Britishers Editing Sikh Texts

[shaheediyan]

"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."

Thats hardly enough research to form a conclusion. How about reading up on history pre this and present relations of Sampryadic groups. Also, not sure why you are using the word Sanatanist to group all non-Singh Sabha groups, as Navjot has said above.

You also make a lot of other assumptions i.e. re Guru Gobind Singhs blessing and instructions to the 1st Nirmalay, the knowledge was not just for educated Hindus, it was to be expounded to all, particularly the persecuted shudrai - who had had their traditionally philosophy kept from them for millenia. Moreover, the vidya helped to further expand on subtle Gurmat sidhant - so was also just as much for the Gur-Sikhs.

As an example, see how close Bhai Adhen Shahs lineage is to Guru Tegh Bahadur (via Bhai Khanaya), then its up to whether you are interested in modern 300 year later reinterpretations from Victorian educated Sikhs or from those who lived as and were respected as Sants just after the ascension of Dasmesh Pita and have clear lineage to Maharaj himself.

Before you rush to comment, read some of the puratan literature i.e. Veer Tirath Singhs Jis excellent book. Then you will be able to compare and see this discussion in context.

[navjot2]

Dalsingh

you are confusing your ideological interpretation of sikhi with 'what Dasmesh pita intended'. this is the whole crux of singh sabha.

when you examine Singh Sabha, you find a slyness and deception at work. you see that they made 'Kaur' a normative practise is not the point. The actual point is that they have made all sikhs to believe that this was started by Guru Gobind Singh. this is the deception.

the trend of Singh Sabhaist is based on assertion that Gurbani provides a set ideology, and from this ideology Singh Sabha leaders can add further teachings and guidance of their own and pass them off as if the came from Gurus themselves. this is what i understand anyway.

so modern person decides 'Gurus were scientific, rationale, dneounced all rituals' then can go around purgating sikh history and altering peoples understanding based on their own modern convictions.

[Matheen]

The actual point is that they have made all sikhs to believe that this was started by Guru Gobind Singh. this is the deception.

Do you have any proof to back up your claim that Sikh Amritdhari women in the pre Singh Sabha era didn't keep Kaur as their name? I have given you examples of women who did, even within my family.

Regarding your other points, to suggest that Gurbani would say one thing, and the Guru do another is just wrong.

[navjot2]

Matheen i already answered your questions, above.

Its already widely understood, even here, that we do not find much use of Kaur in this way before 1850-ish after which is became all pervasive. We also do not find it in an early rehit.

We do not find any contemporary or near contemporary sikh female of Guru Gobind Singh holding this title in the manner described.

Edited January 6, 2010 by navjot2

[navjot2]

"regarding your other points, to suggest that Gurbani would say one thing, and the Guru do another is just wrong. "

what are you refering to?

when did i make this claim?

are you confusing what Guru ji says and what people interpret him as saying as one and the same?

Edited January 6, 2010 by navjot2

[dalsingh101]

What would be wrong would be to try and 'use' Gurbani as an ideological text.

Can you explain why you think using the teachings enshrined in SGGS ji as the basis for Sikh 'ideology' is wrong. I guess it depends on your understanding of the meaning of the term ideology?

Here's a few definitions I grabbed off the web:

An orientation that characterizes the thinking of a group or nation.

Doctrine, philosophy, body of beliefs or principles belonging to an individual or group.

An organized system of beliefs, values, and ideas. They form the basis of a political, social, and economic philosophy.

That being said, the charge of consciously representing things to falsely present them as being the ordinance of dasmesh pita is a serious one. Did some sabhians do this? I don't know, but you are right in highlighting this and we should examine the issue.

Edited January 6, 2010 by dalsingh101

[Free Radical]

I was invited to a Akhand Paath at a Gurdwara in Harrow sometime ago and there I met three elderly women, their name ended with Devi, when I asked is Devi your surname, thay said that they were Namdharis, thats where the conversation ended as they left.

[chatanga1]

you are confusing your ideological interpretation of sikhi with 'what Dasmesh pita intended'. this is the whole crux of singh sabha.

the trend of Singh Sabhaist is based on assertion that Gurbani provides a set ideology, and from this ideology Singh Sabha leaders can add further teachings and guidance of their own and pass them off as if the came from Gurus themselves. this is what i understand anyway.

so modern person decides 'Gurus were scientific, rationale, dneounced all rituals' then can go around purgating sikh history and altering peoples understanding based on their own modern convictions.

navjot, why couldnt the gurus give a set idealogy?

is there any point where any of the guru s gave an idealogy that was in contrast to previous gurus?

what would gurmat be if the ideologies of the gurus never conformed to each other?

can you elaborate on what Dashmesh pita intended?

gurus denounced (as far as im aware) that empty rituals are worthless, so what is wrong with saying it?

thanks in advance.

[sanjhk]

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?

sat sri akal

british people wrote whatever information they get at that time and most of the information was given by nirmalas and udasis of that time.

you all get this type of information on internet(books written by british people of that time )

you have to make efforts veerji.

sat sri akal

[HarjasDevi]

gurus denounced (as far as im aware) that empty rituals are worthless, so what is wrong with saying it?

Guru Sahibaan corrected the hypocrisy of the people who would wear religious clothes and perform religious practices without having any guidance of a Satguru and undergo no change at all. The people who memorized Vedas and had book learning but despised lower caste even as the All-Pervading was residing in their lower caste neighbor are in fact hypocrites, as Guru Ji says.

The ERROR is the Tat Khalsa Singh Sabha reform movement, whom British were the patron, distorted Sikh knowledge by defining Hindu religion as being exactly all the criticisms of Guru Sahib. The first error this does is create impression that Sikhs are somehow exempt from Guruji's criticisms because we are not Hindus, as if it were a correction only for Hindus. In reality, everybody as the time was either Hindustani or Turak. Guruji says the religions of all the people are blind. Why? Because only the Satguru has sight. This does not mean that Hindu religion or Islam is false. It means people without guidance have lost their legs.

The ERROR of the Tat Khalsas have DEFINED Hindu religion as BEING "worthless, empty rituals, worship of demi-gods, without mukti, hypocritical and evil religious practices. That is the error. And if Sikhs themselves would take to heart the Gurmat message, it would be to evaluate all the ways in which we are living outside of Guruji's guidance or being our own guides. Do you really think the longest dhari is a sign of holiness and that hasn't become useless ritualism in it's own right? Do you really think those "sinful" shavers and cutters are more evil and less close to God?

You see, what the Tat Khalsa reform movement has done is POLITICIZED the Guru's teachings to make exclusionary and use to condemn own Sikhs rather than guide Sikhs to holiness and closeness with the Guru God. And it doesn't just apply to presumed "evil and superstitious Hindus" but to everybody in own Quam who isn't conforming to the "Tat Khalsa," and not some pretended "Gurmat" ideal.

So now, regardless the condition of a person's heart, if he has kirpan hanging from gatra at all times, it's a mark of holiness. And seriously show me this hasn't become a new kind of blind ritualism. Because I know plenty of amritdharis who are FAR from the boat of mukti.

Did British edit texts? Absolutely, we know they did. Did British manipulate and distort Sikhism? Absolutely, we know they did, just look at life of Maharaja Dalip Singh. It isn't even a fair question. The problem is we really don't know to what extent British manipulated modern Sikhism. And the old Tat Khalsa bugaboo demonizing and blaming the traditional Mahants for all their problems carries no weight. The "evil" within Sikhism was never it's peaceful coexistence with Hinduism and even Islam. RATHER that was a hallmark feature of it's success as shown by excellent, respected and peaceful Sikh Kingdom under Maharaja Ranjit Singh.

But the growing Indian nationalism was a source of worry for the British. The growing unity between their own sepoy Army and the Indian nationalist movement against British rule was a concern. And I think we have to be honest with our history to analyze exactly WHAT was the message of the Tat Khalsa reform, because it has resulted in separatism, insisting upon independent identity, murmurs about creation of own Nation, etc. And ALL OF THAT was the British manipulation. Did you ever hear during time of Maharaja Ranjit Singh that Sikhs should be separate from Hindus and Hindustan? Sikhs had royal ruling families just like the Rajputs. But after stabbing Khalsa Raj in the back and destroying the Sikh Raj, British inculcated such sentiment as Khalsa Raj and talk of independant Khalistan while stabbing Sikhs in the back yet again with Jinnah and Nehru over partition. Partition had all along been intended by the British. And restoration of Khalsa Raj was never intended even as British secret services did all they could to make childless the heirs of Maharaja Dalip Singh.

In a tiny principality, which Punjab was by the time of partition, with a MINORITY how could Sikhs really have been taken in to believe the British or anyone would just hand them Rulership? It is a distorted and politicized belief that Khalsa Raj means running independent state of Khalistan. And who would run it? Badal? Vedanti? SGPC? Simranjit Singh Mann? Dal Khalsa? AKJ? Who? and more importantly, how?

The Sikh militancy for independent Khalistan movement failed. Why is this? Why didn't it have Guruji's blessings? Because it was a politicized corruption of the meaning of Khalsa Raj and would have led to worse situation as a profoundly militarily weak Punjab would already have fallen to the kind of violence tormenting Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Don't be naive on this point. The TIME for Khalsa Raj is not now. And the MEANING of Khalsa Raj is not yet understood by the general Panth. For one thing, absolutely the PURE ONES WILL RULE...but not just tiny nation-state of Khalistan. The PURE ONES, MAHATMAS, will rule all of India, all of the world, and universes upon universes...in the Sat Yuga. And they will rule free from corruptions. And Kalki avatar will lead the way.

So here is a perfect example of a wise teaching which got horribly distorted by mischievous British pretending to be patrons of Sikhs while at same time undermining, stabbing in the back and ENSURING they would NEVER AGAIN have the raj. IN FACT, it was the British intention to divide India and give Raj to Muslims in order to keep both sides Hidu majority AND Muslim majority WEAK so that after the war, British could come back in as "saviors" of the very mess they created. WHOLE HISTORY is about political manipulation and bold distortions.

The demand for partition of the Punjab was firstmooted by Master Tara Singh when Strafford Cripps announced his DraftDeclaration in 1942. In a memorandum to the Cripps Mission he demanded:'The Sikhs cannot attain their rightful position or can effectivelyprotect their interest unless the Punjab is redistributed into twoprovinces with River Ravi as boundary between them. If you can separateprovinces from India for the domination of Muslims, how can you refuseto separate a big area for protection of Sikhs from the rule of asingle community?' To counteract the Muslim League demand for a sovereign Muslim State, the Akali Dal put forward the demand for a Sikh state.

All this separatism based on "independent" religious identity was itself a British construction. It was what they used to divide the Nation. Khalistan is a political construction born in response to the division of Hindustan. Before the British and before the Singh Sabhian, there was actually a unity living in peace in the Sikh kingdom of Maharaja Ranjit Singh. All the exaggerated opposition to Hinduism, rejection and literal casting out of age-old sanatan philosophy and blatent reinterpretation of the bani was a result, not of Hindu evil, or even brahminvaadi corruption of Mahants, who had ALWAYS been sanataan as they were descended from Guruji's OWN SANSKRIT SCHOLARS!

Tell me, what Sanskrit scholar is NOT going to have Vedantic influence in interpretation? Is it NOT the Udasay and Nirmalay tradition to interpret Sikhi from within the Vedantic framework? And this is not to say that modern sampraday of Udasay and Nirmalay haven't also come under some degree of editing and influence of Singh Sabhian. But it is without a doubt that purataan sources of Sikhi are in fact sanataan and interpreting from within Vedantic framework. And therefore any modern re-interpretations intending deliberately to ALTER and EXCLUDE that Vedantic framework is the imposition. And as the Singh Sabha coincided with the mischievous activities of the British Raj and all their editing of scriptures, manipulation by embedding false prophecies, and originating from utter IGNORANCE of true Sanatan philosophy, their messy, blundering footprints are very easy to see. This is not to say the Singh Sabhian were insincere, or that among them were not great Sikhs, or even that they did not oppose British Raj. It is to say the radical rejection of Hinduism as the root and definition of Singh Sabha reforms was manipulated and exaggerated for British interests.

Look here at the dangerous, evil villains:

At some point we are going to have to look beyond ridiculous stereotyping and hundred year old hostilities. Who is the evil bugaboo who is a "threat to Sikh identity?" Is it 100 year old murals which show a decidedly sanatan face of Sikhi? Is it sampradayas who preserved Vedantic interpretations? Is it the peaceful Sant Mat tradition of Northern India which actually brought so much bhagat bani into existence? What do we gain by blaming blindly "brahmins," "mahants," purataan sampradayas and dera baba tradition? Will it erase the sanataan character and ideology from our very own "sanataan granths?"

Try to just imagine what Sikhi would have looked like at the time of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, when own state perform Devi pujas, when murthis were installed in Harimandir Sahib, when entire mainstream Panth was actually sanataan. And ask yourself honestly, was it Udasi sampradaya that had it all mixed up? Could Baba Shri Chand and Baba Gurditta Ji have been totally wrong about the interpretations of Adi Granth (Guru Granth Sahib Ji)? Or have we, in mode times, completely altered the traditional understanding in order to REJECT POLITICALLY Hindustani identity and create independent identity as dupes of British Raj? And this goes to analyzing everything Bikrami versus Nanakshahi calender, Anand Karaj, Khande Ki Pahul, actual Rehitnamay, mandatory Kakkars, role of women in the Panth, etc.

What is actually original? What is the modern revisionist invention? How much of modern Sikhism today has it's IDENTITY as how much it can OPPOSE the Hindu one? Because that really is a flimsy identity. No wonder people are all hysterical about losing it. But it's actually no identity at all which can stand on it's own two feet proudly embracing the richness of it's own historical heritage. It has to edit, whitewash, deny, denounce, reject, re-interpret, ignore the body of evidence. Because the body of evidence is that Sikhi originates within a Vedantic framework. All one has to do is read the Janam Sakhis. The only people who claim Guruji rejected "miracles" and "superstitions" are the ones who overlook the miracle stories in the earliest traditional accounts, or things like the rock at Panja Sahib.

Handprint of Guru Nanak Dev Ji in the rock at Panja Sahib.

People like to claim Guruji refuted the Saddhs. In actuality Guruji proved to the Saddhs He had bramgyaan and was Himself a saddh. How else can it be explained that Baba Shri Chand, Guruji's own son was a Saddhu? You see the "rejection story" is just a story. If you look at the overwhelming evidence, there's no rejection at all. And in fact, the Singh Sabha interpretations have zero evidence at all except texts with questionable editing made to speak the Singh Sabha political viewpoint.

Here's an example of placing a huge qualifier intended to officially REJECT certain beliefs and practices interpreting AS the True voice of Sikhism:

THE CODE OF SIKH CONDUCT AND CONVENTIONS, Section Four, CHAPTER X

Living in Consonance with Guru's Tenets (Gurmat Rehni), Article XVI

A Sikh's living, earning livelihood, thinking and conduct should accord with the Guru's tenets. The Guru's tenets are:

a. Worship should be rendered only to the One Timeless Being and to no god or goddess.

b. Regarding the ten Gurus, the Guru Granth Sahib and the ten Gurus' word alone as saviours and holy objects of veneration.

c. Regarding ten Gurus as the effulgence of one light and one single entity.

d. Not believing in caste or descent untouchabililty, Magic spells, incantation, omens, auspicious times, days and occasions, influence of stars, horoscopic dispositions, Shradh (ritual serving of food to priests for the salvation of ancestor on appointed days as per the lunar calendar), Ancestor worship, khiah (ritual serving of food to priests - Brahmins - on the lunar anniversaries of death of an ancestor) (Two words, shradh and khiah, occuring in this clause connote what appears to be the same thing - the ritual serving of food to the priests (Brahmins). The difference between the connotations of the two words is implicit in the dates on which the ritual is performed. The ritual of serving of food on the lunar anniversary of the death goes by the name khiah; whereas the ritual of serving food on the lunar date corresponding to the date of death during the period of the year designated shradhs is known as sharadh.) pind (offering of funeral barley cakes to the deceased's relatives), patal (ritual donating of food in the belief that that would satisfy the hunger of a departed soul), diva (the ceremony of keeping an oil lamp lit for 360 days after the death, in the belief that that lights the path of the deceased), ritual funeral acts. hom (lighting of ritual fire and pouring intermittently clarified butter, food grains etc. into it for propitiating gods for the fulfilment of a purpose), jag (religious ceremony involving presentation of oblations), tarpan (libation), sikha-sut (keeping a tuft of hair on the head and wearing thread), bhadan (shaving of head on the death of a parent), fasting on new or full moon or other days, wearing of frontal marks on forehead, wearing of thread, wearing of a necklace of the pieces of tulsi (A plant with medicinal properties, Bot, Ocimum sanctum.), stalk, veneration of any graves, of monuments erected to honour the memory of a deceased person or of cremation sites, idolatry and such like superstitious observances (Most, though not all, rituals and ritual or religious observances listed in this clause are hindu rituals and observances. The reason is that the old rituals and practices, continues to be observed by large numbers of Sikhs even after their conversion from their old to new faith and a large bulk of the Sikhs novices were Hindu converts. Another reason for this phenomenon was the strangle hold of the Brahmin priest on Hindus' secular and religious life which the Brahmin priests managed to maintain even on those leaving the Hindu religious fold, by the his astute mental dexterity and rare capacity for compromise. That the Sikh novitiates included a sizeable number of Muslims is shown by inclusion in this clause of the taboos as to the sanctity of graves, shirni etc.)

Not owning up or regarding as hallowed any place other than the Guru's place- such, for instance, as sacred sports or places of pilgrimage of other faiths.

Not believing in or according any authority to Muslim seers, Brahmins' holiness, soothsayers, clairvoyants, oracles, promise of an offering on the fulfillment of a wish, offering of sweet loaves or rice pudding at graves on fulfillment of wishes, the Vedas, the Shastras, the Gayatri,(Hindu scriptural prayer unto the sun) the Gita, the Quaran, the Bible, etc. However, the study of the books of other faiths for general self-education is admissible.

e. The Khalsa should maintain its distinctiveness among the professors of different religions of the world, but should not hurt the sentiments of any person professing another religion.

i. A Sikh should, in no way, harbour any antipathy to the hair of the head with which his child is born. He should not temper with the hair with which the child is born. He should add the suffix "Singh" to the name of his son & "Kaur" to the name of his daughter. A Sikh should keep the hair of his sons and daughters intact.

j. A Sikh must not take hemp (cannabis), opium, liquor, tobacco, in short, any intoxicant. His only routine intake should be food. k. Piercing of nose or ears for wearing ornaments is forbidden for Sikh men and women.

How can anyone who is intellectually honest reading the SGPC Sikh Rehat Maryada NOT see the obvious interpolation of political anti-Hinduism intended to reinterpret and expunge those sanataan elements which were historically a part of Sikhi? It is an imposition by force of officialdom and under threat of social boycott and excommunication that everybody should accept the Singh Sabha interpretations that GURMAT means REJECTING the traditional sanataan philosophies and interpretation and the political invention that Hindu religion MEANS blindly ritualistic superstition and shrewd manipulation at the hands of clever brahmin intelligentsia as a conspiracy of the corrupted evil Mahants against TRUE Sikhs.

To be honest, I find Tat Khalsa Singh Sabha-ism to be the most ridiculous philosophical world-view ever. It is most certainly NOT representative of Gurmat. NO ONE can interpret Gurmat except Guru. And almost everyone is wrong about some things. And it's not important if we "get it right" or not. TRUTH IS STILL TRUTH REGARDLESS OF OUR OPINIONS. It's not by article of FAITH and DECLARATION OF TRUE BELIEF which is our mode of mukti. And avoiding sanatan "rituals" can itself become a kind of blind ritualism. It's not by abstaining from rituals that one becomes holy either. Everything in sansaar is polluted. Our thoughts. our bodies. The pandit placing cow dung in his kitchen. The Tat Khalsas rejecting everything related to any pandit.

The boat of mukti is exactly that which was taught in the Puranas. Surrender to a Satguru. Nama Jap. And living one's life in consonance with the piare that embraces the world and lifts it toward God and not radically "rejecting" almost everything and everybody outside the Singh Sabha, not Gurmat definitions.