Britishers Editing Sikh Texts

[SURYADEV]

Many times people have claimed that the British have been involved in changing or editing historical liturature written by Sikhs systematically,in order to weaken the Sikh community.

Knowing that the British were avid record-keepers and have kept many original documents, letters, written communiques, orders, legislation etc. Wouldn't it be reasonable to have found these papers kept in British archives by now,which detail how the British tried to undermine the Sikhs via their scriptures/texts etc.?

Or is it the case that most of these changes were made by 'sikhs' themselves, such as the olden day version of Bahsuarias or Kala Afghanas; but rahter than face the facts that sikhs could be so devious and manmati the kaum decided to just blame anyone who they didn't like at the time ie. the colonial British?

[Maha Singh]

Lets not also forget those scheming Brahmins

"I would have got away with it if it wasnt for those pesky kids!"

[dalsingh101]

I think the British were more into introducing rumours. Like they had been prophesised to conquer Panjab by Guru Tegh Bahadhur. Like our Guru's were ever into the crystal ball gazing business like this.

If anything, after 'annexation' they pushed a sort of Protestant version of Sikhi and altered the Amrit ceremony to include a vow of loyalty to the British monarchy. This last thing changed the amrit sanskar ceremony from a confirmation of adherence to the spiritual practices of Sikhi and loyalty to independent Sikh political aspirations to one which subverted the religious impulse for the obvious advantage to the colonial agenda of the Anglo-Saxons and their supporting minions.

[navjot2]

too easy to blame the british

anyway interesting note:

one thing i ws reading on another thread was someone trying to be snide at poster Harjas Kaur was calling her 'Harjas Devi'. what the person didnt realise is that use of name 'Kaur' for women is a Singh Sabha invention. however see how sly their propaganda and manipulation is that 99% of sikhs are unaware of this, thinking that this tradition is from Guru Gobind Singh. innocent sikh panth duped after trusting so called leaders.

[dalsingh101]

Singh Sabha's just navigated the panth at a very complicated, uncertain and rapidly changing time. They made mistakes for sure, but a lot of what they did was good.

Just castigating them for everything is plain rubbish. Would you say Kahn Singh Nabha's work is a load of bull?! Yes they got a bit over zealous but the rapid changes they had to deal with was no picnic.

They did seem to bum lick goray a bit much at times though.

Edited January 2, 2010 by dalsingh101

[Matheen]

what the person didnt realise is that use of name 'Kaur' for women is a Singh Sabha invention.

Please, do some honest research. I guess Mata Bhag Kaur was a Singh Sabha invention as well, as well as the old rehitnamas that say Amritdhari bibiyan should take the name 'Kaur'? What about my great grand parents who left India before Singh Sabha or SGPC was dreamt up - guess the Singh Sabha has inside people to manipulate records around the world.

[shaheediyan]

"as well as the old rehitnamas that say Amritdhari bibiyan should take the name 'Kaur'?"

Matheen, kindly provide a reference for these.

Thanks.

[dalsingh101]

Please, do some honest research. I guess Mata Bhag Kaur was a Singh Sabha invention as well, as well as the old rehitnamas that say Amritdhari bibiyan should take the name 'Kaur'? What about my great grand parents who left India before Singh Sabha or SGPC was dreamt up - guess the Singh Sabha has inside people to manipulate records around the world.

Singh Sabha's had a reach well beyond Panjab Matheen. They were very popular with the colonial soldiers, and their ideas were generally taken on board. No doubt the British support for Singh Sabhaians played a part in this also. They had good communication with the pockets of Sikhs who had left the Panjab under service. There is a case for the 'Devi' surname for girls. I don't know how strong it is though. Thing is, most rehatnamas concentrate on Amrit Sanskar for blokes. They don't mention jananis. Plus we have learnt that pretty soon after its introduction, variations of the procedure became apparent with different jathas.

Edited January 3, 2010 by dalsingh101

[navjot2]

Matheen

there was a really nice poster at Sikhnet discussion site, Serjinder Singh, who was very well read. infact he was the best thing about that board. he posts were always clearly delineated and he was very respectful yet clear about his personal views. i learned fascinating stuff from his posts. here are two ludicly explained posts:

http://fateh.sikhnet.com/sikhnet/discussion.nsf/78f5a2ff8906d1788725657c00732d6c/FAEA7813A656537787256D670058810F!OpenDocument

http://fateh.sikhnet.com/sikhnet/discussion.nsf/78f5a2ff8906d1788725657c00732d6c/8E5441153A999EA687256D6500610BF7!OpenDocument

was he wrong? please enlighten me.

please show me the 'honest research' you have, e.g. old rehitnamas. please tell us more baout your great grand parents. were they born before 1850? have you seen their birth certificate?

[Matheen]

navjot2 ji: I have no doubt that Mata Sahib Devan Ji is correct. I was referring to the claim that 'Kaur' was introduced by the Singh Sabha.

The Rehats of Sampardas who dislike the SGPC e.g. the Budha Dal state that male Amritdharis are to have the name 'Singh' and female Amritdharis are to take the name 'Kaur'. All puratan sampardas state the same, and they cannot be accused of following any SGPC or Singh Sabha directive.

Also, have you ever seen Rani Jindan's signature? Other pre 1800s Sikh women documented to have used 'Kaur' are: Bibi Dalair Kaur,Bibi Rajindar Kaur, Bibi Sahib Kaur.

Suffice to say my great grandparents left India before the Singh Sabha was formally set up. Our family tree shows even older generations had Kaur in their names (the Sikh branches at least, lol).

So, I don't doubt that 'Devi' was a common name, but to state that 'Kaur' was a Singh Sabha invention is clearly wrong.

Guru Rakha.

[amardeep]

In prem sumarag granth it is said that female amritdharis should add devi to their name

has'nt kaur been used for thousands of years among hindu kshatriya rajputs?

[SURYADEV]

In prem sumarag granth it is said that female amritdharis should add devi to their name

has'nt kaur been used for thousands of years among hindu kshatriya rajputs?

I remember reading this as well. Also KAUR was a male name meaning PRINCE, not princess.

[shaheediyan]

That's correct, Kaur traditionally means Prince.

Would be interesting to know when the use of Kaur kicked in. I would just like to say, people shouldn't get exited by these sorts of findings, there is such a thing as natural progression/evolution of culture, which affects all groups... also, using traditional sampryada as evidence of puratan maryada/rvaaj does not work in all cases, although it most definately does in some... even the sampryada were influenced by common themes at one point or another - a good example is the Sikh wedding, which Bhai Daya Singh Nirankari was said to have revised to be taken around Aad Guru (although Guru Ramdas Ji's Raag Suhi has always been recited according to ithihaas).

[Mithar]

I don't remember which rehitnama it is, but I clearly remember reading from a puraatan rehitnama that says a Sikh woman should have "kaur" with her name. I will try to find it.

[tonyhp32]

Rajput women use the surname Kanwar which also means Prince and seems to an older or more formal version of the name Kaur. Shaheediyan makes a big admission here that the Sampardha traditions cannot be relied on fully on all things! But the whole idea of sanatan Sikhi is that they have kept Sikhism pristine whilst the Singh Sabha is supposed to have added and deleted many elements which wasn't in Sikhi originally! Could it be that just as the sanatans believe the Singh Sabha were influenced by the British then the sanatans were also heavily influenced by the Hindu culture around them?

[Bundha]

Look at the signatures of Rani Jindan and see how she writes her name, this was before Singh Sabha, case closed.

It has never been an issue whether Singh or Kaur existed before the Khalsa, they did. Rajputs used it and to this day they do. All Sikhs are Singh/Kaur , not all Singh/Kaurs are sikhs. Guru Ji specifically chose these names - Singh / Kaur for the Khalsa because of their royal connotations and the psychological boost they give to the receipient.

You prove that Kaur is a creation of singh Sabah, we have given enough proof otherwise.

[dalsingh101]

Could it be that just as the sanatans believe the Singh Sabha were influenced by the British then the sanatans were also heavily influenced by the Hindu culture around them?

I think there is a strong possibility this is correct myself. Thing with sabhians is that they codified and attempted to 'centralise' Sikh belief which had become quite varied by the end of the 1800s. That impulse to standardise forms the bulk of their western influence. Some protestant puritanism may have also crept in through playing down the more savoury aspects of the Khalsa i.e bhang and booze and an understandably aggressive stance towards enemies.

What we have to do is try and fathom if dasmesh pita really imagined Sikhi to be the plural form espoused by the sanatanists? Would he have considered sacrifices, god and goddess worship and Vedantic leanings as being acceptable for the Khalsa? If sanatanist are saying yes, then are they not essentially saying dasmesh pita altered the nature of Sikhi revealed by the previous jots? Our Gurus in the SGGS ji clearly and without ambiguity say that all worship apart from that of Akal Purakh is worthless.

Anyway I digress, my point is that the solidifying of the use of Kaur as a norm may be the result of the firm conviction the sabhians had in standardising Sikh practice. It was a central concern of theirs. No one is saying that some Sikh women weren't named Kaur and indeed Devi prior to Singh Sabhas, just that they made using the name Kaur a normative practice.

Edited January 4, 2010 by dalsingh101

[Free Radical]

Rajput women use the surname Kanwar which also means Prince and seems to an older or more formal version of the name Kaur. Shaheediyan makes a big admission here that the Sampardha traditions cannot be relied on fully on all things! But the whole idea of sanatan Sikhi is that they have kept Sikhism pristine whilst the Singh Sabha is supposed to have added and deleted many elements which wasn't in Sikhi originally! Could it be that just as the sanatans believe the Singh Sabha were influenced by the British then the sanatans were also heavily influenced by the Hindu culture around them?

Excellent, a very valid point.

[Free Radical]

I think there is a strong possibility this is correct myself. Thing with sabhians is that they codified and attempted to 'centralise' Sikh belief which had become quite varied by the end of the 1800s. That impulse to standardise forms the bulk of their western influence. Some protestant puritanism may have also crept in through playing down the more savoury aspects of the Khalsa i.e bhang and booze and an understandably aggressive stance towards enemies.

What we have to do is try and fathom if dasmesh pita really imagined Sikhi to be the plural form espoused by the sanatanists? Would he have considered sacrifices, god and goddess worship and Vedantic leanings as being acceptable for the Khalsa? If sanatanist are saying yes, then are they not essentially saying dasmesh pita altered the nature of Sikhi revealed by the previous jots? Our Gurus in the SGGS ji clearly and without ambiguity say that all worship apart from that of Akal Purakh is worthless.

Anyway I digress, my point is that the solidifying of the use of Kaur as a norm may be the result of the firm conviction the sabhians had in standardising Sikh practice. It was a central concern of theirs. No one is saying that some Sikh women weren't named Kaur and indeed Devi prior to Singh Sabhas, just that they made using the name Kaur a normative practice.

You have nailed it. All worship apart from that of the Ek-Oankar is indeed worthless.

[tonyhp32]

I think there is a strong possibility this is correct myself. Thing with sabhians is that they codified and attempted to 'centralise' Sikh belief which had become quite varied by the end of the 1800s. That impulse to standardise forms the bulk of their western influence. Some protestant puritanism may have also crept in through playing down the more savoury aspects of the Khalsa i.e bhang and booze and an understandably aggressive stance towards enemies.

What we have to do is try and fathom if dasmesh pita really imagined Sikhi to be the plural form espoused by the sanatanists? Would he have considered sacrifices, god and goddess worship and Vedantic leanings as being acceptable for the Khalsa? If sanatanist are saying yes, then are they not essentially saying dasmesh pita altered the nature of Sikhi revealed by the previous jots? Our Gurus in the SGGS ji clearly and without ambiguity say that all worship apart from that of Akal Purakh is worthless.

Anyway I digress, my point is that the solidifying of the use of Kaur as a norm may be the result of the firm conviction the sabhians had in standardising Sikh practice. It was a central concern of theirs. No one is saying that some Sikh women weren't named Kaur and indeed Devi prior to Singh Sabhas, just that they made using the name Kaur a normative practice.

The key issue here is whether any of the practices and beliefs that the Singh Sabha brought about was against the teachings of the Gurus. The Sanatanists may bring up something alluded to in a text written pre-1849 but unless that belief is in line with Gurbani then it is irrevalent whether the Sikhs of that period took part in it. This was the Singh Sabha position. I remember reading somewhere a statement by one of the Sanatanists that if you want to know what Sikhi would have been like if the British had never conquered Punjab then one should see the rites and rituals that take place at Sachkhand Hazur Sahib. That is a tall claim and assumes that a small band of Nihangs were able to maintain their traditions unaffected by the general Hindu influence around them. The other assumption is that prior to the British annexation there was no impulse toward reforms and revival. This is obviously untrue as the first major reform movement was the Nirankari movement which started a decade before the annexation and which was as far removed as one could be from the British Satluj frontier. The Nirankaris are relevant to this discussion as they started with the express aim to remove the accretions of Hinduism on Sikhism.

[shaheediyan]

Tony, you over simplify the debate.

I am not sure what you mean by 'Hindu' practices, because many 'Hindu' practices were utilised by Guru Sahiban - some being Shastar Pooja, use of Raag Kirtan, Simran, Seva etc etc. These practices have not been preserved by Singh Sahibans but by Sampryadas i.e. Namdhari, Nihang, Nirmalai, Seva Panthis etc.

Regarding worship of 'Ek', all Sampryadic movements adhere to this in any case.

But I do admit, that 'some' practices may have affected even the sampryadic groups, but we should not throw the baby out with the bath water, nor be Hinduphobic - we need to khoj our ithihaas and early literature i.e. that presented to the English world by Veer Tirath Singh to establish what the earliest Khalsa practices were. We also need to look at traditional interpretations of Gurbani where ever possible, as Gurbani is interpreted and twisted to suit ones beliefs in the modern day, good example being Darshan followers like Khalsa Fauj.

[dalsingh101]

Shaheediyan just a few quick points before I fly out:

How does showing respect to weapons, and elevating them constitute the 'worship' of weapons. Is the failure to grasp this nuance leading to people concluding we 'worship' weapons per se? What definition of worship are we using here?

Also you are failing to acknowledge the potential for 'accretions' (as Tony aptly put it) in the practices of the people you now perceive to be the custodians of pure or tat Khalsa practices. As far as I understand the Nirmala interpretation stems from the vichaar of Sikhs sent to Benares by dasmesh pita for a long period of time so that they could conduct exegesis using the vedantic framework, presumably to educated Hindus. It would not be impossible for them to make errors themselves and being exposed to the type of vichaar they were for a prolonged period, it seems pretty inconceivable that they themselves would not be influenced by it, and this is likely to inform their perspective of Sikhi. They were mere mortals after all. As a side note, I just read about the apparent animosity between Nirmalas and the descendants of the Buddha Dal Nihungs in Niddar's book, over the 5 kakkars of all things! So it is false to say that sanatanists are the all embracing bunch others make them out to be.

Plus the thing with some santanists is that although, yes they worship 'Ek', they also seem to promiscuiously worship other deities (like Chandhi) and justify this as worshipping 'Ek' in some other manifestation. Is this a clever slight of hand? The question is whether this is acceptable in light of the teachings of the Gurus?

Edited January 5, 2010 by dalsingh101

[navjot2]

is Rani Jindan did write 'Kaur' in her name (not that i know if she did) thats probably because she was an actual princess. that doesnt prove anything.

I have read so many references to Hindu Rajputs but not heard of a single one with 'Kaur' is her name

[navjot2]

This 'singh sabha vs sanatan' divide is itself Singh Sabha conjecture. why do you assume that non-'Singh Sabha' people must be Sanatan dharmists?

[navjot2]

Matheen

rehits themselves are not stable, so citing a modern rehit isnt convincing. e.g. someone brought up the example of how all sikhs now use circambulation around SGGS rather than aag (fire) as how one 'evolution' in a single panth can become universal in nearly the whole panth. can you point out the old rehits that say women should take name of kaur?

where are these women of sikh history you named cited witht he name Kaur? how do you know it wasnt retrospective changes to their names? The same way

Mata Sahib Devan and Mata Sundari are now refered to with name Kaur also?

thats interesting about your family tree, but when was this tree actually writtend down?