.

[valli singh]

.

[valli singh]

.

[drawrof]

I read the book,

I found that anyone who wants to understand sikhi in the context of a social, political and dynamic environment will benefit from this as we are so often introduced to a form of sikhi which is contextualised in a vacum of high ideals, morals, ethics....

[shaheediyan]

Valli Singh,

Its an amazing book, ground-breaking.

The research that has gone into it is extensive to say the least - the photography and art work found within (part of which is has never been seen/published before) transports you to a time lost and perfectly compliments the intensively investigated commenty.

There is too much to say re the book is covers such a vast array of subject as drawof says - but the beauty lies in that the authors have tried very hard to base it all on historical fact - rather than a rose-tinted and enclosed opinion.

For anyone interested in non-Singh Sabiya/SGPC influenced/standardised Sikh culture and history - as well Akali Nihang evolvement/traditions - this book is a must have - especially for the footnotes/bibliography/photography.

I can't wait to read upcoming books, there are apparently many in transit! I hope they are written with as much dedication and passion.

[valli singh]

.

[shaheediyan]

You can read more here, this is the website of the publishers - Kashihouse.

Also, if you need copies for any stores in CA, contact these guys.

http://kashihouse.com/wp/in-the-masters-presence/

[valli singh]

.

[Kam1825]

personally i liked the first 3 chapters only. then chapter 10 was complete and utter fiction regarding the nirmala samparda.

The only reason this book sells is because Niddar Singh knows the value of controversy!

It has now become a very cosly paperweight in my study!

[valli singh]

.

[Kam1825]

Yes some of the phot0s are great, but that is not what makes me purchase a book, personally i prefer books on vedant, self realisation, teekas and commentaries. i brought this books as i wanted to see what niddars real views on the nirmalas really were as the sarbloh site is just a face and not his real thoughts. The views of the Nirmalas being created by the rajas an that they evolved from hindu clean shaven fakirs is an insult to the nirmala order created by sri guru gobind singh ji headed by Bhai Daya Singh Ji and Bhai Dharam Singh Ji.

It also makes me laugh how niddar singh mentions that the true custodians of the daramsalas are only the nihangs and udasis (both of who play a role in niddar singhs personal vidya) and that the nirmalas had no right to act as custodians, a honour which they only recieved through the venerated maharajas of the time.

If your a nihang or of that mentality then it is a great book as it is an ego trip and a boost to your samparda. if you are a nirmala then i would suggest investing your money in something else.

[Mithar]

hush Kam1825 Jee, that is a very politically incorrect thing to say. Surely you must be influanced by the British or the freemasons.

[valli singh]

,

[Guest]

I think there is always been hostility between nihangs and nirmale in general if one study historic events. But it not as bad as people make out to be. Now going back on this, I remember when sarbloh.info first came out, they were all very lubly-dubly towards nirmale, perhaps to get more credibility from wider sikhsangat for having knights of scholars- nirmale on their website- just like enhance their website/make it fancy by adding passages from nirmale literature and names, lineages, photos of nirmale sants on there. Now, these hypocrites made U turn when their cause was fulfilled.

[tonyhp32]

It does seem that the promoters of Snatanism do appear to make a number of u-turns and amendments to their beliefs. First it was only 4 sampardhas, then it became 5 with the inclusion of DDT, then again 4 with the DDT being placed within the Nirmalas. Now if Kam1825 is right, then they have now been removed from the 4 sampardhas, so does that mean there were then 'originally' only 3 sampardhas?

It doesn't do Snatanism any favours when the promoters keep on changing their views.

As for the book, personally I wouldn't waste my money on it. The prints and photos are good but then by purchasing the book you are not purchasing just them you are also funding the viewpoints of the writers. If you agree with their viewpoint then by all means you will want to purchase the book and perhaps more than one but if you do not support their views then buying the book is like shooting yourself in the foot!

[Silence]

Can anyone who has read it comment on if there are any mentions of devi devte in the book, and what exactly has been said about their relationship to sikh panth? I will probably be buying a copy anyway but was just wondering.

[shaheediyan]

"I think there is always been hostility between nihangs and nirmale in general if one study historic events. But it not as bad as people make out to be. Now going back on this, I remember when sarbloh.info first came out, they were all very lubly-dubly towards nirmale, perhaps to get more credibility from wider sikhsangat for having knights of scholars- nirmale on their website- just like enhance their website/make it fancy by adding passages from nirmale literature and names, lineages, photos of nirmale sants on there. Now, these hypocrites made U turn when their cause was fulfilled."

N30, for your and everyone elses information, Nirmale and Nihangs have very good relations in the UK, particularly in terms of Nidar Singh. He has always provided a platform for UK Nirmalae (particularly one) to promote and distribute their excellent work i.e. Bhavras Amrit.

Funnily enough, a lot of interest in Nirmalae Sampyade and teachings can be seen/found in Nidar Singhs akaarai, this is common knowledge.

Other than that, the other set of Nihangs in Birmingham also have excellent relations with local Nirmala at the Baba Sang Gurdwara in Smethwick.

I will look at the said chapter soon and post comments, in the mean time it would be good to hear tSinghs comments on the historical representation of Nirmalai.

People should remember that this book is supposed to be a historical representation based on historical sources rather than opinions, if anyone is going to criticise it on these grounds - then they should prove that the historical sources used don't exist, have been incorrectly quoted or haven't been used period.

An historical representation is just that - one representation, opinion, experience, propoganda, bias what have you - it does not equate to the truth.

If people have a problem with the what the historical source says - then they should criticise and disprove the source rather than the authors mention of it.

I recently attended a lecture/meeting with both Nihangs and Nirmalae present - it was a wonderful evening, highly educational and great to learn about certain subjects through different viewpoints (Warrior and Sant aspects). There was always mutual respect present, and the respect that one subject - can and has been used for different purposes in history.

[valli singh]

,

[Mithar]

Yes, and even some decades ago,

Jathedar Baba Chet Singh ji and Sant Isher Singh ji Nanaksar (Nirmalay)

were extremely close, and Babaji gave alot of land to Nanaksar after Santji's death,

also didn't Nihangs early last century (or earlier) come to the defense of

Nirmala sadhs who were persecuted at the Kumbh Mela by trident-wielding Shiv yogis

who desecrated Akhand Paath Sahibs?

No, the Singhs that came to the defence of the Nirmale, Udasin sadhus were Sikh soldiers of the royal Patiala army led by the Maharaja of Patiala himself who had come to attend the Kumbh Mela.

[Kam1825]

I can happily say that the facts presented by Niddar Singh about the nirmalas are wrong, he just has to pick up the nirmal panth bodh or the nirmal panth ithaas for info on the nirmalas. Maybe Sikh Sampardavali or Darbari Rattan by Piara Singh Padam.

The book again is from a biased bs view. the referances mostly used by niddar singh is mostly from bhangus panth parkash which slant everything toward the nihangs tamo guni way of life.

Nihangs and Nirmalas in the UK get 'on' but they do not agree with each others way of life at all. Differences regarding diet, intoxicants, vedant, bir ras. Sit a nihang and nirmala down next to each other and they get on. Get a nihang and nirmala in the uk together to back up the reasons for their differences and see if they 'get on' then.

Tirath has a copy of the book and again could not believe the stuff mentioned in chapter 10. Im sure if he wishes to comment for or against the book he will.

What Nidar Singh has written within the book clashes with his views on the sarbloh.info website showing his true nature. The other thing is that the fact that Nihangs like Baba hari SIngh Ji Baba bakale Walae put a gun to Niddar Singh's head after hearing parts of the book which suggests that this historical representation was not well recieved by the nihangs either. This led to Niddar Singh going to Jather Baba Joginder SIngh crying as asking for the nihangs to be controlled to which baba ji replied, this is akal purkhs fauj, no one can control them!

The book has made nidar singh an outcaste within the nihangs, so much so that they refer to him as 'Karate suit baba' to take the mick!

[drawrof]

Hello folks,

I felt I had something constructive to add here,

Firstly 4 samparda's is a construct...it may be seen as statically 4, but it never was. Think about it, we had 52 manji's, the masands were considered saints in their own right (refer to the taksali raihras or sant kirpal singh teeka of guru granth sahib on the shabad 'kahay re ve man chitvaih udham' and see the importance and praise given to bhai madho)/. The sikhs of these masands were called 'sehlangi'....where the 'khalsa' were those under the direct initiation of the guru....then you have udasi's who did prachar. You also have the rababi's who used parmans in their kirtan to do parchar. You have nirmally who 'generally' were situated closer to the big centers of pilgrimage. Yes, there were singhs like bhai punjab singh who went upto kashmir but they were generally learning/studying. You had udasi's who were more focused on the local village level of things (as a group though they are very varied and can almost be deemed pan-indian in their focus). There were always fewer nirmallay in the past (and today) than there were udasi's. Then you have suthra shahi's who had their own blessings, who later joined with udasi's, same with a sect of the mina's I believe, then you have sevapanthi's who learned from nirmallay and they became a taksal of their own (dera sato gali). Then you have the bedi's, the sodhi's, sindhi's....all who claim the gurus blessed them!....the point is that alot of different groups claim to be 'sikhs'....

Regarding the issue of nirmala patronage by the malwa sardars:

Maharaja ala singh of patiala had a nirmala ( I forgot his name) who was patroned by him....It was the sardars from malwa who signed the treaty with the british to have protection against maharaja ranjit singh and they were also the ones who were later patroned more. I believe nirmally themselves have this understanding that the panchayati akhara was formed out of them. Not all nirmalay were in agreeance (ie. bhai mehtab singh, the first sri mahant did not adhere to the wearing of the 5 kakkars). Rattan singh bhangu talks about how the majha sardars are true sikhs etc etc....and when giani takur singh of the taksal passed on the whole majha/malwa debate came back into effect with regards to successorship....this issue is steeped in something that spans a couple of centuries....

The nihang/nirmala issue is huge. Gyani gyan singh was beaten by nihang singhs for sitting on a taabia without a kachera (as he wore a langota). Naveen panth parkash (which people were banned from reading in the dal) was not favorable to the nihangs at all after that point, bharat mat darpan (written by mahant ganesha singh...where teja singh nirmala <the dude from sarbloh.info>

is the preciding head) spoke of nihangs in a very derogatory way (read my old posts). Having a utopian ideal that everyone within any one samparda, faction of a samparda, inter-samparda is just ludicrous and naive at best. How many people here have experienced family tensions and issues?....if one isn't completely at peace with people at home or those who you are closest with ALL the time; then it is just ignorant to think that samparda's will be buddy buddy just because they have a place to belong in this world!

Udasi's and nihangs had closer bonds. Udasi's disliked for nirmallay for a long time. They banned them from eating langar with them in the 1700's at the kumbh mela, and the nirmallay organized themselves therein. We know that gurbaksh das (an udasi) was given control of cis-ganj and sobha singh (a nihang) was given control of anandpur sahib by guru gobind singh before he went off to nander.....that one point is enough for 2 groups with the same enemy to join together. Udasi's also see their blessings as being older and more puratan. The nihang view, from what I know, is that amrit sanchar's generally happened at the takhats and who controlled the takhats?

also, we forget that we are 'cyber-lords' these days. We are going through so much change (heck, I find life has changed so much technologically etc etc...in the past 10 years)....things were more static before, and when you have groups that remained more strong on preserving their identity and their stature...that old habits and paradigms would break hard. Even now, I don't know of too many nihangs (that I've met in india, who actually like nirmallay).

I am not in the uk, so I can't speak for anyone there....I'd like to give the people that I know there some credit and say that people probably have a mutual respect of older olders and traditions.

[Guest]

Hello folks,

I felt I had something constructive to add here,

Firstly 4 samparda's is a construct...it may be seen as statically 4, but it never was. Think about it, we had 52 manji's, the masands were considered saints in their own right (refer to the taksali raihras or sant kirpal singh teeka of guru granth sahib on the shabad 'kahay re ve man chitvaih udham' and see the importance and praise given to bhai madho)/. The sikhs of these masands were called 'sehlangi'....where the 'khalsa' were those under the direct initiation of the guru....then you have udasi's who did prachar. You also have the rababi's who used parmans in their kirtan to do parchar. You have nirmally who 'generally' were situated closer to the big centers of pilgrimage. Yes, there were singhs like bhai punjab singh who went upto kashmir but they were generally learning/studying. You had udasi's who were more focused on the local village level of things (as a group though they are very varied and can almost be deemed pan-indian in their focus). There were always fewer nirmallay in the past (and today) than there were udasi's. Then you have suthra shahi's who had their own blessings, who later joined with udasi's, same with a sect of the mina's I believe, then you have sevapanthi's who learned from nirmallay and they became a taksal of their own (dera sato gali). Then you have the bedi's, the sodhi's, sindhi's....all who claim the gurus blessed them!....the point is that alot of different groups claim to be 'sikhs'....

Regarding the issue of nirmala patronage by the malwa sardars:

Maharaja ala singh of patiala had a nirmala ( I forgot his name) who was patroned by him....It was the sardars from malwa who signed the treaty with the british to have protection against maharaja ranjit singh and they were also the ones who were later patroned more. I believe nirmally themselves have this understanding that the panchayati akhara was formed out of them. Not all nirmalay were in agreeance (ie. bhai mehtab singh, the first sri mahant did not adhere to the wearing of the 5 kakkars). Rattan singh bhangu talks about how the majha sardars are true sikhs etc etc....and when giani takur singh of the taksal passed on the whole majha/malwa debate came back into effect with regards to successorship....this issue is steeped in something that spans a couple of centuries....

The nihang/nirmala issue is huge. Gyani gyan singh was beaten by nihang singhs for sitting on a taabia without a kachera (as he wore a langota). Naveen panth parkash (which people were banned from reading in the dal) was not favorable to the nihangs at all after that point, bharat mat darpan (written by mahant ganesha singh...where teja singh nirmala <the dude from sarbloh.info>

is the preciding head) spoke of nihangs in a very derogatory way (read my old posts). Having a utopian ideal that everyone within any one samparda, faction of a samparda, inter-samparda is just ludicrous and naive at best. How many people here have experienced family tensions and issues?....if one isn't completely at peace with people at home or those who you are closest with ALL the time; then it is just ignorant to think that samparda's will be buddy buddy just because they have a place to belong in this world!

Udasi's and nihangs had closer bonds. Udasi's disliked for nirmallay for a long time. They banned them from eating langar with them in the 1700's at the kumbh mela, and the nirmallay organized themselves therein. We know that gurbaksh das (an udasi) was given control of cis-ganj and sobha singh (a nihang) was given control of anandpur sahib by guru gobind singh before he went off to nander.....that one point is enough for 2 groups with the same enemy to join together. Udasi's also see their blessings as being older and more puratan. The nihang view, from what I know, is that amrit sanchar's generally happened at the takhats and who controlled the takhats?

also, we forget that we are 'cyber-lords' these days. We are going through so much change (heck, I find life has changed so much technologically etc etc...in the past 10 years)....things were more static before, and when you have groups that remained more strong on preserving their identity and their stature...that old habits and paradigms would break hard. Even now, I don't know of too many nihangs (that I've met in india, who actually like nirmallay).

I am not in the uk, so I can't speak for anyone there....I'd like to give the people that I know there some credit and say that people probably have a mutual respect of older olders and traditions.

excellent observation by forward and backward drawrof sion

[Malwe Da Sher]

Very post post forward.

[tonyhp32]

From it's very inception the book starts off with an untruth. That Guru Gobind Singh arrived at nader along with some Nihangs. We need to look beyond fairy stories like these. There was no such thing as a Nihang as we know them today in 1707. It was Amritdhari Sikhs, or Khalsa Sikhs that were with the Guruji. The original Budha Dal was a dal of Singhs and not Nihangs. Nihangs came later probably in the 1770s at the earliest after the Misls had started to break up areas of Punjab into their own rule. The Nihangs of the 1770s which many British travellers encountered were likely to be either members of the Shaheed Misl who did not settle and take over areas of Punjab or was made up of members of other Misls who wanted to continue the normadic lifestyle of the Khalsa after Banda Singh Bahadur.

The lately oft made claim of the Nihangs to be the original Khalsa is patently false.

1. Entry into the Khalsa during the period between 1699-1870s is claimed to have been solely through the Nihangs at the Takhts. If this is true then the vast majority of Sikhs who were the soldiers of the Lahore Durbar as well as those in the armies of the Malwa maharajas would have been Nihangs. So where was the need for the Lahore Durbar to have separate units of Akalis? No doubt with the modernisation of the Sikh Army under the French generals it would have meant Nihangs (if all Sikhs solders were Nihangs) would have had to dispense with their Bana. The Lahore durbar also had the use of the Jagirdaris fauj the majority of which would have been the army supplied by the Sikh jagirdars. Yet none of these appear to have been Nihangs. During the First Anglo-Sikh war fought in the Malwa area the British reported that some of their troops who were stragglers and unable to keep up were being ambushed and killed by Sikh villagers. In no place do they state that these villagers were Nihangs.

2. The story of the slaughter of Nihangs in Patiala or even the shoot on sight orders against Nihangs by the British as claimed by Niddar could never have happened if his claim of Nihangs being their only Khalsa. You would have had a case of Nihang Rajas and their fauj helping the British to hunt down other Nihangs. What about the bulk of the Sikh population in Punjab estimated to be anywhere between 1.8 - 2.5 million. Were these 2.5 million Nihangs also being hunted down? Did these 2.5 million Nihangs suddenly take off their Nihang attire? Incidentally since Niddar in his Independent newspaper claims that he has used the British obsession with record keeping to resurrect the history of the Nihangs and Shastar Vidya, has he found the original shoot on sight orders or even copies or allusions to these orders? I know this will vex a lot of the Nihangophiles here Nihangs were a law and order problem for Maharaja Ranjit Singh as well. Most travellers who visited his Durbar noted that Nihangs were troublesome yet he managed to control them through a combination of flattering their leaders and making donation to their camps.

Some food for thought.

[drawrof]

Definitely food for thought!

[shaheediyan]

"The views of the Nirmalas being created by the rajas an that they evolved from hindu clean shaven fakirs is an insult to the nirmala order created by sri guru gobind singh ji headed by Bhai Daya Singh Ji and Bhai Dharam Singh Ji."

I have to disagree. The book clearly shows the utmost respect in describing the "birth" of the Nirmala order and completely gives recognition to the fact that it was blessed by Dasmesh Pita himself. The ithihaas the book portrays (origins of Nirmalae and their vidya) pretty much fits perfectly with the ithihaas I have heard from Nirmalae themselves.

Re the later issue of how the British friendly Sikh Rajas gave patronage to Nirmalae, there is also truth in this and that there was a shift in power between the dying Nihang Sampryada and the growing Nirmala Sampryada. It was only natural that there would be some poltical struggle. There are many well known historical episodes mentioned - of course their is going to be some bias - depending on which version of history you choose to source, as well as ones own patriotism (thats normal).

Some of us are interested in learning here (thanks for the productive post Backward Forward), so it would be good if the exact points of contention could quoted/raised and an evidence based counter arguement put forward (or the books arguement disproved academically).

This effort should not be seen as an excuse to cause further divide, but rather as a platform to initiate intelligent debate and therefore further great research...

Tony - why don't you just buy the book and actually read what it says and look at the reference points/footnotes before putting forward further comments. You seem intent on contributing in your own special way to this thread, so you may as well make a decent effort!

"I know this will vex a lot of the Nihangophiles here Nihangs were a law and order problem for Maharaja Ranjit Singh as well. Most travellers who visited his Durbar noted that Nihangs were troublesome yet he managed to control them through a combination of flattering their leaders and making donation to their camps."

Yes, and also the law and order solution - it was only the Akali care-takers of Akaal Takht that had the power to punish Ranjit Singh for his shenanigans with a female of your favourite faith. And I won't even bother telling you Akali Phoola Singhs "lawless" contribution in helping Ranjit Singh safeguard his empire.