork--if we are relying on the artwork, the artwork depicts the other Gurus with turban.

Huh, what a coincidence--I actually went vegetarian for a month three years ago, that too in February (my motive was that it was the smallest month...lol) My observations were namely that: -Even though I generally ate healthy vegetarian food, my tidh actually got a bit flabbier -I was in conditioning for a sport at the time (rowing) and I always noted a lot less strength -I didn't have any cravings, which is surprising given how much meat I eat (i.e., I generally eat it daily 2-3 times a day). -I do think I felt lighter and "fresher" the first couple of days...not sure if it lasted the whole month -My breath certainly felt lighter, if that makes sense. From a scientific perspective re: the amino acids, you're spot-on. Meat and eggs contain all the 9 essential amino acids your body needs; vegetables all carry just a few of the 9, so you need to target a wide spread of veggies in order to get the same variety of amino acids meat would give you. Really interesting regarding the aggression though. You're right in that there were tons of Sikh warriors who went without meat; and in addition, I think it's worth pointing out that regularly eating meat really wasn't a thing for most Sikhs in the pind until a generation ago (misl time I'm sure was different). My father wasn't vegetarian, but they could only afford to eat chicken once a month. Didn't stop people from acting aggressive and getting into fights though, lol.

@paapiman All the Puratan paintings that depict Guru Nanak with a topi depict the next 4 Gurus with turbans. Also, there is bani from Guru Arjun Dev Ji talking about his dhamalla.

@HSD1 Also, there's a lot of even British accounts that explain another reason for inflated death count. Sikhs did not surrender. Even those with horrific wounds manning cannons fought to the very end, and as such, the British took no prisoners. The overall death rate as such must be a lot higher than one may naturally suspect (once someone's wounded badly, doubt they can fight effectively-hence why casualties usually include the number of people wounded ).

There is some truth in the idea that Guru Ji was originally depicted with a topi and the turban is mostly modern imagination. however, Koenraad Elst is a fraud academic who mostly makes up shit to pander to the Hindutva/RSS crowd (and I mean that in the real sense of that group, not just a catchphrase for interpretations of Sikhi I feel are too "Hindu"). Examples of some of his most ridiculous claims: -that all Gurus wore topis--completely false given that all old paintings show the rest of Gurus wearing turbans -that all Persian terminology in Sikhi is modern interpolation -because he finds the history of Guru Gobind Singh inconvenient (I.e., that he fought Hindu hill Rajas and that he established unique Khalsa identity), he hurls a bunch of accusations against him that literally have no historical basis. I.e., that he was a chela of Aurangzeb and the Mughals who wrote the Zafarnamah out of cowardice, that the Hill Rajas originally provided shelter to Guru Gobind Singh but he raided and looted them provoking them to attack, that he only gave Gurgaddi to GGS because of the death of the Sahibzade (even though Khalsa was created before their shaheedi). He also just denies the existence of all the Hindus who did non-favorable things in history such as Gangu, and also denies the existence of Muslims who acted favorably such as Farid. If Teja Singh Bhasauria shows how bad revisionism in the name of staving off Sanatani ideology can be, Elst is the corrolary for how bad revisionism can get in the name of staving off Singh Sabha ideology. I'm all for entertaining alternate viewpoints but the guy is a nutcase and literally cites no evidence, but clearly constructs his history with an agenda. Avoid at all costs.

Can you give me the link?

Look mate, I'm as apprehensive of British racial pseudoscience as the next guy, but I think it's really important here to parse the details between what theory may be authentic and what the Brits talked on to give themselves a feeling of racial superiority. We obviously don't buy into the junk spread by the Brits at one point that Guru Tegh Bahadur foresaw a power greater than the Mughals approaching from the West, but we don't reject that he underwent shaheedi, right? There are lots of evidence pointing to a common root between Indic and European civilization. The linguistic roots are super strong-count up to 10 in Sanskrit and Latin to see what I mean. They're so strong, that there's generally no controversy over the term "Indo-European" referring to that broad language family. Where the Europeans inserted their nonsense was by claiming something along the lines of Sanskrit being descended by Latin, which would have been brought to India by people who looked like modern Europeans. That's nonsense, and it's just as much nonsense as the Indologists like Koenraad Elst who claim that Latin descended from Sanskrit. There's good genetic evidence too, considering there are two groups of ancestral Indians, ancestral North Indians and ancestral South Indians (https://hms.harvard.edu/news/genetics-proves-indian-population-mixture-8-8-13). However, this genetic evidence also conveniently trumps a lot of previous assumptions of the Aryan theory: -the "Indo-Aryans" or whatever you wish to call them were not white in the modern sense -they did not come from Europe, but can be seen as common ancestors of Indians and Europeans -it's dubious whether this is even strongly correlated with Vedic civilization, considering the dates don't match up -there was not necessarily a violent invasion where Aryans became the kings and the Dravidians their slaves. It was probably several waves of migration, most of which was probably peaceful mixture with the native populations (the latter of whom would have been responsible for the impressive civilizations like those in Harappa). I'd say most of Vedic religion was probably synthesized in this genetic cultural mixture within India itself, therefore having nothing to do with Europeans. Again, I think one needs to be careful of avoiding all with motives, be it orientalists or Indologists with an agenda (see what Koenraad Elst has to say on Guru Gobind Singh if you're still convinced of his authenticity as a scholar). History is neither "the pure race brought civilization to India," nor is it, "the pure race was from India." Just like how Punjab is much a mixture of Persian and Indic cultures but that doesn't mean one side is more "pure." I will say that this is sort of just a tangential and purely academic interest, and I would probably never disclose my beliefs on the topic to most Sikhs. I just had to say something here because I think Frawley is throwing away a lot of good evidence with his own motives. The reason I usually don't speak is because a lot of Sikhs are unfortunately complete racially obsessed freaks who keep trying to prove they're the pure Jatt/Scythian/European/Middle Eastern/Persian race. It's a disgusting mentality, built upon general ethnocentricity of many Jatts and enhanced by lessons from our Angrej overlords. Thankfully, I would think the mentality at this forum is a lot higher, but it still makes me uncomfortable to talk about it too much because of the half-sided conclusions someone can run away with.

@hsingh6 it's not a jathebandi, I meant jatha in the literal sense of the word--the group of people [who I do kirtan with]

So I think it's pretty well established in the current literature, based on historical, anthropological, linguistic, and even genetic evidence that there were an Indo-Aryan group of peoples who mixed with native Dravidians to produce the makeup of much of modern India. E.g., there are a ton of similarities between Latin and Sanksrit. What the Europeans did was appropriate this theory to their use, trying to show that these Indo-Aryans were European in appearance, potentially came from Europe, and provided their advanced civilization to India. What the OIT hypothesis, parroted primarily by Hindutvaists nowadays, is that the Indo-Aryans were from India and dispersed outside the region, and in fact brought this civilization to Europe. What's ultimately probably true is that: -There was a group of Indo-Aryan people in central Asia/middle east who probably looked like a mix between what Indians and Europeans are today -Some moved to India, some moved to Europe, each bringing their culture with them. -Similarities explained. And I would think that the proper explanation for the origins of Hindu culture is not that it was cooked up by white people and then brought for the brownies to have a grasp at--but that after the Indo-Aryans came to India, it started the process of formation.

While the colonial spin on the Aryan theory was pretty much bullshit (e.g., they didn't have blue eyes, weren't blond, etc), there are significant anthropological, historical, linguistic, and even genetic proofs for the Indo-Aryan theory. The OIT hypothesis is simply not true.

I agree with @dalsingh101 on this one. What is it about so many apne that makes them completely throw away their wits when it comes to religious discussions? One side thinks we are doing baisti of Guru Gobind Singh by not properly recognizing his bani...and the other thinks we are doing baisti by mislabeling stuff as his bani. Camp A wouldn't be able to stand the GGS being labeled as a ruse and fake, while camp B would get up in arms if a random dera baba named his Granth one of the Guru's canon. Both concerns are legitimate, which goes to show why the argument from blasphemy DOESN'T WORK. What we should be focused on doing instead is properly evaluating the history and facts of the text. Just cracking open any number of works written by Sikhs in the past would reveal the DG is in no way a plant by Brahmins/RSS (just as it would probably also shut up the Neo-Nihang posse that calls it "Dasam Guru Darbar" in addition to "Adi Guru Darbar"). As to which parts were written by the Guru himself, which parts by the poets, and what the purpose of the Granth is in Sikhi in general, there remains discussion and debate to be had--discussion that can easily be reasonable and intelligent, if people put enough effort into it as they did crafting creative ways to call the other side nindaks. Is it an ego thing? Look, if people are genuinely misinformed, you have to actually inform them of what they're doing wrong. Obviously there will always be people who are out to make mischief but I think at some base point you have to assume good intent... Also, @N30 S!NGH, where can I read something comprehensive on the usage of Sargun in Sikhi? @chatanga1 what was the role of the poets in CharitroPakhyan? I didn't read the original exchange with Khoj, just interested as to your thoughts.

Once did Kirtan to this shabad...our jatha follows Gurmat Sangeet musical techniques, uses original instruments, and so on. It was truly an amazing and unforgettable experience.

Paapiman, just curious--from where do you obtain these hagiographies? Very surprised they're in English.

Have a quick question on all this... So my current understanding is that Sanatan Dharam is what was the traditional name of what is now "Hinduism," and it was more of a continuous, morphing, tradition over time than a static religion "revealed" by a prophet (a more Abrahamic concept that came around during British imperialism). "Hindu" was first used as a word from Persian, Arab, and Turkic invaders to describe residents of South Asia, which is why Babur named his son "Hindal" in honor of capturing India and India was called "Hindustan" (BTW, always makes me chuckle when Khalistanis cite the word "Hindustan" as some sort of showing of Hindu oppression....a lot of hardcore Hindutvaists also cite it as a sign of Islamic oppression, lol) "Hindoo" was later once again appropriated by the British as a racial term to describe non-Muslims in India, and was later again changed to specify the adherents of "Hindu" (Sanatani) religion. So that's clear and whatnot. My question is this--why does Gurbani sometimes use Hindu to refer to a group of religious people? Bhai Gurdas Ji da vaar refer to this. The idea of "Tisar Panth," that of an independent Khalsa Panth arising from independent Hindu and Turk panths. I understand that "Turk" is referred to often as Mughal, yet it's used interchangeably at times with "Musalmaan"; even Bulleh Shah's poetry shows this. My personal belief on all this based on what I've read so far is that Sikhi itself is a philosophical framework. It is neither the post-Singh Sabha distortion of an independent religion based on a prophet revealing a divine truth (people forget that this framework for evaluating religion doesn't make it "independent"; it solely makes it within Abrahamic views), nor do I believe it's the RSS version of a warrior-amped-up upgrade of Hinduism for Punjab. Historically, religion was extremely mixed within Punjab, something that would trouble the Salafists, the Sikh fundamentalists, and Arya Samajis in contemporary Punjab. Example of this is Ranjha, the Muslim....who went to study under a "Hindu" Jogi, Guru Gorakhnath. He didn't "convert" to Hinduism; when he came out of the experience, he was still a Muslim and had a nikah. You can see this in other places as well, such as the Rababi Muslims who follow Baba Nanak, and especially among the multitude of Punjabi Hindus/Sikhs who used to originally practice a blend of both faiths and identify with both. That said, I recognize there's an independent Sikh identity, and that's traditionally found in the Khalsa. Even Harjot Oberoi doesn't assume the Singh Sabha made up their "neo-Sikh" identity out of nowhere; he holds the view that they simply enforced the separate Khalsa identity onto the broader Sikh populace and boxed them in. Even within the Khalsa framework of religious identity, though, other religions are not rejected because they are "false," which is why so many Khalsa still incorporated Indic concepts into their belief system. You also have the additional factor of Islamic as well as Indic concepts being used as metaphors within Gurbani; there are plenty of shabads talking about "Shaitaan," and one shabad mentioning angels, shaykhs, prophets, and Baba Adam. Recently, my father also told me that before he learned about evolution in school, his father (we were Khalsa Sikhs, not Muslim), talked about Baba Adam as the first man. To me, the most important thing is to evaluate to what level each citing of a spiritual concept within GGS (the vast majority of them being Indic and a tiny proportion being Islamic) acts as a metaphor within Sikhi and how it does so versus an actual "belief" of the Sikh philosophy. And that's an extremely complicated question--a lot more complicated than the current simplistic dialogue between the two camps of "Guru Nanak Dev Ji says 'ik Oankar' therefore we are not polytheist therefore we are not Hindus," and "Guru Nanak cites Hindu gods and metaphysics so therefore Sikhi is a branch of Hinduism." On a side note, we also need to think more on what identity entails in Sikhi; Sanatan Dharam often held that it was solely your dharam, your actions+their merit, that brought you "towards God" for lack of better terminology, and Abrahamic faiths (well, with some complications such as the Catholic belief of works) thought it was your religious identity that brought you to God. Sikhi is extremely interesting this way; we hold a core of our belief system to be "na koi Hindu, na koi Musalmaan," a universalism that extends past petty religious bickering and focuses on the merit of your actions instead of rituals, yet we have placed so much emphasis historically on keeping our Khalsa Rehit. I don't think that the first precludes the second per say, but rather, we should think of them in separate terms. Outside of many current Sikhs' sorta fundie beliefs and also some hyperbolic poetry within certain Khalsa Puratan rehits, my belief is that the identity was used as a unifier and for community, while the spirituality still remains intact. If someone is spiritual and cuts their hair, they can still receive spiritual mukti, IMO, but are not a part of the Khalsa community. However, just because someone adopts the hair and identity and Rehit does not immediately make them spiritually liberated; they still have to honor what Gurbani talks about spirituality. To put it succinctly: the Khalsa identity is very tight-knit, even though it's based on a spiritual core of Sikhi, which is *universal*.

To be honest, I have had my experience with some RSS folks and am apprehensive of them. They've toned down their rhetoric from the good ol' "Sikhi is the sword-arm of Hinduism," but they have political motives to appropriate Sikhs that *should* be recognized. It's ideologically defunct in how far it takes its notions of "purified India" supposedly free from Abrahamic firangi control. Just on my timeline today some RSS stooge claimed that more Bihari and UP immigrants needed to come to Punjab and make it once again "Panch Nada" (the name from Vedic times) instead of the Persian "Punjab." Not that I have anything wrong with the bhaiyya workers, but the whole ideas is rather ludicrous. However, that said, our community uses RSS as a catchall for literally every single negative thing. RSS is not this illuminati-type Big Brother literally inserting itself to undermine Sikh history at each and every point. To be honest, it's kind of interesting historically; just like many in our community blame RSS agents for everything because they're perceived as enemies of the panth, in old times, did Singh's conjure up conspiracies about "Turk" agents everywhere? Anyways, I felt that the entire story was entirely vacuous and hurt my brain to read.

Super interesting! Are they just Nanakpanthis though? The few Sindhi Sikhs I knew revered all the Gurus. Yeah, it is rather sad that like you said they're being scrubbed out of the authentic history. I am not a Nanakpanthi and personally identify with the Khalsa, but I don't see why we can't make room for more diversity in the Panth for all people who love Guru and express that whatever way they did.

Official stats are difficult to pull up for the same reason they were in early colonial Punjab--how do they know whether to identify as "Hindu" or "Sikh" in the census polls? I can tell from personal experience that pretty much all the Sindhi Hindus I know (they do not live in Sindh currently, they're a diaspora that moved to India in 1947 from their original home) are Sahejdhari Sikhs. The views of Gurus, Gurdwara, everything is mostly the same; only thing is that they don't have any of the Khalsa symbols. The numbers in Pakistan would be even more difficult to ascertain; I know there's a Rajput lord based there, but he's definitely not Sikh. The famous Bollywood actor, Ranveer Singh, is also a Sindhi Sahejdhari Sikh. "Singh" is not his actual name, as most Sindhis do not carry Singh either; he picked it up later to sound more glorious.

To say that all Sikhs historically were Amritdharis is complete revisionism. Again, what do you make of people like Kaura Mal who were loyal to the Khalsa, followed Sikh teachings, but were not Khalsa by identity? If you go to Sindh today, you can see a lot of Sahejdhari Hindu-Sikhs who never take Amrit but still practice Sikhi. One must also note that there are different "degrees" of being Sahejdhari: It seems even historically, there was a difference between those who still followed Khalsa identity but didn't strictly follow the tenants of the Rehits (similar to most mone today), and those who were essentially Hindu but blended it with Sikh practice (like most Punjabi Hindus today who still go to Gurdwara).

I'm a male, and I've personally witnessed quite a lot of misogyny practiced by many Sikhs (mostly Jatts, sorry to be frank, I'm one myself and while I love my rural roots it has some social ills). I think it's one of the stains that prevents our Sikh community from fully realizing its potential as espoused by Sikh ideals, just like casteism. However, I agree that we need to analyze what is necessary for our community ourselves and not appropriate other causes. Satkirin, here's a pretty simple example that shifted my mindset from solely Western feminist constructs. I once saw an interview where Dharmindar (actor) was like "the status of Punjab today is awful, women are starting to drink alcohol." I told my dad that this was a rather stupid remark to make considering how much Punjabi men drink like fish in the community. My father told me that I needed to understand more immediate context; while men do drink, women are often the social force in the village that pushes men to stop drinking. "Tere Gate Ch Jatti" is a good song that illustrates this concept, as does the historical example of how Bhindranwale's original followers were predominantly women who cheered on this sant who was able to make their husbands recede from alcoholism. So while in the West, some perceive that it's "only fair," that women get to drink profusely as men do, in Punjabi context and in-line with Sikh ideals, it actually makes sense to promote women's shunning of alcohol to the extent that men too can be relieved of its negative effects.

Just found this topic off-chance (been rigorously reading the forums last two days trying to absorb as much knowledge as I can) and it's right on the money of what I have been thinking for quite a bit now. A newcomer suddenly coming into a hotbed of what's probably going to be one of the most controversial topics on this site? That's a bold strategy-let's see if it pays off for him. Anyways, I this wonder myself-well, at least in Britain. In general, it seems like Canada is getting more deeply entrenched into Khalistani-ism (which one may argue is Singh Sabha to its greatest extreme), UK seems to be walking back to Sanatan waters, and the U.S. is an interesting flux which I'm not entirely sure how to characterize at this point. Anyway, I think three issues come up that we should discuss--the negatives of Singh Sabha Laher, the positives of laher, and the impacts they actually left us with in how our modern Khalsa panth is. I think the positives and negatives of the immediate movement have to be sort of addressed together. My belief is probably quite estranged from those of this forum, but I do think there were many positives of the Sabha movement, and by that I definitely mean to specify the Lahori one. I think my bias for this stems from the fact that I hold an idealized view of what religion should be, in that I define a lot of my principles directly from the Sikh Gurus and the ideals they professed. I think those ideas were provided within a framework that's very relevant and extremely crucial to learn and understand, yet I feel as if the ideals by themselves form a coherent philosophy with which a religion can be based on their own. Will talk more about this later. Anyway, I think Lahori Singh Sabha chose to motivate themselves in a similar manner, albeit with a sorta fundamentalist zeal. An example would be that there was a debate surrounding Baba Khem Singh Bedi's usage of the paalki on an equal level as Guru Granth Sahib in Gurdware. The Amritsari Singh Saha (led by Baba Bedi himself), argued that this was tradition and fine, considering that folks like Baba Khem Bedi had introduced many into the folds of Sikhi, and that he was also a descendant of Guru Nanak. The Lahoris said, "nope, it's against the ideals of Guru Granth Sahib as the 11th Guru." I think this type of reasoning ultimately ends up being a bit simple, but I think it's a genuine analysis that can come outside of phirangi biases. That said, one thing about Singh Sabha is that, like I said, a bit too overzealous. Take Kahn Singh Nabha's "Hum Hindu Nahin." I agree with the title of the book, and I think I'm satisfied with what it set out to achieve. Yet reading the thing makes your head spin as to why such a reputed academic had such a downright derogatory and orientalist understanding of Hinduism. No wonder so many in our generation are constantly spinning their heads over "RSS conspiracies" in the panth! My point is that we have to give the folks of Singh Sabha their agency. I don't agree with the idea that they were pretty much just British Christians with the name Singh, turban, and beard. I think that many of them were passionate Sikhs, and many of their ideas were informed by their independent views of what Sikh ideals are, just that they were often framed with British-psychophant, Hindu-phobic, or intellectually dishonest methods. Why'd they do this? Part of it could be that they drunk a bit too much of their own koolaid. Part of it could be that they were intellectual elites who thought it was fine to hide the truth in the heart of helping the overall Panth. In any case, they deserve to be called out on it, and I spare no sympathy when they are. That came out a bit unclear than I actually wanted it to...but anyways, now to come to the point: what were the effects of this? There's a ton of conjecture, Western scholarly analysis, and Sampardiya resentment that comes out with a list of offenses [many of which I think are legitimate] not limited to: creating a "neo-Sikh" framework, enforcing Khalsa identity for all Sikhs (and thus absolving Sahejdharis who practiced mixed Hinduism+Sikhi), robbing Sikhi of its Indic roots, creating more fundamentalist Sikhs, creating more violent Sikhs, creating more passive Sikhs, loss of warrior traditions, loss of Kirtan traditions, loss of socio-political traditions, loss of history, loss of interesting frameworks, the Europeanization of Sikhi, and so on. Again, I think many of these are extremely valid. One example that comes to mind is how Sikhs are so proud to flaunt their fighting in British wars and today are begging to participate in the American military apparatus with kesh, citing their "warrior heritage." That warrior heritage was on a framework of righteous war, and at the very least of which, self-determination and self-sovereignty. Serving your colonial master as a mercenary for a paycheck is a complete corruption of that ideal, and Singh Sabha played directly into that. But if we think about it...how much did the Sabha *really* change? People lament the loss of Hindu frameworks to explain bani, which is indeed unfortunate given how necessary it is to understand it. But is Sikhi only limited to Hindu frameworks? The Zafarnamah is a wonderful example of something the Guru written in an oddly Islamic framework for metaphorical effect, as a parallel of sorts to the Shahnama of Persian literature. 19th century Udasis struggled with Guru Gobind Singh calling himself an idolbreaker in a similar fashion to how Singh Sabha struggled with the invocation of Chandi. If you see the far-out-there Sanatani/Hindutva analyses from nuts like Koenraad Elst, this reference in the Zafarnama is grounds for calling Guru Gobind Singh a coward and sell-out. For these people, too many things are appropriated to the Sabha when I don't exactly feel like they show the whole picture. Some have even accused the names "Darbar Sahib" and other Persian words found in Sikhi to be examples of Sabhite corruption. Then there's the argument to be made that instead of completely creating new methods of thought in all cases, Singh Sabha may have simply built upon certain biases present in the Panth and toned down others to where it was politically efficacious for whatever cause they were advocating. E.g., even the Hindu-phobia which was no doubt severely amplified by the Sabha has some origins in the Panth itself when you look at the testimonies of those such as Alexander Gardner who noted the Sikhs had aversions to Brahmins just as much as Muslims (probs Jatt influence). We say that Puratan Sikhs knew how to be more diverse, and that's certainly true with Sahejdhari groups or non-Khalsa Sampradiye like Nirmale. But you can just read Bhangoo's account of how the Tat Khalsa reacted to the Bandai to see that the intolerance often ascribed to Sabhite influence was something a bit more historic. Certainly notions of Victorian sexuality and moral character crept into the Panth, but you just need to look at Chaupa Singh's Rehit if you think Puratan Sikhs were all kind to women. Even the way people argue without using logic and resort to using personal attacks-look at all the mud some Puratan Sikhs sources sling onto Banda Singh Bahadur supposedly seeking second and third marriages because of his uncontrollable sexual appetite. In this long-winded response, I think what I'm getting at is that we tend to think "man, if only we go back to pre-Singh Sabha soch, everything will be self-corrected." That may or may not be true, but I think we need to evaluate that on its own context. Too many people immediately associate Singh Sabha with solely colonialism, and then make it a dichotomy where everything we were doing before was correct, and completely in-line with Gurmat ideals, while everything we do afterward is just a colonial invention masquerading as Sikhi with no real connection to the broader Sikh past. I don't think it's that clear-cut as we make it out to be, and to be honest, I think that's sort of acknowledged in figures like Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, who were able to connect to both members of Puratan Sampradiye and also those who ascribe to "neo-Sikh" thought. I think we do a disservice to ourselves in thinking that "oh no, we have become completely Westernized chalupas and lost all sight of what our ancestors actually stood and fought for." That may very well be true for a ton of Sikhs who are sorta apathetic to the faith, but for those of us who do try to live and learn Sikhi, even with potential "neo-Sikh" bias creeping in, I don't think we're *all* that detached from that original power of mind that we once were, nor are we free of its faults. BTW: I may or may not choose to delete this depending on if/what reaction it elicits. I am interested in learning from this forum in the longterm, and do not wish to poison the well so early in my time here. Plus, over-time, my views could radically change, and I'd rather not be limited in outside perception to this opinionated post: just a while ago, I used to be one of the folks who thought DG was a product by Brahmins to undermine Sikh thought, and going back further, I used to think Rehit was unnecessary. You can guess that quite a lot has changed since then :) *edited for grammar and mistyped statements