Singh Sabha Movement?

[singh2]

The Nihangs were not in Akal Takht as caretakers but they had attempted to forcibly take over the Akal Takht from the Akali Jatha at the instigation of the Punjaris. The Pujaris after having lost control of Akal Takht went around instigating the Sikhs of the vill

Tony you need to get some basic knowledge of sikh history before you write your nonsense here.Nihungs were always there in control of akal takhat.

Akal takhat was under Nihungs an harmandir sahib was adminietered by a sarabrah appoinred by British. Nihungs were devoid of caste considerations.

They always had mazhbi sikhs as Nihungs as memebers of their jatha.

[tonyhp32]

Singh2,

Learn to make constructive comments and not bukwas. Earlier you wrote-;

Yes the nihungs were forced to flee punjab after british take over. They were persecuted.

And now-;

Tony you need to get some basic knowledge of sikh history before you write your nonsense here.Nihungs were always there in control of akal takhat. Akal takhat was under Nihungs an harmandir sahib was adminietered by a sarabrah appoinred by British

So what's correct, Nihangs running around being persecuted or being caretakers of Akal Takht?

Then when I wrote about the Nihangs being kicked out of Akal Takht you wrote-;

The above comments are ridiculous and amount to misinformation.In my opinion people need to read sikh history before making false comments as above.

You are now changing your views because earlier in this thread you stated-;

In my opinion it was british who were controlling akal takhat through their sarb rah that time. If you see after sikhs lost to British there is hardly any mention of akal takhat jathedar.

You then wrote some nonsense about the Nihangs being the most respected in Punjab! What planet are you, please desist for displaying your lack of knowledge on this incident by making stupid comments.

You wrote-;

Nihungs were devoid of caste considerations.

They always had mazhbi sikhs as Nihungs as memebers of their jatha.

If they were custodians at the Akal Takht then why did they not allow the low caste members of Khalsa Biradri to have their offerings accepted at Akal Takht? This was the incident that precipated the takeover of the Akal Takht by the Akalis

Edited October 10, 2009 by tonyhp32

[tonyhp32]

MDS,

Perhaps a recap is needed here-;

Neo wrote about the incident;-

Their all time low was segregating nirmale and udasi from the panth because of few bad apples, and stopping parkash of sri dasam granth at darbar sahib and getting ladies to beat jathedar of budda dal in darbar sahib so they can get him out as its against dharam yudh maryada to raise hand against womens.

I wrote -;

So those dastardly conniving and effeminate Akalis used women to beat up Budha Dal Jathedar knowing that he wouldn't attack women! I am sure there were soormay enough within the Akali Jathas who could have taken care of the Budha Dal Jathedar without the need to have women do the job. According to research, a third of the Akalis were former soldiers who had just fought in the battlefields of the First World War, so there would have no problem with finding volunteers to throw the Budha Dal Jathedar out. Read the life stories of Akalis like Kartar Singh Jhabbar and you might get a better feel for what the Akalis were like.

You presented a quote from a book which stated that ONE Bibi beat up Baba Sahib Singh and even that quote states that she was restrained by two Akalis. How is that the same as Neo's fairy tale about the Akalis using women to beat up Nihangs because apparently the Nihangs would not hit back against women? As for the story anout the beating, we have already had two different versions of what the Nihang Jathedar was saying whilst being hit.

As for you and Shaheediyan's piecemeal and sketchy evidence about Nihangs being custodians of Akal Takht, this does not amount to much. I could post a pic of some Hindu Sadhus outside Akal Takht, does that mean that they were custodians of Akal Takht. As is it there is no concrete evidence that Nihangs were custodians of Akal Takht in 1920 and if they were then the British would have had to have been very lax in their so-called attempt to exterminate the Nihangs. How is that it's open season on Nihangs one day and the next they are sitting pretty in Akal Takht.

Edited October 10, 2009 by tonyhp32

[drawrof]

TonyHP,

In all due fairness, alot happened between 1839 or 1857 and 1920.....The nihangs did go down south and some went to bikaneer (the desert area called 'sri-ganganagar'. I believe the itihaasik gurdwara 'buddha-jor' is there).

I encourage people to delve a bit deeper and think about what else was going on at that time. Post 1839, the namdhari's as a group emerged and if you read their own accounts; they mention that kirpans weren't kept and singhs weren't allowed to wear them. That is a reason for why the kirpan was put on the kanga and that some of the singhs of that carried axes and amrit was prepared by an axe. Interestingly, there are pics of 'nihangs' from the 1860's in places like hyderabad and some I believe in the 1880's in and around punjab.......namdhari's claim that nirmallay and nihangs were bought out by the british....

Nihangs like to carry the grudge against nirmallay for the creation of the nirmal panchayati akhara in patiala and how they were installed as caretakers etc etc. to weaken the panth. Could it have been possible that nihangs and the british had also come to an agreement at one time?.....that being said........just because 2 people come to an agreement does not mean that they see eye to eye.

The point of contention at this point in this thread and many others is less informed by historical fact and more informed by ideological differences. It is interesting how we try to revert to the 'original' to understand the 'truth'......this is a completely different thread which for me is deep-rooted in sikhs being made 'the other'...or at least feeling that they are the other.

We have this tendency to see the world as black and white....well I don't think it ever was and I don't think it will ever be..

[navjot2]

DEAR 'HSD' AKA LSD 'MAJORE HALLACUNIATORY STATE' HEAD

"hindu dogras had destroyed 'sikh rule' and the next logical step was to target the sikh community."

'next logical step'? see what i mean about paranoia. the Dogra brothers clearly sold out panjab for material gain and not for the good or benefit of hindus (whatbenefit did hindus get?) yu have got some deepset hindu fixation thinking that they have some compulsion to 'destroy' sikhs.

so what was their next step and how did they do? you say the list of threats is endless, but can only name two? Idols in Guruduara were put their by mahants etc and maybe no difference to sikhi education, otherwise how would sikhi still be existing at that stage? as some one mentioned earlier, they were around the interior and not centrally placed. all this proves is that Hindus came there is worship too and control were lax. as for 'hindus worshipping british officers and trying to convince sikhs to do the same' i really dont know what you're on about.

more hindus didnt mean more power, as you could probably see form looking at nawab states etc and power in Indian sense had long cessed meaning any kind of consequence of religious affairs. but you have missed the point. how does end of sikh state effect how sikhs understood and practised religion? sikhi is independant of material affairs.

where is this 'load of hindustani apes' that are hurling abuse at this discussion? can you name them for me please? funny i dont see anyone doing that

[navjot2]

Singh Sabha was not 'sikhs standing up for themselves'. of course thats what theirpedigree want you to believe in retrospect so you respect them as an institution.

whilst other indians- bengal, tamil etc were taking a conservative approach to reviving, protecting and rstoring their language culture and religion what were sabhias doing?

during their time so many historical documents went missing. where was their good intention? they initiated editing sikh historical texts. they mutilated the panjabi language by introducing 'sh' z' sounds etc

Edited October 11, 2009 by navjot2

[Maha Singh]

Singh Sabha was not 'sikhs standing up for themselves'. of course thats what theirpedigree want you to believe in retrospect so you respect them as an institution.

whilst other indians- bengal, tamil etc were taking a conservative approach to reviving, protecting and rstoring their language culture and religion what were sabhias doing?

during their time so many historical documents went missing. where was their good intention? they initiated editing sikh historical texts. they mutilated the panjabi language by introducing 'sh' z' sounds etc

Where not Sh and other "pehreh bindi" words introduced to the Gurmukhi Alphabet by Guru Gobind Singh?

[shaheediyan]

"Could it have been possible that nihangs and the british had also come to an agreement at one time?"

Drawof you lost me here bro, could you expand..

[singh2]

Singh2,

Learn to make constructive comments and not bukwas. Earlier you wrote-;

And now-;

So what's correct, Nihangs running around being persecuted or being caretakers of Akal Takht?

Tony

During sikh rule nihungs were in control of darbar sahib complex. That means they had a sizable number of armed guards in hundreds.

This is testified by foreign travellers.When British took over in the first few years Nihungs were a persecuted lot as many

of them had not laid down their weapons. They were chased by British and many of them left Punjab.

This nowhere means that they had been dispossessed of control of Akal takhat. Akal takhat remained with them. You need to grow up

and shed your childish self created fantasies laced with hatred towards nihung Sikhs i.e. guru kian ladlian fauja.

You then wrote some nonsense about the Nihangs being the most respected in Punjab! What planet are you, please desist for displaying your lack of knowledge on this incident by making stupid comments.

You do not even know who are nihungs in Punjab. Have you ever heard of Nihung Baba Bidhi chand dal and Nihung jatha Harianvela wale. Sikhs always pay utmost respect to them. Read their role during operation blue star before writing hate filled posts here.

If they were custodians at the Akal Takht then why did they not allow the low caste members of Khalsa Biradri to have their offerings accepted at Akal Takht? This was the incident that precipated the takeover of the Akal Takht by the Akalis

This shows your ignorance about state of affairs in reality. Nihungs were not in control of Harmandir sahib. karah parsad is offered at Harmandir sahib. They were in control of akal takhat. beofre writing your rubbish here go to akal takhat and see the archives. Stop writing nonsense that has no basis.If you come in january i will be in Amritsar and i will show you the archives of akal takhat sahib history.

Edited October 11, 2009 by singh2

[singh2]

Could it have been possible that nihangs and the british had also come to an agreement at one time?"

Nihungs were straightforward people unknown to politics. They did not strike any deal with british. They were weakened

that led to them being a sect with very little importance during British rule.

[tonyhp32]

Singh2,

Instead of offering to show me around the Akal Takht archives why don't you actually take time out to study there and gain some knowledge. You didn't even know of the incident of the Nihangs and now you claim to be able to acccess Akal Takht records! FYI the Khalsa Biradri also went to Akal Takht to get their offerings accepted and the Pujaris could not be found there and when summoned from their homes refused to come and accept the low castes' offerings.

[singh2]

Singh2,

Instead of offering to show me around the Akal Takht archives why don't you actually take time out to study there and gain some knowledge. You didn't even know of the incident of the Nihangs and now you claim to be able to acccess Akal Takht records! FYI the Khalsa Biradri also went to Akal Takht to get their offerings accepted and the Pujaris could not be found there and when summoned from their homes refused to come and accept the low castes' offerings.

Tony

you need to know that pujaris were different than Nihungs. Pujaris were mahants and were those who were taking care of administration of harmandir sahib. Nihungs were in control of akal takhat. It is sheer ignorance to mix them up.There are two independent institutions in one complex. Amritsar is my home place. I go there every three to four years and know people incharge there.

Edited October 12, 2009 by singh2

[HSD1]

so what was their next step and how did they do? you say the list of threats is endless, but can only name two? Idols in Guruduara were put their by mahants etc and maybe no difference to sikhi education, otherwise how would sikhi still be existing at that stage? as some one mentioned earlier, they were around the interior and not centrally placed. all this proves is that Hindus came there is worship too and control were lax. as for 'hindus worshipping british officers and trying to convince sikhs to do the same' i really dont know what you're on about.

Changes dont happen overnight. Installing idols would not make sikhs forget who they were, but if left there over time would become more accepted over generations until the idols and SGGS Ji were considered the same. Luckily they were removed. As for not knowing about the hindu cults set up after the anglo-sikh wars, you're just showing your ignorance again.

more hindus didnt mean more power, as you could probably see form looking at nawab states etc and power in Indian sense had long cessed meaning any kind of consequence of religious affairs. but you have missed the point. how does end of sikh state effect how sikhs understood and practised religion? sikhi is independant of material affairs.

Do you really believe state and religion are seperate? Was the Khalsa meant to be a state of bliss rather than a nation? Sikhi is not some hindu mumbo jumbo, sikhi involves the real world and as sikhs of our gurus we are expected to be part of it.

where is this 'load of hindustani apes' that are hurling abuse at this discussion? can you name them for me please? funny i dont see anyone doing that

Well you can count yourself as one.

[singh2]

they initiated editing sikh historical texts

Can you name those texts that were edited. Need to remember that singh sabha movement was over by first decade of 1900s.

[tonyhp32]

Tony

you need to know that pujaris were different than Nihungs. Pujaris were mahants and were those who were taking care of administration of harmandir sahib. Nihungs were in control of akal takhat. It is sheer ignorance to mix them up.There are two independent institutions in one complex. Amritsar is my home place. I go there every three to four years and know people incharge there.

Singh2,

For someone who claims about the ignorance of others, you sure are ignorant than most. The Akal Takht also had Pujaris to take part in the various duties of worship there. It is clear from the eyewitness reports of the events of the Khalsa Biradri that they first went to Harmandir Sahib and then to Akal Takht. There were no Nihangs in Akal Takht acting as 'custodians' because that is a figment of your ignorant mind. Arur Singh was the manager of the complex (sarbrah) appointed by the British and had overall charge of both Harmandir Sahib and Akal Takht as well as the shrine at Tarn Taran. The fact that he was in charge of the whole complex is proved by contemporary accusations against him in the Sikh newspapers alleging that he was taking away various pieces of jewellery and precious stones and gifting them to British officers. Now if part of the complex in the form of Akal Takht was under heavily armed Nihangs, is it likely that they would have stood by and allow the treasures of the Toshakhana to be stolen and given to British officers? Arur Singh was sarbrah from c1907 to 1920. Would the Nihang custodians also have allowed Arur Singh to honour General Dyer at Durbar Sahib? The 1887 hukamnama from Akal Takht excommunicating Prof. Gurmukh Singh proves that even at that time there was no such thing as Nihang custodians of Akal Takht. The persons who signed the Hukamnama address themselves as Ahudedar, Granthian wa Pujarian - Office bearers, Granthis and Pujaris. None of them address themselves as Akali Nihang etc etc or Jathedar. However the 1913 Hukamnama from Hazur Sahib instructing Amritdhari Sikhs not to wear a Kirpan of less than one foot is signed Nihang Granthi, Granthi, Rasaldar wa Sarbrah, vakil Gurdwara, Dhupiey, Pujari and Master. There is no dispute over the fact that the Nihangs were in charge at Hazur Sahib at that time.

Btw by a happy coincidence, today is the 89th anniversary of the takeover of the Durbar Sahib and Akal Takht by the Akalis.

Edited October 12, 2009 by tonyhp32

[navjot2]

Where not Sh and other "pehreh bindi" words introduced to the Gurmukhi Alphabet by Guru Gobind Singh?

no.

who told you that?

Singh Sabha introduced them so that they could use their Urdu vocab in Gurmukhi script. The British state schools were Urdu medium schools.

[navjot2]

Changes dont happen overnight. Installing idols would not make sikhs forget who they were, but if left there over time would become more accepted over generations until the idols and SGGS Ji were considered the same. Luckily they were removed. As for not knowing about the hindu cults set up after the anglo-sikh wars, you're just showing your ignorance again.

Do you really believe state and religion are seperate? Was the Khalsa meant to be a state of bliss rather than a nation? Sikhi is not some hindu mumbo jumbo, sikhi involves the real world and as sikhs of our gurus we are expected to be part of it.

Well you can count yourself as one.

HSD,

how could sikhs forget 'who they are' (whatever that means in your stupid mind) in presence of SGGS? Probably you cannot even read Gurbani hence how insecure and idiotic you are. how is a person who reads SGGS gong to go astray? I can tell you how, when some 'profs' start educating people that they shouldnt take SGGS 'literally' but need a 'scholar' to 'interpret' for them...

you're just a coward, hence the hysterics. fear is the problem among sikhs that was calculated into them by Singh Sabhas.

divide and conquer games.

yes state and religion are seperate. Trying to reduce Khalsa to some socio-political entity is the legacy of Sabhias. As is the myth of unified 'Khalsa raaj' (panjab before the british was neither unified nor a Khalsa raaj).

The idea of 'scocio political identity' is another Macaulifism that you have lapped up via sikhlions.com or whatever site you schooled yourself.

Edited October 13, 2009 by navjot2

[navjot2]

Singh Sabha= ideological movement, NOT religious movement

[navjot2]

Can you name those texts that were edited. Need to remember that singh sabha movement was over by first decade of 1900s.

Any and every Sikh historical text you can think of

pad ched of SGGS is obvious, But you try getting you hands on a published copy of ANY sikh historical text/account, published in India, and you see how heavily edited it is (not that they will explicitly state as much). That is the small amount they even bothered to release to public.

McLeod had the obvious idea of publishing a book of translated rehits (but he didnt edit them- he gave them as they were). Now will you find any a sikh history book from panjab/india that is anything near as simple?

Singh Sabha as an ideology carries on to this day.

Edited October 13, 2009 by navjot2

[Matheen]

no.

who told you that?

The oldest birs of Sri Dasam Granth Sahib Ji have 'pehrey bindi' letters.

[singh2]

Singh2,

For someone who claims about the ignorance of others, you sure are ignorant than most. The Akal Takht also had Pujaris to take part in the various duties of worship there. It is clear from the eyewitness reports of the events of the Khalsa Biradri that they first went to Harmandir Sahib and then to Akal Takht. There were no Nihangs in Akal Takht acting as 'custodians' because that is a figment of your ignorant mind. Arur Singh was the manager of the complex (sarbrah) appointed by the British and had overall charge of both Harmandir Sahib and Akal Takht as well as the shrine at Tarn Taran. The fact that he was in charge of the whole complex is proved by contemporary accusations against him in the Sikh newspapers alleging that he was taking away various pieces of jewellery and precious stones and gifting them to British officers. Now if part of the complex in the form of Akal Takht was under heavily armed Nihangs, is it likely that they would have stood by and allow the treasures of the Toshakhana to be stolen and given to British officers? Arur Singh was sarbrah from c1907 to 1920. Would the Nihang custodians also have allowed Arur Singh to honour General Dyer at Durbar Sahib? The 1887 hukamnama from Akal Takht excommunicating Prof. Gurmukh Singh proves that even at that time there was no such thing as Nihang custodians of Akal Takht. The persons who signed the Hukamnama address themselves as Ahudedar, Granthian wa Pujarian - Office bearers, Granthis and Pujaris. None of them address themselves as Akali Nihang etc etc or Jathedar. However the 1913 Hukamnama from Hazur Sahib instructing Amritdhari Sikhs not to wear a Kirpan of less than one foot is signed Nihang Granthi, Granthi, Rasaldar wa Sarbrah, vakil Gurdwara, Dhupiey, Pujari and Master. There is no dispute over the fact that the Nihangs were in charge at Hazur Sahib at that time.

Btw by a happy coincidence, today is the 89th anniversary of the takeover of the Durbar Sahib and Akal Takht by the Akalis.

Tony

sarabrah was looking after affairs of harmanidr sahib.Nihungs at Akal takhat sahib were carrying their traditional weapons and not heavily armed as alleged by you. You expect nihungs to be without weapons? They are not Nihungs if they do not have their traditional weapons.They always carry their traditional weapons.They are allowed by law of land for that. Instead of beating about the bush Give us reference showing that there were no Nihungs at akal takhat sahib in 1920.You have been provided refrence of presence of nihungs at akal takhat sahib. rebut those by giving quotes with links.

http://www.budhadal.com/history2.htm

Since 1925, no more jathdar of Budha Dal became the Jathdar of Akal Takhat as SGPC took over the control of Akal Takhat.

Edited October 13, 2009 by singh2

[shaheediyan]

.

Edited October 13, 2009 by shaheediyan

[HSD1]

how could sikhs forget 'who they are' (whatever that means in your stupid mind) in presence of SGGS? Probably you cannot even read Gurbani hence how insecure and idiotic you are. how is a person who reads SGGS gong to go astray? I can tell you how, when some 'profs' start educating people that they shouldnt take SGGS 'literally' but need a 'scholar' to 'interpret' for them...

If you actually read what I said, I never said that sikhs would forget who they are if idols were installed in gurudwaras. At least read my post #113 properly rather than insinuating in such a retarded fashion. I can read gurbani very well, and I act on what I learn, unlike you who stoops to such a low level yet still pretends to know it all. Unfortunately for you your ignorance and insanity still shine through.

As for 'reading' Gurbani, we all know that an idiot who reads Gurbani is likely to be stupid enough to get it wrong. All you need to do is go on a hindu or muslim forum, or youtube, to see how many of those faiths' respective followers twist Gurbani. As for taking Gurbani literally, the SGGS Ji is not a literal book in the same sense as the koran or bible. Have you seen sugar cane scream in agony when it's boiled? Have you seen fire in a pregnant woman's womb? Have you been to a funeral where death used a club to smash someone's face in? You really have no idea what your on about. What a fool.

no.

who told you that?

Singh Sabha introduced them so that they could use their Urdu vocab in Gurmukhi script. The British state schools were Urdu medium schools.

Have you stopped crying yet? By the sounds of it you think Singh Sabha were a bunch of devils. We can all see that you blame them for sikhi not being how you personally want it to be, so stop making up rubbish to match whatever agenda you have.

you're just a coward, hence the hysterics. fear is the problem among sikhs that was calculated into them by Singh Sabhas.

divide and conquer games.

LOL! Your the hysterical one. How am I coward? At least say it to my face if you want to make such accusations. As for your 'divide and conquer games' and 'fear', I am sorry to tell you that you cant blame everything on what the british did. They certainly had a hand, but Singh Sabha was a genuine reaction to the situation the panth found itself in back then.

yes state and religion are seperate. Trying to reduce Khalsa to some socio-political entity is the legacy of Sabhias. As is the myth of unified 'Khalsa raaj' (panjab before the british was neither unified nor a Khalsa raaj).

So what is 'hindustan'? Or an islamic republic? Or a christian country? Just because you need to lie to justify your petty beliefs does not make what you say true. Secondly who said Khalsa Raj = Punjab? No one. Face it you snivelling hindu buttmunch, the Sikh Empire was a sign of how we sikhs made a name for ourselves in this world with out the scummy indians. And that's what unsettles you so much that you have to go on so much in order to stamp out any belief in sikh identity. So keep on crying because it's going to happen again. Next time we'll make sure india wont threaten us again.

The idea of 'scocio political identity' is another Macaulifism that you have lapped up via sikhlions.com or whatever site you schooled yourself.

Never been on that site. What is it with people like you crying about Macauliffe all the time? Seriously change the record. Just because sikhi doesnt fit in with you hindu-centric rubbish doesnt mean we have to change. If you dont like it, go back to gujerat or whatever slum you crawled out of.

Any and every Sikh historical text you can think of

pad ched of SGGS is obvious, But you try getting you hands on a published copy of ANY sikh historical text/account, published in India, and you see how heavily edited it is (not that they will explicitly state as much). That is the small amount they even bothered to release to public.

McLeod had the obvious idea of publishing a book of translated rehits (but he didnt edit them- he gave them as they were). Now will you find any a sikh history book from panjab/india that is anything near as simple?

Singh Sabha as an ideology carries on to this day.

More conspiracy mumbo-jumbo. You moan at us for going on about hindus, yet you are a lot worse blaming everything on singh sabha (which stopped a century ago) or sikhs in general.

[tonyhp32]

Sarbrah was the manager appointed by the British to look after the whole complex and not just Harmandir Sahib. The whole complex was under a Sarbrah since the times of Maharaja Ranjit Singh who first appointed Desa Singh Majithia and then his son Lehna Singh Majithia. Part of the British justification in having a role in the selection of the Sarbrah was that they were continuing the tradition of the ruler appointing the Sarbrah from the days of Ranjit Singh. After Lehna Singh, the British appointed Jodh Singh. As Sarbrah his control was total and powers included being able to fine the Pujaris for misconduct as well as exclude them from the precincts for upto six months. The dastur-ul-amal of 1859, an administration paper was agreed between Lehna Singh, Jodh Singh and other sirdars clearly treats the whole complex as one classing the superiority of the Pujaris into three grades and then the rebabis, ragis and others. It is interesting that this paper does not even mention the Nihangs let alone grant them any status amongst the Pujaris and others.

I would be wary of the claim of the budhadal site that those jathedars of Budha Dal were 'sworn' in as Akal Takht Jathedars. There are even doubts that the Budha Dal of today has any connected to the Dal founded in the eighteenth century.

Edited October 13, 2009 by tonyhp32

[shaheediyan]

"There are even doubts that the Budha Dal of today has any connected to the Dal founded in the eighteenth century."

Thats the most stupid comment I have read in this whole thread. I supposed Baba Santa Singh invented all his arth of Sri Dasam Granth Sahib, Sri Sarbloh Granth Sahib and puratan ithihaas.

Seriously, have you ever even spent a day with Dal Panth/at a chhawnee? If you had done, you would know from thier treasure of knowlegde, puratan rehits, extreme seva and Nitnem, that this was not some reinvented Sikhi like your Neophyte Singh Sabiya heroes.

What is it with you and your hate for Nihangs and Muslims? Your above ignorant comment clearly shows that this thread has run its course.

Thanks for the entertainment.