WhiteGrass Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 I was told recently that sikhs used to add another dohira after agya pai akaal ki, it mentioned that the raaj of the British should go on forever. Jug jug raj... and then mentioned 'topi wale' does any one know what this slogan was? Thanks 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalsingh101 Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Thank God we got them out! lol 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalsingh101 Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 The also added an extra bit ro Amrit bani saying making inititates say that they will be loyal to the King of England. THat was the 'modified' Amrit ceremony for joining the army. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSD1 Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 i wonder if the indian army maintains any of these things for sikhs soldiers? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bijla Singh Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 The also added an extra bit ro Amrit bani saying making inititates say that they will be loyal to the King of England. THat was the 'modified' Amrit ceremony for joining the army. Can you provide some evidence? Explain more. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalsingh101 Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 Can you provide some evidence? Explain more. Read the introduction to Macauliffe's work. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bijla Singh Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 Could you provide exact quote, any reference he gives etc.? I doubt if it was practiced by the entire panth and in various sampardas. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalsingh101 Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 Look it up yourself Bijla. I haven't got my copy here. It is as clear as glass in the intro to vol 1. It was used for all Sikhs joining the British army, you are right in that it wasn't practiced by the entire panth, to my understanding it was just Sikhs joining the forces. Do you think I would make something like that up? lol 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matheen Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 It was used for all Sikhs joining the British army, ......... What if they were already Amritdhari? Is Macauliffe the only person who mentions this? Sounds dodgy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalsingh101 Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 What if they were already Amritdhari? Is Macauliffe the only person who mentions this? Sounds dodgy. Do you think Macauliffe may be lying then? I doubt it. I think he was just highlighting British policy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singh2 Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 Do you think Macauliffe may be lying then? I doubt it. I think he was just highlighting British policy. AS far as i understand this is not correct. One need to provide reference for that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalsingh101 Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 It wouldn't hurt any of you that have the work at hand to try and look through yourselves would it. It is recorded in a footnote when talking of the Amrit ceremony. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bijla Singh Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 It is not about you or Macauliffe lying but simply about whether the statement is true. Since I have moved to a different place my books are still packed. I looked at the pdf file which is quite unclear but could not find it. What makes you think Macauliffe is right? Are you gonna stick to your "possibly" "could be" etc reasoning? My uncle knew many Sikh soldiers who fought in France and Germany in WW2 but none mentioned this. Amrit Sanchaar was not organized by the British. Assume that British did have such a policy, what is the proof that Panj Pyare adhered to it? Was a British official present at every Amrit Sanchaar to make sure the policy was being followed? Be rational here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalsingh101 Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 It is not about you or Macauliffe lying but simply about whether the statement is true. Since I have moved to a different place my books are still packed. I looked at the pdf file which is quite unclear but could not find it. What makes you think Macauliffe is right? Are you gonna stick to your "possibly" "could be" etc reasoning? My uncle knew many Sikh soldiers who fought in France and Germany in WW2 but none mentioned this. Amrit Sanchaar was not organized by the British. Assume that British did have such a policy, what is the proof that Panj Pyare adhered to it? Was a British official present at every Amrit Sanchaar to make sure the policy was being followed? Be rational here. The statement is there for all to see. Make of it what you will. I, however, doubt Macauliffe would have mentioned it if it wasn't occurring to some extent in the British forces. Are you gonna stick to your "possibly" "could be" etc reasoning? Are you going to stick by your "if it doesn't fit my preconceptions, it can't be true" reasoning. Why shoot the messenger. It is not like I like the idea of outside interference with Sikh institutes. I'm surprised that you are surprised by it myself. I suggest you read English history in relation to Scottish and Welsh institutes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalsingh101 Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 duplicate 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matheen Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 My uncle knew many Sikh soldiers who fought in France and Germany in WW2 but none mentioned this. Amrit Sanchaar was not organized by the British...... Same here - I know a few veterans from WW2 and they never mentioned anything like this. Some mahaan Gursikhs served in the army (WW1 as well) and they weren't the type of people who would accept any change to Amrit Sanchars. I think Macauliffe's either misinterpreted something or made it up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bijla Singh Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 It certainly doesn't fit the history. Again, why do you think he is right? Give some rational reasoning instead of "do you think Macauliffe lied". I can only accept it if you give proofs. Just because he mentioned it doesn't mean it is a fact. Many historians have mentioned many things about Sikhi but without sufficient evidence it is all bull. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singh2 Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 The statement is there for all to see. Make of it what you will. I, however, doubt Macauliffe would have mentioned it if it wasn't occurring to some extent in the British forces. Are you going to stick by your "if it doesn't fit my preconceptions, it can't be true" reasoning. Why shoot the messenger. It is not like I like the idea of outside interference with Sikh institutes. I'm surprised that you are surprised by it myself. I suggest you read English history in relation to Scottish and Welsh institutes. British never interfered in religious affairs of Indians. I checked with a friend who served in Indian army and he said that the information is wrong and misleading. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singh2 Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 The statement is there for all to see. Make of it what you will. I, however, doubt Macauliffe would have mentioned it if it wasn't occurring to some extent in the British forces. Are you going to stick by your "if it doesn't fit my preconceptions, it can't be true" reasoning. Why shoot the messenger. It is not like I like the idea of outside interference with Sikh institutes. I'm surprised that you are surprised by it myself. I suggest you read English history in relation to Scottish and Welsh institutes. Have you any personal knowledge of military set up in India? It seems that you have bookish knowledge only. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaljug Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 Fateh! Dalsingh: Where in the introduction? Are you talking about the preface and introduction to the first volume? If so, it doesn't mention any alteration in amrit sanchar. Apart from some probably corrupted Sau Sakhi in which Guru Gobind Singh Ji allegedly tells us how great the British are there are two passage regarding the amrit ceremony and the British. The first is supposed to have been spoken by an unnamed Sikh whom Macauliffe quotes: "AS for the bravery and warlike spirit of the Sikhs, no Cossack, no Turk, no Russian, can measure swords with them. There is one trait very peculiar in them such as must make the enemies of the British fear them. The true blood of loyalty and devotion to their master surges in their veins. A true Sikh will let his body be cut to pieces when fighting for his master. The Sikh considers dying in battle a means of salvation. No superiority in number, no shot, no shell can make his heart quail, since his Amrit (baptism) binds him to fight single-handed against millions... A Sikh who shows the least reluctance to go, or goes with an expectation of renumeration, when called upon by his benefactor the King-Emperor to fight His Majesty's enemies, no matter how strong they may be, will be condemned by the Gurus." The second is Macauliffe's own words: 'In our times one of the principal agencies for the preservation of the Sikh religion has been the practice of military officers commanding Sikh regiments to send Sikh recruits to receive baptism according to the rites of Guru Gobind Singh, and endeavour to preserve them in their subsequent career from the contagion of idolatry. The military thus ignoring or despising the restraints imposed by the civil policy of what is called "religious neutrality", have practically become the main heirophants and guardians of the Sikh religion.' Note that in neither of these quotes does he mention any change to amrit sanchar, though its clear that he sees baptism as a great way of inculcating in Sikh soldiers a sense of fearlessness and loyalty to the Crown. It's also clear that, despite his profound respect for the teachings of the Gurus, he cannot see Sikhs as being anything more than cannon fodder for the enemies of the British Empire. Edit: OK, I found the footnote that Dalsingh was talking about. It actually in volume 5, p96 (yep, I'm a real fast reader). Macauliffe describes the amrit sanchar and the rehat maryada being described to the new Amritdharis. There is then a footnote attached to the end of the description of the rehat in which he says: "In the present day an injunction is added at the time of baptism to be loyal to the British Government, which the neophytes solemnly promise." Of course, whether this is true is another matter given that Macauliffe was not Amritdhari so could not have attended an amrit sanchar. Regards, K. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSD1 Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 hmm, a little weird. on one hand it does seem a little far fetched, but on the other hand its hard to understand why Macauliffe would make this up, unless he actually did somehow see it or knew someone who enforced this. are there any other sources about this? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatehsingh Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 hmm, a little weird. on one hand it does seem a little far fetched, but on the other hand its hard to understand why Macauliffe would make this up, unless he actually did somehow see it or knew someone who enforced this. are there any other sources about this? Wasn't Macauliffe's work published with great assistance and supervision from pro-british singh sabhia vidvaans? There is a phony prophecy of 'topi wala sikhs' (british) allegedly made by Guru Teghbahadur Sahib not found anywhere else in his work as well. Maccauliffe was certainly not alive back then either. So the question is, how much of what he wrote was first hand witness and how much was spoon fed to him by the accepted 'vidvaans' who he had no reason to doubt or to not trust them at the time and who were these vidvaans who gave him the material? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singh2 Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 Every recruit in armed forces have to take an oath of allegiance on joining the forces. This was nothing new for sikhs during British rule. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaheediyan Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 "Every recruit in armed forces have to take an oath of allegiance on joining the forces. This was nothing new for sikhs during British rule." Exactly, I think there is too much too much conspiracy mentality for questions with commonsensical answers. Anyone who has ever joined the British Army - has sworn an allegiance to the British throne, irrelevant of the excellent British strategy to have Panj Pyare present upon giving admission to new recruits in the Sikh regiments. In all probabilty, its easy to see that this whole topic is an offshoot of (or is rooted in) the above. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalsingh101 Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 Have you any personal knowledge of military set up in India? It seems that you have bookish knowledge only. Who is talking about the current military set up in India? Stop digressing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.