Jump to content

Bhai Vir Singh'S Editing Of Panth Prakash


dalsingh101

Recommended Posts

Which is right? The written accounts of people who lived with and talked to people who went through these episodes, or the modern day version of History which was chopped and changed to suit peoples "beliefs"?

I wanted to discuss such stuff after the translation but....

Anyway, just because the account is closer to the time it covers does not mean that it is guaranteed to be error free. Biases will come in. If you look at what Bhangu says about Banda for example, much is true and verifiable. Some of it seems to be plainly false though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dalsingh, in the same way we will be able to disregard every single part of our history like how Kala Afghanas are doing, judging history and bani according to their own matt.

I agree with you. I'm not one of those that has a mini mental breakdown when encountering some history that goes against ideals. It's not an issue. One of the main reasons for studying history is learning lessons from it. So it's no problem.

I know many things happened in our history that doesn't fall inline with the idealised notions some people have of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think important stuff like this would have found some mention in say Gursobha or Sewa Das's parchian. They are contemporary or near contemporary to 1699.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the original hand written panth prakash written by Bhangoo still available? If it is, then both the published version and the hand written version should be cross examined to see how much or how different both of them are. The original Panth Prakash was published in British India while they were still in the process in conquering India. So there is always a chance that the British may have tampered with the original in order to cause confusion amongst the Sikhs. Statements like Guru Gobind Singh Jee sacrificing his Sahibzadas to Chandi seems like a British Sharaarat to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the original hand written panth prakash written by Bhangoo still available? If it is, then both the published version and the hand written version should be cross examined to see how much or how different both of them are. The original Panth Prakash was published in British India while they were still in the process in conquering India. So there is always a chance that the British may have tampered with the original in order to cause confusion amongst the Sikhs. Statements like Guru Gobind Singh Jee sacrificing his Sahibzadas to Chandi seems like a British Sharaarat to me.

I don't think the actual original manuscript by Bhangu is extant.

Apparently the first time Guru ji is mentioned as approaching Chandi for assistance is in Kesar Singh Chibber's work Bansavalinama dating to the middle of the 1700s (it was completed in 1769). Sixty years after Guru ji's physical passing. I don't think it is mentioned before that. The account is similar to the one outlined above so it could be that Bhangu was relaying information from that source that he had heard?

J.S.Grewal thinks that the Chandi story may have been introduced by Chibber to underscore the importance of Brahmins (he was from that background), in that the Khalsa or Dasmesh pita is dependent on them for evoking Chandi. So only they are able to bring about success for Sikhs. This obviously elevates them. I know that Brahminical infiltration is almost a cliche in Sikh studies but this may well be a genuine example of possible mischief?

Given the relative scarcity of Sikh literature from that period, any story that was recorded could easily become widely accepted later on. We have to take this into consideration.

Edited by dalsingh101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is right? The written accounts of people who lived with and talked to people who went through these episodes, or the modern day version of History which was chopped and changed to suit peoples "beliefs"?

Suraj Parkash is as old as, if not older than Panth Prakash, yet they contradict each othe on some points. Like Dalsingh said, we can learn from history, including mistakes that were made after Guru Ji's jyoti jyot in 1708, but non-Gurbani sources must be studied critically. There are older Granths than Panth Parkash, like Bhai Jaito Ji's "Sri Gur Katha" - written before 1705, when Bhai Jaito Ji attained Shaheedi. It too contradicts Panth Prakash and parts of Suraj Prakash.

To suggest that Guru Sahib sought the help of Devi by performing a havan is ludicrous, insulting and contradicts Gurbani.

Unless there is a very old manuscript of Panth Prakash available, we'll never know whether it has been edited before. It is still an important text, but what many of our young brothers and sisters forget is that even if things did happen in the past, it doesn't make them right.

Anyway, back to the translation..... :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway guys! Some help with the translation would be nice. Pull your unglees out! lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

here we have an article detailing line by line how vir singh rewrote a text (obviously for ideological reasons)

and how do you people respond? by cliaming 'on british must have tampered with original'. which firstly doesnt make any logical sense anyway (why would they want to unite brahmans and sikhs?), but more importantly isnt even the relevant point

you completely chose to miss the point. this implies to me that you actually agree with vir singhs actions, which is sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

here we have an article detailing line by line how vir singh rewrote a text (obviously for ideological reasons)

and how do you people respond? by cliaming 'on british must have tampered with original'. which firstly doesnt make any logical sense anyway (why would they want to unite brahmans and sikhs?), but more importantly isnt even the relevant point

you completely chose to miss the point. this implies to me that you actually agree with vir singhs actions, which is sad.

Lets be frank. Bhai Vir Singh expunged some material that was dubious and some stuff he just plain didn't like. I've already posted about a likely source of the Chandi legend and a potential motivation for this. The Raja Janak stuff is clearly from the same source as the Bala Janam Sakhis, i.e. the Hindalis who tried to create their own rival movement denigrating the Sikh Guru's in their literature. That is the first place we hear of Baba Nanak's subordination to the rajah.

Other stuff he removed is undefendable i.e. the Bidhi Chand material.

What does SGGS ji tell about homs and havans and ritual sacrifices? I haven't checked it but I doubt they are supported.

BVS was overzealous in my eyes but the often repeated statement that interpolations and misinformation have occurred in Sikh literature doesn't seem to be baseless. That's what I get from this so far.

I don't agree with deliberately misrepresenting literature and feel he could have perhaps used footnotes. Also the thorny issue of the Sikh relationship to Hindus preBritish rule comes up. It shouldn't be a shock to anyone to hear that practices clearly contrary to the ideology/principles enshrined in SGGS ji were current in the panth during the 1800s and possibly earlier. The only people this will be a problem to is those who insist on a 'purist' perfect interpretation of the past. They do this because of the models of Sikh behavior stemming from such interpretations/representations.

So the Singh Sabhias were actually correct in claiming mischief and distortions have taken place whilst Singhs were busy fighting for their freedom and existence in the 1700s. That much is now indisputable in my eyes. The manner in which some of them dealt with this is what is under question here.

How do people think Bhai Vir Singh should of reacted?

Edited by dalsingh101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to post extracts for the time being, just because it's easier: I must say. it's a shame certain talented brothers seem to have taken a step back from assisting the translations effort....Oh well....

Bhai Vir Singhs attitude towards the historical poverty of Sikhs.

Extract from bottom of page 193 to middle of 194 (Starting with Bhai Vir Singh upnee samaj anusar, ending with Ohna da sshrank aachaar..."

In line with his understanding and opinion, Bhai Vir Singh wishes to increase the splendor of the Khalsa. Because of this Sikhs can not be poor nor can they say any such thing that may be considered bad in modern times [?? what does veeveehn mean?]. [in the following section] BVS has removed the word riot and writes battle in its place:

"Satguru keep the panth whole.

For the purpose of battle/riots [former BVS alteration, latter original text].

The Singh panth was created for battle/riots [former BVS alteration, latter original text].

Singhs were born for a union with weapons.

But the Singhs/poor Sikhs [former BVS alteration, latter original text] did not accept this, because they feared the Turks."

Bhai sahib is speaking in the context of a Singh Sabha spokesman, who felt ashamed of the historic poverty of Sikhs. Bhai sahib doesn't seem to grasp that the greatness of Sikhi is in its ability to uplift those from a lower social strata:

"The truly low caste/poor [former BVS alteration, latter original text] belonging to the 12 castes.

Who know nothing of politics.

These poor/poverty stricken ones will give Singhs sovereignity [?].

May they remember my guruship." (4)

From the above it seems as if Bhai sahib is more concerned about poor Sikhs than the poor in general [??].

"How can deerlike/ poor Sikhs like us [former BVS alteration, latter original text] kill the lionlike (Mughals)?"

In this line [the previous] the word poor (gareeb) has been obliterated. Bhai sahib does not like the idea of warrior Sikhs having to beg or use violence to obtain food to eat. Their shraenka [? any ideas what this means] behaviour does not give them permission to do such things.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

(4) This is purportedly Dasmesh pita's bach. It is interesting to note in the English translation by Kulwant Singh this section is significantly extended with a long list of various castes which form the background of the panth (see page 79).

Edited by dalsingh101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sikhchic article on Bhai Vir Singh, whose birthday is being celebrated today.

http://www.sikhchic.com/our_heroes/bhai_vir_singh_the_sixth_river_of_punjab

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Found a manuscript copy digitised by PDL, doesn't have a date unfortunately:

http://www.panjabdigilib.org/webuser/searches/displayPageContent.jsp?ID=2168&page=5&CategoryID=3&Searched=panth+prakash

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not suggesting the British did anything to Panth Prakash myself.

But yes, it is usually described as being written for the British as an explanation of the antecendents of the Sikh raj. Specifically, it is said to be written at the behest of the Ludhiana based Captain David Murrray who was the representative of EIC's Governor General David Ochterlony. It is usually described as a rebuttal to the Moghul accounts of Sikh history provided by Bute Shah, which had been commissioned by Murray at the behest of Ochterlony. No doubt they had their rapacious eye on the Sikh kingdom and were seeking an excuse to attack from the beginning. They seemed to be pushing the thesis that the Sikhs were Moghul subjects who had unjustly taken advatage of the troubles of the 1700s to rebel against the Moghuls. Basically they were looking for excuses to attack, rob and subvert Panjab.

From the text of Kulwant Singh's translation, it seems clear that Bhangu also had a Sikh audience in mind. I would go as far as to say this was his primary audience, not the wasps. I personally feel that Bhangu had another objective when creating the work as well. This was to record the vast amount of oral narratives he had encountered through his family heritage and as a result of his personal curiosity. He was probably intelligent enough to know that this stuff will quickly disappear if he did not record it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if you wanted to be frank you would admit that Vir Singh deceived people. instead you make paragraphs of excuses on his behalf.

you still dont get it do you? it 'sounds dubious' to who? to yourselves?

even this rationale that he did it in the interss of historical accuracy doesnt stand; you can see yoruself where he has edited the text because he didnt like Guru ji describing sikhs as economically poor!

the authors of this artical (and thanks for putting it up) clearly line by line write about what he did. compare this to glib approach of usual sikh books articals where you cannot even find the source material let alone reference to actual lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You talk about deceiving Sikhs, what about all of the people who manipulated them to worship Guggan Pir, Sakhi Sarwar etc. etc. If you think he was wrong to edit derogotory narratives towards Baba Nanak, so be it.

Instead of crying about the Singh Sabha movement, we could try learning from it, both its strengths and weaknesses.

I'm not making any excuses but what I do give Bhai Vir Singh is a sympathetic appraisal. Yes, some things are plain wrong, like the hiding of gareeb Sikhs and overzealousness in hiding perceived non orthodox practices. But he did play a big part in developing the Panjabi language and modern literature.

Recognise his positives as well as his negatives.

PS - We probably wouldn't have known of Panth Prakash had Bhai Vir Singh not popularised it.

Edited by dalsingh101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again- If you think its okay for him to edit it then why is it not okay for others to edit stuff according to their biases? because whatever suits your own bias is ok?

i wasnt aware that people were 'manipulated' into worshipping Pirs etc. yet I also dont see what this has got to do with this discussion? Are you implying that Vir was right to lie about things so that he could 'manipulate' sikhs 'the right way'?

the word 'edit' is wrong anyway. he didnt edit he altered the texts. it seems to me that you are implicitly agreeing with him that history is somethihng that can and should be altered according to ideology, which is actually propaganda not history. why should we call him a historian? vir singh was a propagandist

actually it is you people who cry about brahmans, british, Afghana etc altering stuff when Vir boy does its all chup-chup lets make excuses on his behalf?

The authors of artical have done a very nice service to learn about Singh Sabhas 'weakness' as you euphemistically put it.

That he played a big part in 'develoiping' Panjabi language and modern literature is not only your highly subjective statement but isnt even relevant to the issue at hand. It has nothing to do with sikh history or Singh Sabha. It is like saying 'oh so and so might lie about their research but they write really good one liners'.

and isnt it rubbish to say we wouldnt have heard of panth parkash if he hadnt popularised it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again- If you think its okay for him to edit it then why is it not okay for others to edit stuff according to their biases? because whatever suits your own bias is ok?

Why are you jumping to conclusions? Don't think I am in agreement with what you call BVS's 'biases'. If I was, I wouldn't have posted this article in the first place.

i wasnt aware that people were 'manipulated' into worshipping Pirs etc. yet I also dont see what this has got to do with this discussion? Are you implying that Vir was right to lie about things so that he could 'manipulate' sikhs 'the right way'?

This is how me and you differ. I don't view the actions of the Sabhians in one fell swoop. To me the debate has to be framed in terms of what they did right and what they did wrong. I would agree that what you have mentioned clearly falls in the wrong category. Do you get it? It isn't a simple matter of black and white from what I see. If sabhians did this they also produced Ganda Singh and Kahn Singh Nabha. Besides any appraisal MUST be done in the full context of the times in order to understand properly. One area the sabhians possibly got right was to wean the average pindu Panjabi from certain folk practices. If you read Guru Granth Sahib, its message is one of solely worshipping the one formless God as described in Mool Mantar. That is a core of Sikhi. One of the positives of the SS is that they did much to bring that back to our attention when the average pindu had reverted back to worshipping anything that moved (or didn't) and had a reputation of the miraculous type.

the word 'edit' is wrong anyway. he didnt edit he altered the texts. it seems to me that you are implicitly agreeing with him that history is somethihng that can and should be altered according to ideology, which is actually propaganda not history. why should we call him a historian? vir singh was a propagandist

As someone deeply interested in history, I have to say (and I know I've said it before), from my years of study I have concluded that no such thing as a 'true' history exists. All accounts (ep. the dominant Anglo-Saxon one) is biased in its portrayal and can be considered propaganda by the creators to a greater or lesser extent. I don't agree that this is right and I look forward to a time when a true honest account of history is manifest on the world. I don't consider BVS a historian in any case, that was Ganda Singh's field.

actually it is you people who cry about brahmans, british, Afghana etc altering stuff when Vir boy does its all chup-chup lets make excuses on his behalf?

Who is 'you people'? Does it include me? Show me where I have blindly run rampant with accusations of alterations without evidence or a valid thesis. Yes, I do believe some interpolations have taken place in the past, but not solely through external forces but also through 'Sikhs' themselves who have had their own biases for a variety of reasons. Writers do that. Humans don't seem to be able to separate their subjective views from their works, no matter what they claim. That includes you and me. How am I being chup chaap when I'm the one who brought the subject up? Anyway, to repeat, the Raja Janak story is one from inimical Handali sources, the source is the Bala janam sakhis and the Chandi hom most likely comes from Chibber's work. So yes, interpolation and the incorporation of nonSikh material does and can take place.

That he played a big part in 'develoiping' Panjabi language and modern literature is not only your highly subjective statement but isnt even relevant to the issue at hand. It has nothing to do with sikh history or Singh Sabha. It is like saying 'oh so and so might lie about their research but they write really good one liners'.

Like I said, I believe you have to view things in their totality. Look at the contribution as a whole. His published work is quite extensive and includes the then heavily influential historical fiction genre (which he introduced to the masses), have you not heard of Sundari, Bijai Singh etc.? He did more than one liners dude. By the way, did you purposefully quote a typo of mine above? Bravo, my boy! Bravo! There will be a lot more where that came from!

and isnt it rubbish to say we wouldnt have heard of panth parkash if he hadnt popularised it?

If you are denying that it was he who largely brought works like Suraj Prakash and Panth Prakash to the attention of the Sikh masses by publishing his expunged versions, then you are in denial.

Our thing is revealing itself in its own time. As a community we are growing, reflecting and learning about our past. As we speak, discuss, learn we are evolving in certain areas. Bhai Vir Singh has contributed to that process even if how he dealt with the information he received in his time was not how we would deal with it ourselves now.

Things that have happened in the past and things we may wish to do as a quom in future have to be discussed like family. SS took it apon themselves to be the theological and political leaders at a very complex time of our history, I still think we should avoid reviewing this in blanket terms as you are. There is much to be learnt from the period, and this doesn't exclude the mistakes. And believe you me, I don't view all they have done with rose tinted glasses.

Edited by dalsingh101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...