Why Did Sant Ji Fortify Darbar Sahib?

[Jonny101]

jathedar sahib jeyo, i have answers to all your questions and much more but the problem is i am muzzled.

There is no room for robust discussion here. I have been asked to leave the holy cows alone.

You have answers for nothing. You are not here for a constructive dialogue. All you do is repeat your lies and propaganda like a broken record. The fact that you insist on repeating points in which have been proven false shows what your ulterior motive is. I applaud the admins of this forum for not allowing you and your buddy ekumkar to use this site as a platform to spread your anti Sikh poison.

I have no problem with Jathadar Jee. Atleast he is making his points in a civilized and brotherly manner. I can respect that even though I may not agree with his views.

[1234]

It wasn't that long ago when we were called dogs by the mughal empire as segs until our character later turned him around to accept us as lions and the rulers of punjab.

chatanga didnt call them all dogs just this particular one

[chatanga1]

It wasn't that long ago when we were called dogs by the mughal empire as segs until our character later turned him around to accept us as lions and the rulers of punjab.

It wasnt mere words that changed the Qazi's mind, but action. And why you want to compare that here...

[chatanga1]

I don't understand why these rabid bigots are against me. is it because of the faith they associate me with, is it because of their bubbles which i burst, is it because of the intolerance which i oppose or is it because of their fanaticism which i condemn? idont know which forum this bigot is talking about.

none of the above, you're just a hypocrite, plain and simple.

[Jonny101]

I don't understand why these rabid bigots are against me. is it because of the faith they associate me with, is it because of their bubbles which i burst, is it because of the intolerance which i oppose or is it because of their fanaticism which i condemn? idont know which forum this bigot is talking about.

None of the above. It is because of the lies you spread, it is because of the blatant chori of history you do so shamelessly. This site is for people to come and learn about Sikhi, Sikh ithihas, Sikh sabhyachaar not for chors to come and use this as a platform for spreading anti Sikh propaganda.

Edited January 25, 2014 by Jonny101

[Jonny101]

none of the above, you're just a hypocrite, plain and simple.

So true. I have rarely come across such shameless people as him and Ekomkar(who I suspect are the same person using different laptops). I have engaged in dialogue with Muslims, Hindus but this person is not here for a serious dialogue. He gets proven wrong in a point then he still repeats that point again and again. If he is going to do what then what's the point of him to posting on this forum? he obviously isn't here to learn but just spread hatred and distort Sikhi.

[Jonny101]

Proven wrong ...which point? and what is spreading hatred about? you are justifying killing (!!!) of anyone who opposes Tat Khalsa agenda and for any perceived distortion of sikh history. You, khalsaji, down't own Gurbani. If you look at Guru Granth sahib, not a single word in it has been contributed by a Khalsa. forget that, the word Khalsa (as in Khalsa sikh) does not appear anywhere in Guru Granth sahib. you are a killing people for doing "beadbi" (of karamkand devised by you) of a book which does not even belong to you! Also, could there be a bigger chori than that?

Banda Singh Bahadur point you were proven wrong. I listed a number of sources (Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Puraatan, British) all saying Baba Banda Singh Bahadur took amrit from Guru Jee. But you having no sourse of your own kept repeated your propaganda which proves you are not here for any dialogue. Now you are acting all innocent. We do not tolerate chors who like you distorting our history and religion. Keep your Hindutva BS to yourself.

Until this chor learns to behave on a Sikh forum he should not be given freedom to post his anti Sikh lies here.

Edited January 26, 2014 by Jonny101

[Genie Singh]

I would repeat what i said about banda bahadur. He was a Hindu when Guru sahib approached him. He was a vaishnav Hindu while fighting the Muslims. he died a vaishnav Hindu. no puratan/contemporary source call him a banda SINGH Bahadur. The sources you have mentioned (about BB taking amrit) are more of small time Qisah writers. And anyway, it is JUST one point where you have managed to name few (even though totally unknown - google returns zero result) sources to prove your point partially. How about the other issues even while talking about BB? Was he a Hindu when Guru sahib went to him or not? why would Guru sahib seek a Hindu's help if these two faiths were separate as you would like us to believe?

Did BB not try to impose his vaishnav faith on Khalsas (forget other sikhs as there was and is absolutely no diff between Hindus and Sikhs)? did he not change the Khalsa slogan? did Tat Khalsa not fought against his followers? was he not betrayed by Trehan Bhalla sahibzadas? Did Tat Khalsa Sardars not desert him in the middle of his final battle? Were the TK traitors not rewarded by the Mughas with jagirs and employment?

I remember reading somewhere perhaps in sikh history from persian sources that before banda singh bahadur was arrested having become aware of the approach of the mughal fauj to arrest him he started doing many balis to kali. If that idea is put forth to say he was a hindu doesn't it counter act against him being a vaishnav? Since bali isn't done in vaishnism.

There are Sikh sources which say banda singh bahadur ate meat such as buffalo, some writers express this as a last resort and regret it, since they feel it was holy. Do you believe banda singh bahadur was a veggeterian? Or maybe a heretic vaishnav who ate meat knowing it was wrong or feel it is okay to eat meat as a vaishnav regardless of what other pandits preach?

Also could you present in some shape or form my answer to what gives you the conviction that bhindranwale by definition was a terrorist? Was there proof for it? Is it the idea that he was killing off Hindus in punjab with his insurgencies by stopping buses and killing people? If so weren't these just rumours without evidence?

Edited January 26, 2014 by JatherdarSahib

[Jonny101]

I would repeat what i said about banda bahadur. He was a Hindu when Guru sahib approached him. He was a vaishnav Hindu while fighting the Muslims. he died a vaishnav Hindu. no puratan/contemporary source call him a banda SINGH Bahadur. The sources you have mentioned (about BB taking amrit) are more of small time Qisah writers. And anyway, it is JUST one point where you have managed to name few (even though totally unknown - google returns zero result) sources to prove your point partially. How about the other issues even while talking about BB? Was he a Hindu when Guru sahib went to him or not? why would Guru sahib seek a Hindu's help if these two faiths were separate as you would like us to believe?

Did BB not try to impose his vaishnav faith on Khalsas (forget other sikhs as there was and is absolutely no diff between Hindus and Sikhs)? did he not change the Khalsa slogan? did Tat Khalsa not fought against his followers? was he not betrayed by Trehan Bhalla sahibzadas? Did Tat Khalsa Sardars not desert him in the middle of his final battle? Were the TK traitors not rewarded by the Mughas with jagirs and employment?

You'r whole bases of doing chori of our history is that if a person a born a Hindu he supposedly remains one for the rest of his life. Yes he was a Hindu when Guru Jee met him but upon meeting Guru Jee he took Amrit, what is so difficult in this for you to understand?? are you seriously that thick? Even my ancestors were Hindus who then became Sikhs!!

Just because you are not well read and only rely on the internet and google for all your historical info does not lower the credibility of historians. Even contemporary historical sources such as the Bhatt Vahis and Sarup Singh Kaushish's Gur Kian Sakhian says Baba Banda Singh Bahadur took Amrit. Primary Sikh sources written by Kesar Singh Chibbar, Ratan Singh Bhangu and Giani Gian Singh mention Baba Jee taking Amrit. Even a retard by now would have conceded and accepted the truth which is as clear as day. Yet you still insist on repeating your toota phoota point like a broken record only proves to me you are not interesting in any serious dialogue. You are only here to repeat and spread your anti Sikh propaganda.

[Genie Singh]

. Primary Sikh sources written by Kesar Singh Chibbar, Ratan Singh Bhangu and Giani Gian Singh mention Baba Jee taking Amrit.

Are any of those on the internet in English? If so it is possible to provide a link or perhaps where I could find it.

I would like to find the stories of how Banda ji was given amrit.

[Jonny101]

Are any of those on the internet in English? If so it is possible to provide a link or perhaps where I could find it.

I would like to find the stories of how Banda ji was given amrit.

Not sure. to learn about Baba Jee, please listen to this talks.

[Guest]

Accepting Baba banda singh Bahadar as amritdhari khalsa is biggest slap to bhramin nazi superamist so off course they will try to down play it or reject important part of history it does not serve their castist purpose of controlling mass unfortunate low caste as sheep's and shag them out of their misery.

[Genie Singh]

Bhindranwale then returned to the theme of the Anandpur Sahib Resolution. Reminding the congregation that Longowal had also sworn to accept nothing less than the fulfilment of all its demands, he warned: 'If any of our leaders accepts anything less than all the Anandpur Sahib demands, I will expose him in front of the sangat [congregation].'

Bhindranwale went on to appeal to Sikh villagers to organise and support terrorism. He said, 'For every village you should keep one motorcycle, three young baptised Sikhs and three revolvers. These are not meant for killing innocent people. For a Sikh to have arms and kill an innocent person is a serious sin. But, Khalsaji [members of the Khalsa], to have arms and not to get your legitimate rights is an even bigger sin. It is for you to decide how to use these arms. If you want to remove the shackles of your slavery you must have a plan.'

Tully, Mark; Sathish Jacob ( ). Amritsar Mrs. Gandhi's Last Battle (Kindle Locations 1917-1923). . Kindle Edition.

Bhindranwale's open support for violence eventually led to a protest from Longowal, who was, after all, still meant to be leading a non-violent agitation. He issued a statement to the press criticising Bhindranwale's call to arm young motorcyclists. But the next day one of the national news agencies carried a denial of Longowal's statement. In order to clarify the situation I asked Sanjeev Gaur, an Amritsar-based journalist, to go to the Morcha Dictator and ask him outright what he had said. Longowal wavered, but eventually he did agree that he had criticised Bhindranwale for encouraging Sikhs to support terrorism. One of Bhindranwale's spies in the Akali Dal camp immediately reported this conversation. Sanjeev Gaur was stabbed and seriously wounded as he left the Temple complex, and Longowal never again publicly criticised his rival.

Tully, Mark; Sathish Jacob ( ). Amritsar Mrs. Gandhi's Last Battle (Kindle Locations 1927-1932). . Kindle Edition.

Edited January 26, 2014 by JatherdarSahib

[Guest]

I dont know which BNS is in your mind but as far as I am concerned, i dont have any problem whether BB was baptised or not. My argument is, there is a lot of gray area around this event (amrit sanchar of BB). Also, you cannot deny the other points i mentioned about him. most imp of those points in my op is WHY DID THE 10TH GURU SAHIB APPROACHED A PRACTICING HINDU HOLY MAN FOR HELP IF HE CONSIDERED HINDUS AND SIKHS TO BE TWO SEPARATE RELIGIONS

Wow what a flawed logic and rational, un fu@#$$g believable, so let me get this straight and approach this in different way- when christian US army general in afghanistan seeks help from practising hindu army soldier he must have not considered christian and hindus to be TWO SEPARATE RELIGION..!!

[Guest]

This topic will be closed in three days, both parties please bring your closing statements to conclude this topic. We cannot have highly emotionally charged topic go on for a long time as it may inadvertently interrupt overall learning experience and peaceful spiritual vibe of this forum.

[chatanga1]

I do not know why you are a in such a serious denial. why accepting the fact that Guru sought a practicing hindu's help and the latter responded by sacrificing his life, is so hard for you. problem comes when mod edit you try to make everything look like black & white. you would be horribly wrong if you say that hindu and sikhs were not more or less one community even after the creation of khalsa.

We could say exactly the same with Pir Buddhu Shah, so would that make the Sikhs and Muslims one community as well?

What about 1857? Didn't that make the HIndus and Muslims into one community ?

[Genie Singh]

I do not know why you are a in such a serious denial. why accepting the fact that Guru sought a practicing hindu's help and the latter responded by sacrificing his life, is so hard for you. problem comes when mod edit you try to make everything look like black & white. you would be horribly wrong if you say that hindu and sikhs were not more or less one community even after the creation of khalsa.

the 'mixed families' have been a common feature of the punjabi social life till Bhindranwale started his campaign.

the khatris and aroras may not been marrying their daughters to grooms from the "other faith" now but we can still see the so called Punjabi low-castes intermarrying as if nothing has changed.

Forget Banda bahadur in whose lifetime the Khalsa was created, even M Ranjit Singh, the head of the Khalsa sarkar was more of a Hindu than Sikh. Ala Singh, one of the legendary khalsa figure of all times was used to wear janeu. Maybe we had Khalsa Hindus in the initial phase of Khalsa panth. it is a fact that he initial army of BB did not have many Sikh Khalsas in it.

I can accept the inter-marriage feature since I have seen a couple of examples of it. But some of the cases I saw were from people who were recent converts to Sikhi not from the times of Guru Nanak but perhaps from 1800, 1900s and who still had some features of their previous identity with them. This inter-marriage argument is thrown out by people who propose that people from all communities have instances of various permutations of inter-marriages; there are sikhs who have married christians, atheists, buddhists, jains, muslims and into other groups. But it hasn't brought down the identity of Sikhs to being let's say christians.

Also this separatist trend of vast separation between Sikhs started from the Aryan Samaj when they came to Amritsar and made degrading statements against Sikhi. And following 1925 the R.S.S creation made statements such as Sikhs take off their 5ks which they says came from the Hindus gods, which the hindus gods wore themselves, which the hindu books approve of. Which led to peaceful protest and the established writing of Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha's hum hindu nahin- we are not hindus. Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha's book is treated with contempt rather then rebutted through a literature based or academically based medium.

As far as I am concerned if Hindus feel they and Sikhs are one, then they are absolutely welcome to join us in our prayers, to come to our gurdwaras and participate in hearing gurbani, in attaining gutka to read gurbani and do sewa in gurdwara. I have invited Hindus in the past who felt that way and saw very few turn up as if there is some magically force stopping them or if they feel demons or devils are there. The hindu faith doesn't really believe in the devil so it can't be that.

asked someone once who told me they are afraid extremist sikhs might do something or say something to them. I told them I was willing to go with them and make sure that did not happen. In western gurdwara's today it is not unusual to see people from other communities just visiting a gurdwara to learn about it such as school trips. Or peoples friends of other religions paying respects to their sikh friends death, or paying respect to their childrens marriage or their marriage. Or for christian, jewish and atheist politicians to enter gurdwaras and ask permission to speak to share their insights with Sikhs.

If taking amrit, reading bani is a hindu practise why not take amrit and keep your kesh as Shiv had, or as the jatta krishan, brahma, ram all had. Keep the Sikh kirpan as ram and krishan have. Wear the kara like krishan is shown in frescos and said to have worn, as how hindu pandits say repels shani. Wear the dastar and previous hindu customs have said and worship the guru granth sahib as the form of vishnu as apparent purans say it to be.

Edited January 26, 2014 by JatherdarSahib

[Genie Singh]

I dont know which BNS is in your mind but as far as I am concerned, i dont have any problem whether BB was baptised or not. My argument is, there is a lot of gray area around this event (amrit sanchar of BB). Also, you cannot deny the other points i mentioned about him. most imp of those points in my op is WHY DID THE 10TH GURU SAHIB APPROACHED A PRACTICING HINDU HOLY MAN FOR HELP IF HE CONSIDERED HINDUS AND SIKHS TO BE TWO SEPARATE RELIGIONS

I found this English ebook based on Sikh history for Banda Singh Bahadur published in 1935

http://www.gurmatveechar.com/books/English_Books/Banda.Singh.Bahadur.by.Ganda.Singh.(GurmatVeechar.com).pdf

In the book it says Guru Gobind Singh upon arriving to see Madho das bairgai (banda Singh) had his singhs prepare a meat dish to eat. Upon Banda finding this out of his former vaishnav faith was red and angered. page 37 of pdf, page 13 of book

On the following is an extract from a muhammden source of which records Banda Singh converted to the Sikh cause. The subsequent page to that records 9 sources written in persian of the events which transpired. Of where banda singh adopts the guru and not the other way round.

Edited January 26, 2014 by JatherdarSahib

[Genie Singh]

[Genie Singh]

[Genie Singh]

http://www.uctv.tv/shows/Mark-Juergensmeyer-Terror-in-the-Mind-of-God-9960

[jaikaara]

I do not know why you are a in such a serious denial. why accepting the fact that Guru sought a practicing hindu's help and the latter responded by sacrificing his life, is so hard for you. problem comes when mod edit you try to make everything look like black & white. you would be horribly wrong if you say that hindu and sikhs were not more or less one community even after the creation of khalsa.

the 'mixed families' have been a common feature of the punjabi social life till Bhindranwale started his campaign.

the khatris and aroras may not been marrying their daughters to grooms from the "other faith" now but we can still see the so called Punjabi low-castes intermarrying as if nothing has changed.

Forget Banda bahadur in whose lifetime the Khalsa was created, even M Ranjit Singh, the head of the Khalsa sarkar was more of a Hindu than Sikh. Ala Singh, one of the legendary khalsa figure of all times was used to wear janeu. Maybe we had Khalsa Hindus in the initial phase of Khalsa panth. it is a fact that he initial army of BB did not have many Sikh Khalsas in it.

Maalko you are missing the essence , on one side you want to portray they are one ..i.e. the hindus and sikhs and on the other you say that the Guruji sought a 'hindu' help. you are missing the entire core feeling.

The Guru Sahib turned pigeons into falcons by making them Khalsa . Who were the pigeons ?? They were common people of India and most of them unskilled for war . Barbers, Washermen, cobblers ..why the hell do you want to keep talking in that sense ? . There were muslims who were part of the resistance movement but a very minuscule number who did not agree to tyranny.

Anyone who was not Khalsa when Guru sahib baptized was a hindu largely. Puratan Sikhi does not see such differences there is no dividing line . In fact i am repeating this , manas ki jaat sab ek pehechanbo, the entire mankind is One.

The war was against tyranny, yes the tyrants were Turaks and all those who supported the Turaks then.

[GtLoc]

Shaheed Singha Nu Nihaal Ho Jave, Dushtaa Noo Golay Mout Dikhaeve

Sat Sri Akal|

Das closign mark is Khalistan Zindabad.

[DSG]

There was a program on the sikhchannel yesterday ( Youth Show) its not on their site yet , so cant provide the link, but worth checking out. I am still learning myself and the points made by Sarbjit Singh , who has youtube channel ( youtube.com/rajoanatv)

If i recall correctly some points he made re 1984 and Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindrawala

1. As mentioned many times , Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindrawala was after the rights for all the people not just the Sikhs , wanted clean water as people were dying from cancer , wanted no cuts in electricity etc.

2. Cant remember the genetlemens name , but was a mediator to see what Sant Ji wanted. When he listened to Sant Ji's request , simply asking for peoples rights , the guy said to himeself that would be easy and can avoid a "civil war" , but when he approached the prime minister , she said its too late , they will attack .

3. It was the last resort Sant Ji took up arms, One good point Sarbjit Singh made was that Sant Ji was following the Sikh Code and conduct in the sense , he told people to wake up , ask the local "pends" sarpanch for guidance , then ask the panj piare and if still uncertain , come to the akaal takht and seek guidance ....... this shook the government in the sense , they thought if we start to attack the seeks , opress them they will come running to the government , but rather the opposite happened Sant Ji and sikhs were making their own decisions with the guidance from Akaal Takht , Sikhs began to become organised ( like being control of their own state) .. the government did not like this and attacked .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZq2Y7OsN6Q&list=UUCldNSszX2nJh9Z5_AjzF7Q&feature=c4-overview

[Guest]

chatanga you know that it is a non-sensical argument. You are comparing apples with rice crackers.

I would repeat one more time for the uninitiated, the foundation of every religion is based on theology and Sikhi has borrowed theology from Sanatan (aka Hindu) dharam in its entirety. Dharam, karam, reincarnation, same cremation rituals, same names, same language, same ...I can go on listing the similarities they have roti-beti da rishta. what else i should say?

Sher we have already talked about this in another thread-

There is no point blowing your same old trumphet, please stick to the topic:

1. Nothing was borrowed, as nothing was taken at the first place as sikhi gumat is source where everything came. In fact hindus(indic) people came from sikh not the other way around. Sikhi/Sikh is eternal(snatan/anadi- aad sach jugad sach hai bhi sach nanak hosi bhi sach). There is no such thing as hinduism religion, does not exist in organized, its many school of thoughts fragmented divided everywhere against each other (vaishanvas vs shankara, shaviasm, advaita vs dvait-advaita etc) which is dividing more people, creating more road blocks than uniting. Gurmat blends unites everything, its includes everything as gurmat is underpinned by shabad/gyan which is source of every thing where including bhram, vishnu, shiv came from.

2. Khalsa/Gurmat is not a cult, its third way - complete dharma , its most profound expression in the man kind where anyone from all four corners, four caste, woman anyone can take intiation and graced with most profound gurmantra of all yugas combined - Vahiguroo most profound expression of sargun intertwined with nirgun aspects of Ikongkar.

3. Your Bhagti movement would have turned into sunat movement by mughal rulers if it wasn't for khalsa(bhakti-shakti) combined.

4. Nanak nirgun/Vahiguroo started this play-tamasha himself of this world, created vedas/upanishad/avtars, many task were completed, many were failed in front of shakti of maya of nanak akaal purkh himself. .But in kalyug, when all have failed (based on human conditions) in kalyuga/maya, nanak nirgun himself incarnated as satguru nanak in sarguna to give this world most simple/simplified way- sri guru granth sahib ji for unity- naam simran and niskham seva and sri dasam granth sahib to reinforce to only worship one non dual jot of nirankar. We don't beleive in avtar worship. Aaad ant ek avtara sohi sumjho guru humara

5. We neither totally accept vedas (because of empty rituals) nor totally reject it (because at the end, knowledge of self jiv/bhram is there).

Gurmat/Sikhi is eternal/anadi, its always been there since aad and during yugas- during previous yugas- satyugas,dvapar. But it was fully personafied/manifested by Satguru nanak dev nirankar in kaliyuga which bought everything together and blended them beautifully in khalsa panth. I am not talking about groups. I am talking about theological/spiritual aspects which is not owned/propagated by bhram, vishnu, shiv. I am talking about shabad gyan which is underpinning aspect of all. It's from the shabad (om/oan-non transcedental/Ong-transcedental resosance) everything came. We don't beleive in authority of bhram-vedas, shiv, vishnu, we acknowledge and beleive their duties, but we don't worship them. We are upasakh of non dual shabad nirgun gyan.

Khalsa dharam is clearly listed in sri dasam guru granth (Ugardanti), sri sarbloh granth and among others. It's protector of dharama which uphold dharma.