JustAnotherSingh

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

Hello, 18 year old from Amreeka popping in.

Rather like this forum...lots of critical thought that goes  about (even if you have to separate from the noise). Particularly like the analysis of old texts for what they are, even when opposed to our modern views of what Gurmat are. 

I'm personally interested in analyzing contemporary Sikh culture in terms of what our Khalsa ancestors were like. There's a lot of interesting tidbits I could go on even here. For example, in the 1980s, a lot of our intelligentsia was focused on showing that Sikhi's perpetual enemy was the Bahman. In the 1950's and during misl times, we cited the Turk as our greatest fiend. In Britain today, because of the dynamic between Muslims+Sikhs, there tends to be a trend towards that type of thinking, and in Amreeka, it's more between Sikhs and Hindus if anything. Basically-Sikh history is still in formation, even if our ideals of Khalsa have sorta been watered down in the modern
 
Anyways, just a taste of what I have to say. WJKK WJKF. 

Interesting thread.
I too have noticed that much of the rehit literature is very male-centric, in that it directly addresses males and males only (but to be fair, so is a lot of pre-rehit Sikh literature, such as Bhai Gurdas Ji da Vaaran) We know that for a good chunk of history at least, a lot of women took kirpan-da-pahul and thus had their own rehit. However, there are references to women taking Khande-da-pahul (which I believe was originally how it was supposed to be), and one wonders if the Rehit literally applied equally to women in every case then.
For example, Mai Bhago wore kachh; but she was an exception. What about other [assumed] Khalsa women, such as those who were the wives of the Chaali Mukte who didn't go into battle and stayed at home? Were they to also wear kachh and full bana? On the other hand, some injunctions obviously applied equally, e.g., kesh (Prem Sumarag also says to give baptized women a kara). 
My hunch is that while a lot of the broad implications are the same (kesh, nitnem routine, kurehits, moral principles, etc) for both genders, there were some differences in the nuances of the matter. This isn't anything too crazy - e.g., bibiyan having private places for ishnaan, Singh vs Kaur surnames, women not having to wear dastaar, and so on. 

welcome to the forum, bro. I just wanted to say that sikhism doesn't consider a certain group of people as enemies (e.g. Brahmin, etc.) Sikhi only fights against injustice.

@BhagatSingh, we aren't talking about spiritual or meditative practices here , we are discussing history which requires historical evidence. If you're suggesting Waheguru (yes, I got your "Narsingh Narayan" reference) has given you some historical insight on which you base your theories, kindly lay them out (which you amply have in this post, so thanks). If you're suggesting that Waheguru has exclusively enlightened you and only you on the truth of the matter, and there's no way someone like me who's not initiated will be able to understand, well, I'm afraid any discussion on my part will have to cease, just like it does when arguing with people who claim that they saw the lights of heaven beaconing to them (i.e., because it's literally impossible to have a discussion on that as it's based on one person's subjective experience.
1) I am highly skeptical of "Chhina" being given by the 6th Guru, never seen that in any other sources (sikhiwiki isn't exactly rigorous all the time) and it's a gotra so it doesn't make much sense why it would be given in the first place. In any case, there's not really any doubt that he was a Jatt, not a Khatri.
2) The example with Ravi Das has no real relevance to the one with Bidhi Chand anyway (comparing surname to Gotar), but even if we buy into this (I'm not seeing any historical reason to do so in the first place); it "could also be" that the Panj Pyare were part of the castes they are traditionally attributed to and they underwent a "surname change" as well. That is to say, your argument here is cyclical.
3) Many Jatts claim to be from Kshatriya descent, vis-a-vis claiming that their ancestors were Rajputs that were disgraced in some form and were thus kicked down to Shudar-Jatts as the Phulkian family likes to claim (nobody ever talks about Kshatriyas becoming Jatts/Jaats "because they started farming," it always has a negative sense attributed to it). Many Muslim Jatts similarly claim to be descendants of the Sayyids or Mughals. Both are probably just interpolated bloodlines that the groups use to up their sense of personal tribalism, and have very little basis in fact. 
Even then, such surnames are ephemeral and are not "passed down"/indicative of family history the way Gotre are. For example, the son of Shiv Ram was Kalyan Chand Das, whose own son had the surname "Dev." 
4) Your point on "Khatri" and "Kshatriya" in Gurmukhi makes a lot of sense to me and resonates with what I've read. There's some oddities in the language given that there are groups like "Bhatti" who are Rajput (and thus Kshatriya) although they are not Khatri. I know most Punjabi Rajputs specify that part of their heritage and don't identify as Khatri, although that could just be their personal ego going on.
5) Regarding the Gurus' surnames, I don't exactly get what you're going on, but I'll break it up very simply like this. Sure, the Gurus' surnames may have been added later (I don't know that they were, I'll take your word on it) and they all happened to be Khatri/Kshatriya. However, we have plenty of evidence of a lot of other people with those surnames who weren't as such. You can try to explain this phenomenon away for each individual scenario as much as you like, but it doesn't change the fact that the gotar is still the only real thing that denotes caste. That's why even apne who claim Singh's purpose was to replace gotre are a bit off the mark, as the name serves a different purposes. Most Rajputs would have traditionally had Singh, but it's just an additional title; the real thing that denotes their bloodline and thus their right to claim that caste is their gotar.
6) Agree on the warrior archetype vs lineage distinction, it's what I was trying to get at myself. When early Sikhs referred to themselves as Kshatriyas in the battlefield, I believe it's for the purpose of invoking the archetype (as are many of the references to varna in Vedic times/texts). It's something the Brits had quite a bit of trouble with when trying to figure out India's caste system (hence why they never really did and the average Westerner's perception of the caste system is quite off).
What I am saying is that the panj pyare almost certainly did NOT belong to warrior lineages, other than our Daya Sobti. They exemplified the warrior archetype, and were thus "Kshatriya" in that sense. But the majority of Sikhs who took Amrit were not from designated warrior lineages, because the whole concept of the Khalsa ridicules the importance of such things in the first place.
7) You really should have started with the points about the gotras in the first place instead of the Dev/Das/Ram/Chand conundrum, as those are really the meat and potatoes in terms of evidence to prove your point.
-Kahar is a scheduled caste. Yes, they claim to be originally descended from Rajputs; but nearly every single group does (even my family name claims that we were once Rajputs from Amber), and the difference is in which groups' claims are considered legitimate, lineage-wise. 
-Regarding the Chibbers, I think things are a bit more complex. Dharam Das was a Jatt who became Dharam Singh on Vaisakhi 1699; this is a different individual than the Dharam Chand Chibber, a Brahmin who was also a close confident of the Guru (all the Chibbers were) and was the grandfather of Kesar Singh Chibber. Similarly, Sahib Chand the barber, who became Sahib Singh the Panj Pyare and died at the battle of Chamkaur, is a different individual from Sahib Chand Chibber who became Sahib Singh, who died in a battle with Hatai Khan. 
To be clear, I have no doubts the Chibbers were Brahmins. Their last name proves it. But the Panj Pyare Sahib+Dharam were different individuals from the Chibber Sahib+Dharam. Plus, if the two were one and the same, Kesar Singh Chibber would have certainly made note of the fact that 2/5 of the Panj Pyare were from his household (and given the general affluence of the family I don't think they would have easily gotten mixed up with a farmer+barber). On this point, I'm kinda interested as to what the gotras were of the three other Panj Pyare; I'm particularly surprised that Jatt historiographers would have forgotten the lineage of Jatt Dharam Das.
8) The Chand surname having its own history and his father+him having the Chand surname does not prove anything to your point. The point is that when these names are ephemeral and given on a per-generation basis, they don't signify anything in terms of lineage. If I'm a Chand and I am wondering whether to pick Dev, Das, Ram or Chand for my kid, there's a 1/4 chance of each option. Therefore, in the 25% of the time when it's the same name, it still doesn't mean anything. 
I don't know much about the Chand dynasty but it also could be that certain dynasties go by different names/the naming conventions are different at particular times. Just because the ruler of Punjab in the 19th century was from the "Singh dynasty" doesn't mean I'm an heir to the throne.

Not to put you on the spot mate, but you often concoct these really esoteric theories contingent on a particular interpretation of one minor detail that goes against the bulk of what Sikh historical evidence has to say. I'm all for making creative theories, but there has to be a more rigorous standard for supporting them.
For one, your notion about the surnames being exclusive to Kshatriyas is ridiculous. Bhai Bidhi *Chand* is just one example of a Jatt (Chinna) with those names. If you go to Haryana today you will see Jaats with the name "Chand" and "Das" all the time. The names may at one point have been linked to Kshatriyas, but as they are general surnames and not gotre specific to a bloodline, there was eventually a trickle-down effect where they became general names.
All the Sikh literature specifies that the Panj pyare came from different castes, and there is absolutely no mention of them being Kshatriya (by varna). We actually know which caste was which varna--Khatris are Kshatriya, despite being involved in mercantile work, for example. The Panj Pyare was composed of a water carrier, a barber, a Jatt, a washerman, and an actual Khatri/Kshatriya. 
The way you actually determine if someone is Kshatriya is to look at their gotra. Daya Singh was a Sobti, which is a Khatri gotar. We know Khatris are Kshatriyas according to the varna system, and bam, we have our answer. This is how every single Sikh historical text attributes caste. Nobody thinks the Gurus were Khatris because they had Das and Dev, it's because we know their gotars (Bedi, Trehan, Bhalla, and Sodhi) were all Khatri. If you provided evidence that all the other four had gotre associated with groups that are Kshatriya (e.g. Khatris/Rajputs), you would have a strong case. You do not, and thus relying on Das/Chand/Ram is entirely disingenuous.
Furthermore, you're mixing up the pre-1699 meaning of "Kshatriya" with the post-1699 meaning. Let's go back to Vedic times. There's good evidence that at one point, castes were fluid and based on the work you picked out for yourself. So if you were born in a Brahmin household or whatever and wanted to be a warrior, you would be deemed a "kshatriya" regardless of your bloodline. At some time, these became concentrated to specific bloodlines/clans, which were "locked in" to the Kshatriya varna. This means that someone like Mehta Kalu, despite doing shopkeeping work, was part of the "Kshatriya" varna because of their bloodline/clan.
When Guru Gobind Singh gave everyone Amrit, he also re-invigorated the idea of "Kshatriya" with the Vedic sense of the word. Meaning that everyone in the Khalsa was automatically a "Kshatriya" not because of their family, but because of their occupation in the here-and-now as warriors. This is why the Khalsa adopted many warrior aspects from the Kshatriyas. You're deliberately conflating the two to make it seem like because proficient Sikh warriors referred to themselves as Kshatriyas in battlefield, they literally came from Kshatriya families, which is false; what the Guru did actually lampoons the traditional idea of caste further.
From a more practical POV, yes early Sikhi was rife with Khatris and Brahmins. However, there were still quite a lot of people from other castes who followed the Gurus. We all know a certain Kalal raised by Guru Gobind Singh's family, there were high-profile Jatts especially starting to make headway under the 6th Guru's time (which is why he got a lot of flack from people who said he chose unsavory company), and so on. Most of the parties taking Amrit were not Khatris either, as they were from lower classes. In fact, there's a little historical tidbit about how some Khatris from Delhi refused Amrit because it interfered with their head-shaving ceremony and because it attracted a lot of lower-caste people, exemplified in the original Panj Pyare which had four such people.

Not to put you on the spot mate, but you often concoct these really esoteric theories contingent on a particular interpretation of one minor detail that goes against the bulk of what Sikh historical evidence has to say. I'm all for making creative theories, but there has to be a more rigorous standard for supporting them.
For one, your notion about the surnames being exclusive to Kshatriyas is ridiculous. Bhai Bidhi *Chand* is just one example of a Jatt (Chinna) with those names. If you go to Haryana today you will see Jaats with the name "Chand" and "Das" all the time. The names may at one point have been linked to Kshatriyas, but as they are general surnames and not gotre specific to a bloodline, there was eventually a trickle-down effect where they became general names.
All the Sikh literature specifies that the Panj pyare came from different castes, and there is absolutely no mention of them being Kshatriya (by varna). We actually know which caste was which varna--Khatris are Kshatriya, despite being involved in mercantile work, for example. The Panj Pyare was composed of a water carrier, a barber, a Jatt, a washerman, and an actual Khatri/Kshatriya. 
The way you actually determine if someone is Kshatriya is to look at their gotra. Daya Singh was a Sobti, which is a Khatri gotar. We know Khatris are Kshatriyas according to the varna system, and bam, we have our answer. This is how every single Sikh historical text attributes caste. Nobody thinks the Gurus were Khatris because they had Das and Dev, it's because we know their gotars (Bedi, Trehan, Bhalla, and Sodhi) were all Khatri. If you provided evidence that all the other four had gotre associated with groups that are Kshatriya (e.g. Khatris/Rajputs), you would have a strong case. You do not, and thus relying on Das/Chand/Ram is entirely disingenuous.
Furthermore, you're mixing up the pre-1699 meaning of "Kshatriya" with the post-1699 meaning. Let's go back to Vedic times. There's good evidence that at one point, castes were fluid and based on the work you picked out for yourself. So if you were born in a Brahmin household or whatever and wanted to be a warrior, you would be deemed a "kshatriya" regardless of your bloodline. At some time, these became concentrated to specific bloodlines/clans, which were "locked in" to the Kshatriya varna. This means that someone like Mehta Kalu, despite doing shopkeeping work, was part of the "Kshatriya" varna because of their bloodline/clan.
When Guru Gobind Singh gave everyone Amrit, he also re-invigorated the idea of "Kshatriya" with the Vedic sense of the word. Meaning that everyone in the Khalsa was automatically a "Kshatriya" not because of their family, but because of their occupation in the here-and-now as warriors. This is why the Khalsa adopted many warrior aspects from the Kshatriyas. You're deliberately conflating the two to make it seem like because proficient Sikh warriors referred to themselves as Kshatriyas in battlefield, they literally came from Kshatriya families, which is false; what the Guru did actually lampoons the traditional idea of caste further.
From a more practical POV, yes early Sikhi was rife with Khatris and Brahmins. However, there were still quite a lot of people from other castes who followed the Gurus. We all know a certain Kalal raised by Guru Gobind Singh's family, there were high-profile Jatts especially starting to make headway under the 6th Guru's time (which is why he got a lot of flack from people who said he chose unsavory company), and so on. Most of the parties taking Amrit were not Khatris either, as they were from lower classes. In fact, there's a little historical tidbit about how some Khatris from Delhi refused Amrit because it interfered with their head-shaving ceremony and because it attracted a lot of lower-caste people, exemplified in the original Panj Pyare which had four such people.

You are blessed.
 
This is the work of these indians who wish to portray a poor image of the "traditonal" enemy amongst the Sikhs. The Pakistan Govt realised about 20 years ago that the Sikhs would/could become a big part of tourism for that country generating a good income for little investment. I don't know of any other group of people who visits that country in the number that Sikhs do, and so the Pakistan govt are going to want to protect and expand that trade.

@dalsingh101 and @Jatro, agreed on Bhangoo's unapologetic attitude. Funny story, the first time I read PPP was in early middle school/late elementary school, and I was very much schooled in the "modernist" apologetic group A form of thought. My impression of Shaheedan of old was that they were all like Yoda, spending all their time in meditation, always calm and saintly, and only reaching for the sword in pure self-defense. When I read PPP, I was legitimately disturbed (the violent imagery's a bit much for a kid, especially one raised in a coddled household), and I remember telling my father that I didn't "believe" the text was real and that it was all Brahmin interpolations. He just shook his head, and told me to approach it when I was a bit older. 
 
And now that I have, I love it! In a way, it's sort of comforting to know that Singh's back in the day weren't all esoteric god-men; they were relatable, and I think that makes their sacrifice and struggle more pertinent in a way. Reading Bhangoo also is a great gateway to Puratan texts, in that it helps contextualize a lot of the rigid rituals that didn't make sense if you had this sanitized idea of our history. For example, the rigidness of certain Rehitname makes a ton more sense when you recognize the rough-ass, martial, and hyper-masculine environment these guys lived in. Of course, I don't agree w/Bhangoo on *everything* (e.g., Khalsa identity, some Guru-period history), and I feel like he does sometimes elaborate for rhetorical effect, but his description of misl life and culture on balance is spot-on. 
 
In some cases though, it's all too relatable...When he gives the description of the Tat vs Bandai Khalsa argument, he mentions that the young Tat Khalsa wanted to just butcher the Bandai into extinction while it was the elders that calmed things down (shit eventually went down anyway). It's not too comforting of a history to read for someone who's a bit wary of our confrontational culture when it comes to discussion...
 
Also on a sidenote, the story where the Tat wrestler pins down the Bandai wrestler and stuffs pork down his throat was intense as hell. Imagine that in contrast to much of modern Sikh culture, where so much as mentioning that "I don't believe Sikhi mandates that we have to be vegetarian," leads to a slew of nindaks and abuses.

@dalsingh101 and @Jatro, agreed on Bhangoo's unapologetic attitude. Funny story, the first time I read PPP was in early middle school/late elementary school, and I was very much schooled in the "modernist" apologetic group A form of thought. My impression of Shaheedan of old was that they were all like Yoda, spending all their time in meditation, always calm and saintly, and only reaching for the sword in pure self-defense. When I read PPP, I was legitimately disturbed (the violent imagery's a bit much for a kid, especially one raised in a coddled household), and I remember telling my father that I didn't "believe" the text was real and that it was all Brahmin interpolations. He just shook his head, and told me to approach it when I was a bit older. 
 
And now that I have, I love it! In a way, it's sort of comforting to know that Singh's back in the day weren't all esoteric god-men; they were relatable, and I think that makes their sacrifice and struggle more pertinent in a way. Reading Bhangoo also is a great gateway to Puratan texts, in that it helps contextualize a lot of the rigid rituals that didn't make sense if you had this sanitized idea of our history. For example, the rigidness of certain Rehitname makes a ton more sense when you recognize the rough-ass, martial, and hyper-masculine environment these guys lived in. Of course, I don't agree w/Bhangoo on *everything* (e.g., Khalsa identity, some Guru-period history), and I feel like he does sometimes elaborate for rhetorical effect, but his description of misl life and culture on balance is spot-on. 
 
In some cases though, it's all too relatable...When he gives the description of the Tat vs Bandai Khalsa argument, he mentions that the young Tat Khalsa wanted to just butcher the Bandai into extinction while it was the elders that calmed things down (shit eventually went down anyway). It's not too comforting of a history to read for someone who's a bit wary of our confrontational culture when it comes to discussion...
 
Also on a sidenote, the story where the Tat wrestler pins down the Bandai wrestler and stuffs pork down his throat was intense as hell. Imagine that in contrast to much of modern Sikh culture, where so much as mentioning that "I don't believe Sikhi mandates that we have to be vegetarian," leads to a slew of nindaks and abuses.

ਸਵੈਯਾ ॥
सवैया ॥
SWAYYA
ਜਾਗਤਿ ਜੋਤ ਜਪੈ ਨਿਸ ਬਾਸੁਰ ਏਕ ਬਿਨਾ ਮਨ ਨੈਕ ਨ ਆਨੈ ॥ ਪੂਰਨ ਪ੍ਰੇਮ ਪ੍ਰਤੀਤ ਸਜੈ ਬ੍ਰਤ ਗੋਰ ਮੜੀ ਮਟ ਭੂਲ ਨ ਮਾਨੈ ॥
जागति जोत जपै निस बासुर एक बिना मन नैक न आनै ॥ पूरन प्रेम प्रतीत सजै ब्रत गोर मड़ी मट भूल न मानै ॥

He is the true Khalsa (Sikh), who remembers the ever-awakened Light throughout night and day and does not bring anyone else in the mind; he practices his vow with whole heated affection and does not believe in even by oversight, the graves, monuments and monasteries;

This is the most interesting and fun thing about Bhangu, he is almost amoral and brutally honest while describing the activities of the Khalsa. It's remarkable how he describes that Khalsa doing its best to completely handicap and destroy Mughal administration.

Baba Deep Singh is mentioned many times in the Panth Prakash. His shaheedi is given in GIani Gian Singh's Panth Prakash:
 
ਅਧਿਕ ਦਮਦਮੇਂ ਰਹਿ ਤਲਵੰਡੀ । ਹੁਤੋ ਬੀਰ ਬਰ ਬਲੀ ਘਮੰਡੀ ।
He would remain at Damdama Sahib in Talwandi. He was a great and brave warrior.

ਸੁਨਿ ਬੇਅਦਬੀ ਬਹੁ ਗੁਰੁਦ੍ਵਾਰੈਂ ।ਚੰਡੀ ਚਢੀ ਤਾਂਹਿ ਅਤਿ ਭਾਰੈਂ ।੯।
When hearing about the disrespect at the Gurdrawa [Harimandar], The spirit of Chandi arose within him.

ਸੁਨਿ ਸਿੰਘ ਪਾਠ ਅਖੰਡ ਕਰਾਯੋ । ਹਮਨ ਕਰਯੋ ਕੰਗਨਾ ਬੰਧਵਾਯੋ ।
Baba Ji organized an Akhand Paat and completed a Havan [before heading towards the battle] and tied a wedding bracelet around his wrist [a preparation for martyrdom as death is seen as a merging with their beloved Lord]


The battle that ensued was quite ferocious.


ਬਿਲੱਛ ਲੱਛ ਸਾਯਕਾ ਸਪੱਛ ਸਾਂਪ ਸੇ ਫਿਰੈਂ ।
Arrows, Battle standards, and Double edged swords move throughout the battle field like snakes.

Giani Gian Singh continues to describe the greatness of Baba Deep Singh Ji by saying,


ਸ਼ਹੀਦ ਦੀਪ ਸਿੰਘ ਜੂ ਮਹੀਪ ਪੰਥ ਮੈਂ ਤਹਾਂ । ਜਿਤੈ ਪਰੰਤ ਦੌੜ ਕੈ ਕਰੰਤ ਚੌੜ ਹੈ ਮਹਾਂ ।
Shahid Deep Singh was the great king of the Panth ! Wherever he ran he caused great destruction [to the enemy forces]

Giani Ji later on speaks about the famous event where Baba Ji lost his head in battle.


ਚਲੀ ਤੇਗ ਅਤਿ ਬੇਗ ਸੈਂ । ਦੁਹੂੰ ਕੇਰ ਬਲ ਵਾਰ । ਉਤਰ ਗਏ ਸਿਰ ਦੁਹੁੰ ਕੇ, ਪਰਸ ਪਰੈਂ ਇਕ ਸਾਰ ।੫੬।
The sword moved very quickly from both warriors [Baba Ji and his enemy]. Because of the strikes were at the same time, both of the warriors heads came off.


ਨਿਜ ਸਿਰ ਬਾਮ ਹਾਥਿ ਨਿਜ ਧਾਰਾ । ਦਹਿਨੇ ਹਾਥਿ ਤੇਗ ਖਰ ਧਾਰਾ ।
His head was picked up and placed on his left hand, and with his right hand he held his sword.


When the Jatha of Singhs arrived at Amritsar at the Ramsar sarovar the cries of victory were heard.


ਫਤੇ ਗਜਾਈ ਊਚਿ ਉਚਰ ਕੈ । ਅਏ ਬਿਵਾਨ ਦੇਵ ਗਨ ਲੈ ਕੈ । ਸੁਮਨ ਸੁਮਨ ਬਰਖੇ ਹਰਖੈ ਕੈ ।੬੬।
The loud cries of victory were yelled ! Extremely happy the Gods and Goddesses came to greet them and were dropping flowers like rain [upon the warriors]


ਦੀਪ ਸਿੰਘ ਕੀ ਗਾਥਾ ਸੁਨਿ ਸੁਨਿ । ਧੰਨਯ ਧੰਨਯ ਸਭਿ ਕੈਹੈਂ ਪੁਨ ਪੁਨ ।੧੦੩।
Oh listen to the story of [Baba] Deep Singh Shaheed. Everyone over and over again cries, [Baba ji is] Blessed Blessed !
http://www.manglacharan.com/manglacharan/nglacharan.com/2010/01/baba-deep-singh-shahid.html
 

I hear that, and I think it has been going on for a long while - all the way from juts being represented as stemming from Shiva Ji's dreadlocks. lol 
Shameless, extreme self-aggrandisement is definitely a trait here. So is a rejection of egalitarianism outside of the insular group. 
 
I don't know much about this. Who were the original people who represented Banda as a non-Amritdhari?? Is it a modern thing? Does it have more contemporary antecedents? 
 
He's a realist! And an uncommonly brilliant writer. What he has put down could f**k with today's Sopranos or Games of thrones scripts. I agree that previously, our historians/writers had no impulse to hide away the brutal blood, gore and dark side of our history. The logical explanation is that whitewashed narratives only start appearing after annexation, coming from quarters closely associated - and let's be frank, educated by repressed, Victorian colonialist protestants who were expert at producing propaganda that painted themselves whiter than white despite acting to the contrary. It's imbibing these literary standards and norms that led to Sikhs creating a fairytale account of their 'dashing' past. lol Whites made them strangely so ashamed of their real bloody history that they felt compelled to occlude large parts of it.  
 
I hear you. Again,  this may be the residual effect of my own infection with whitewashed accounts growing up. It also explains why so many apnay get their kasheray in a proper twist when they encounter some dark and grimy accounts from our history that is in stark opposition to the Disney style accounts they've been raised with.  Now that I'm better read and can see what our people are really like without the rose tinted blinkers - I'd be inclined to agree that group B thinking is very common amongst us. We can be a savage bunch of mfs when we are ready. I don't particularly like this (in fact I detest it mostly) but it's true, and I think we are better off facing it squarely. 
When Bhangu wrote PPP he wasn't constrained by the morality and politics of the invaders that would effect later writers, I think he wrote more freely as a consequence. 
By the time goray finished with us, our own intellectuals seem to have become obsessed with scrubbing out any mention of things like opium or cannabis use, flirting with various deities, brutal revenge attacks, drinking, looting and rioting, dissension within the ranks (which is what the Tat and Bandei Khalsa thing was maybe?) 
It's this need to try and represent all of our ancestors and their actions as clear cut whiter than white, and the weird dissonance certain apnay feel at learning things were sometimes otherwise that causes people to have a faulty impression of Sikhs and Sikh history. 

Thing with some weak minded apnay is that they start jumping around promiscuously between religious figureheads as in the above. I think that is the underlying reason for a ban on worshipping graves. Humans (especially Indians!)  are generally utilitarian, they will cling to anything that they feel will bring them auspicious advantages (more so in generally uneducated societies). 
That's how you got all those confused people who'd be looking like Amritdhari Sikhs but also worshipping Sakhi Sarvaar or something similar in the past.
It's interesting for me to see how impressions made so long ago are now coming back to me and I'm reflecting on them and feeling certain emotions. 
Regarding Sikhs visiting the graves of religious significance to other faiths - I think people who are prone to excess emotion or have a weak sense of Sikh identity should maybe avoid doing this. Especially visible Sikhs. 

People report a lot of ish, a fair portion is probably generated from their own minds and wishful thinking. 
Shaheed Singhs are examples of people who've sacrificed all for the truth. They've achieved a level of physical bravery that most people will never get close to. Most people don't like self-sacrifice, even on little bull5hit luxuries in their lives - let alone putting your neck on the line (literally) - so they (mentally) twist the actions of shaheeds into some next convoluted thing instead of actually trying to comprehend (let alone act on) the pure and simple idea of physical bravery and sacrifice from being nirbhau (without fear) in the truest and most extreme sense for humans. 

Even some sikhs sided against Banda Singh. Otherwise Banda would have changed the structure of North India! He had an insane momentum (which I talk about below).
Exactly. Neither do any of our Gurus. However they are still Gurus because people revere them as such.
Guru Nanak Dev ji would not be a Guru if we did not call him that. And by calling Guru Nam Dev ji as Sant Nam Dev or Bhagat Nam Dev, we forget how powerful of a Guru he was.
 
Madhav Das ji was a Guru in central India. And an "unofficial guru" of Guru Gobind Singh ji's sikhs, after Guru Sahib departed.
Remember even if Guru Sahib wanted, Guru Sahib could NOT give gurgaddi to him, lest he went against the bachan of Guru Amar Das ji towards Bibi Bhani ji.
The most Guru Sahib could do.... was what he did, just give Banda leadership of his army.
And remember Guru Sahib wasn't just looking for a warrior-leader.
He was a looking for someone who could also be a Spiritual Guide for Sikhs in the future. And such a spiritual man would also be the most righteous man and uphold dharam at each step.
And Banda just gave away all wealth he conquered as a Spiritual Leader should. He gave back all captured land to the farmers.
The Jatts loved him for that! They filled his ranks happily. During Guru Gobind Singh ji's time Sikh army was mostly Kshatriya clans, but during Banda's time it was mostly Jatt. And it grew incredibly large in an incredibly short period of time.
Banda caused the rise of Jatts in North India. Who then ruled during and after Sikh empire, and even now.
So he significantly changed North India, even in his brief period of rule.
 
Exactly. There is one thing to say there is ego. There is another to extrapolate that to some rakashas-level, corrupted figure-type personality. There is no way Guru Sahibs are making that type of a guy into a leader of Sikh army. Forget it.

I dont think he called himself a Guru. Some people around him did. In his two hukamnamas there is nothing to suggest that he sees himself as Guru, He referst to himself as the Sacha Sahib, not as the Guru. Having an ego is human. We can hardly blame him for that.
See the first few lines here from the Bansavalinama - The Sikhs called him guru. not himself.

This chnage did not happen in one day. According to Amarnamah Madho Das further tried to incite the local people and then the administration against Guru Ji, but failed. When Madho Das realised he had no power against Guru Ji, he submitted.
 
 
1. No. Why couldn't Guru JI reform Madho Das, when Baba Nanak could reform Kauda Raksh? Did Baba Nanak know Kauda Raksh beforehand?
2. No. The Khalsa had already become the leader that Guru Sahib needed. Guru Sahib had already vested the Guru Khalsa with this. IMO Guru Ji wanted to use Madho Das as an example that one's duty should always be upheld. Maybe Guru Sahib was giving Madho Das a chance to counter the treachery of the hill chiefs.
3. No. See no 1. The Guru's reformed characters simply by their presence in some cases.

Many sikh scholars of the 1970s in Punjab were asking the same questions and coming up with alternative theories that Banda Singh Bahadur and Guru Gobind Singh might have known each other before hand. One claimed that Banda Singh Bahadur might have been a Mughal commander at some point in his early years which gave him the strategic knowledge of Northern India as well as military strategy etc.
One account i've read in English has an alternative ending of the story with the goats. Banda is horrified that the blood of goats have been spilled in his ashram, whereas Guru Gobind Singh confronts his hypocracy that Banda is outraged of animal blood in his local ashram while India itself is an ashram full of human blood due to mughal opression. From this argument the venture Begins of Banda Sing Bahadur becoming the military leader.
Also DalsIngh: it is vital to note that many of the leading and skillful Khalsa warriors had been killed at this time. So there probably was'nt that many leaders for Guru Maharaj to chose from. Many had been killed after the Anandpur evacuation, so the Guru might have been looking for an alternative leader with military skills and insights, - wheras many of his current soldiers were probably fairly newly trained and unexperienced which made them unqualified for leadership roles.

@BhagatSingh, sorry if I sound like a dick, but it really feels like you're picking an argument just for the sake of it and not because it's rigorously supported by the evidence. 
First off, can you actually cite your claim of Guru Lehna merging with Guru Nanak to create Guru Angad's path? If your view of Guru successorship is such, why didn't Guru Har Rai just "merge" his followers with those of Ram Rai and make him the next Guru? Where is any actual evidence of Lehna's followers? What do you make of the many references talking about Lehna's selfless devotion to the Guru as his Sikh, his chela? 
 
Secondly, you're making mountains out of molehills to support your own odd little theory. Again, there's a lot of confusing questions in Sikh history when we become hypercritical ad absurdum. Like, why would 5 Singh's literally offer their heads on Vaisakhi 1699 when the Guru asked out of the blue?

I think we can all agree that the Guru admired Madho Das's leadership qualities, even over his own current Singh's. I'm also certain Madho Das had heard of Guru Gobind Singh; he lived in Northern India during his early life and Guru Sahib had set up shop in Nanded during his later life. 
Your entire argument is contingent on a complex psychoanalysis of multiple actors that has no real evidence and falls apart logically. What exactly was this bond between Guru Gobind Singh and Madho Das? Why would there be a "merger" of spiritual paths when Madho Das led the **Khalsa** army? 
Here's a much more simple psychological breakdown I propose that agrees with the actual evidence and doesn't propose wild unsubstantiated theories the way you do: 
-Madho Das was a stellar warrior and spiritually connected; but he still had a higher sense of self-importance than most. In some ways, this ego explains why he was such a good leader; but it also explains why, later in his military career, he overextended too quickly and went against the advice of his Panj Pyare. Personalities are complex and most people aren't one-sided caricatures the way apne like to often paint it out to be.
-The Guru persuaded him that someone of his ilk, as a charismatic and talented individual, mentally and physically, should be leading the fight and correcting the injustices going on across Punjab and Hindustan in general instead of frivolously performing magic tricks and caring for goats. Banda Singh's life story is a textbook case of the asceticism that Nanak critiqued; running away from the realities of the harsh world instead of addressing them head-on. Therefore, Madho Das takes amrit, becomes Gurbaksh Singh, and decides to become the jathedar of the Khalsa Army (still put in check by 5 Panj Pyare appointed by the Guru). I do NOT agree with some of the Puratan literature that says Banda became so haughty he styled himself a Guru and saw himself at the same level of Guru Gobind Singh; whoever else he may have had disagreements with (Bhai Binod Singh for example) the Gurus were clearly people he always respected and deferred to. This is seen in the fact that he did not strike coins in the name of the Bandai Khalsa, in the names of Guru Madhav Das and the Vaishnavite Raj, but in the names of the Sache Patshah--Guru Nanak and Guru Gobind Singh. 
 
There is no coercion in Guru Sahib and Madho Das's conversion. If he did kill the goats (I don't know but that's what the sources say), he didn't do it to say "hahaha now you have nothing to do but fight for me." He did it to prove a point to Madho Das, which it did.
 
Also, I agree with dalsingh that the conquest of Sirhind was about WAY more than avenging the Sahibzade. It was about deposing a cruel and psychotic murderer in the throne. But now that I think about it, the saga of the chotte-Sahibzade could have been a really good emotive point for Guru Sahib to capitalize on while describing the despair of Punjab. You have this cruel king; so cruel that he bricked alive a 7 and 9 year old. That's something that made Sher Khan of Malhotra, the dude whose brothers were all killed by Guru Gobind Singh personally, grimace and shake his head in disgust; Banda being sympathetic to that isn't too out of the left field.

Show some earthly depth.....
Imagine a natural leader. A proper Alpha-Male. Tough as hell, shrewd, with more than a few tricks up his sleeve...... not without his flaws though.
What we call a 'rough diamond' in East London.... lol
This is Madho Das.
 
Then imagine the king of kings, hearing about a character that has everyone on a back foot. You know, I'm pretty sure that they had heard of each other beforehand  myself. I think they were two focal points of independence in a generally cowed down  Moghul 'India' myself.  But Guru ji was more successful - they'd been building up a community over ten successive generations - so no big surprise. They had Panjabis, a community ram packed full of singular-minded, stubborn hot-heads - to draw from as well.
When they meet, Guru ji is testing Madho Das's mettle -  Madho Das tests Guru ji's backbone - a man like that (Banda), who is obviously fiercely independent and values himself to the point of being haughty isn't used to meeting something as solid as dasmesh pita. Dasmesh pita himself sees in Madho Das something rare - strength, leadership, independence, potential. 
It's obvious when they talked they both shared a common dissatisfaction with contemporary Moghul rule. Which, given Aurengzaab's ISIS style of leadership, should be no surprise. Madho Das is a natural leader and Guru ji understands him. The bit that pisses off some modern day and probably contemporary Sikhs (of that time) is that Guru ji sees  better leadership qualities and strength in Banda than what he was working with already (the Khalsa). But Guru ji is smarter than his Sikhs! So he 'deputises' Madho Das and inducts him into the Khalsa, but leaves him with a core team of top Singhs to advise him. There are a few old manuscripts that point at Guru ji encouraging group consensus amongst Sikhs to make decisions. So this should be no big surprise. Plus Guru ji being antarjaami, knew he was leaving us (physically soon). 
The rest is logical.   Guru ji gave his new Banda the tools to take on the Moghuls (Singhs) that Madho Das didn't have - Banda gets to strike at the oppressive Moghuls - but with a force infinitely stronger than the one he gathered around himself at Godwari. 
Plus, I don't agree that  Guru ji's objective was solely revenge for the sahibzaday at this point, I think they were genuinely concerned with 'dharam' as in 'righteousness' as opposed to perpetuating some fudhu outdated Indic caste system. I think they were essentially fighting for people to be able to follow their religious convictions without tossers violently ramming their own beliefs  down people's throats like certain types of sullay (past and present) are want to do. And some ignorant arse, piss poor excuse of Singhs too for that matter!

Bansavalinama says that Baba Banda Bahadur was not happy with attitude of some Sikhs, but it makes the whole division in the Panth more of a post-Banda phenomenon fuelled by his followers. It also says that there was a four-fold division in the Panth after Baba Banda ji's death. These were, the "Akal Purkhia"(equivalent of what later came to be called Tat Khalsa), the "Bandiae' (followers of Baba Banda Bahadur), followers of adopted pretender to Guruship Ajit Singh (mentioned as Jit Singh) and followers of Chaubanda (have no clue what this means). It should be noted that all of this is portrayed as a conflict within the Sikh family only, revolving around disputed Guruship. So it's not as if some Vaishnav Bairagis appeared on the scene. Gradually the Akal Purkhias won. I'm attaching the relevant pages.

Get the hell off this forum you sick twisted inbred retard!!!! We don't need more narrow minded twats like you!!!! You wanna look down on your sisters, your damn choice. But don't you dare spew your poisonous dim-witted filthy bull crap and expect the rest of us to follow suit!!!

This is a terrible topic, it just gives the fundos a chance to get wound up and show the rest of us how stupid they are. Still better than most of Paapiman's spam topics though.