Banda Singh Bahadur being amritdhari

[amardeep]

Gurfateh

On this forum as well as in recent decade amongst the sanatan lot it has been argued that Banda SIngh Bahadur never took amrit since there are hardly any pre-singh sabha litterature that mentions so. Most 18th century writings mention him as Banda Bahadur.

I just came across this in the Panth Prakash:

 

 

Banda Singh also entreated the Guru to bestow him with certain miraculous powers,
So that he might also win some fame and reputation.
But if he ever betrayed and defied the Will of the Khalsa,
Then the Guru had every right to withdraw His pleasure. (8)
Hearing this, the guru repeated his earlier declaration,
That he had handed over all the powers to the Khalsa Panth.
Since the Guru had admitted Banda Singh into the Khalsa Panth,
Banda Singh was equally entitled to share those powers. (9)
Whenever the need arose, he should gather an assembly of five Singhs,
And make a joint prayer for the fulfilment of his wish.
Receiving these instructions, Banda Singh launched on his mission,
And marched with his contingent towards Sirhind. (10)

 

[amardeep]

Overall this Granth is really amazing!! I must read it again, its been years since i looked into it but I can definately see that I did'n look properly through back then!

[BhagatSingh]

Well these granths talk a lot of shit about Banda that's why some sikhs are suspicious about the whole story of Banda Singh as told by these granths.

Can you post the passages when Banda meets Guru 10?

[Jatro]

20 hours ago, amardeep said:

Gurfateh

On this forum as well as in recent decade amongst the sanatan lot it has been argued that Banda SIngh Bahadur never took amrit since there are hardly any pre-singh sabha litterature that mentions so. Most 18th century writings mention him as Banda Bahadur.

I just came across this in the Panth Prakash:

 

 

Banda Singh also entreated the Guru to bestow him with certain miraculous powers,
So that he might also win some fame and reputation.
But if he ever betrayed and defied the Will of the Khalsa,
Then the Guru had every right to withdraw His pleasure. (8)
Hearing this, the guru repeated his earlier declaration,
That he had handed over all the powers to the Khalsa Panth.
Since the Guru had admitted Banda Singh into the Khalsa Panth,
Banda Singh was equally entitled to share those powers. (9)
Whenever the need arose, he should gather an assembly of five Singhs,
And make a joint prayer for the fulfilment of his wish.
Receiving these instructions, Banda Singh launched on his mission,
And marched with his contingent towards Sirhind. (10)

 

I looked at Gurbilas Patshahi 10, there it is mentioned that Guru Gobind Singh Ji gave him shastar or weapons after he became a Sikh and also provided him with 4 'birs' who became Sikhs and were given shastar. I think shastar are so clearly linked with Amrit, so it should not leave much room for doubt. This becomes even more certain when Koer Singh Kalal says that Banda violated the Rehat after becoming egotistical. The question of violation only arises if he was following it in the first place, so he must have been following it. Also i read in Guru Kiyan Sakhian that Banda's descendants had the 'Singh' in their name and the Bhatt Vahi-s say that they are from the 'bans'(lineage) of Guru Gobind Singh, again this could only be said of a Khalsa.

[dalsingh101]

1 hour ago, Jatro said:

I looked at Gurbilas Patshahi 10, there it is mentioned that Guru Gobind Singh Ji gave him shastar or weapons after he became a Sikh and also provided him with 4 'birs' who became Sikhs and were given shastar. I think shastar are so clearly linked with Amrit, so it should not leave much room for doubt. This becomes even more certain when Koer Singh Kalal says that Banda violated the Rehat after becoming egotistical. The question of violation only arises if he was following it in the first place, so he must have been following it. Also i read in Guru Kiyan Sakhian that Banda's descendants had the 'Singh' in their name and the Bhatt Vahi-s say that they are from the 'bans'(lineage) of Guru Gobind Singh, again this could only be said of a Khalsa.

Bro, can't you stick up a few pages of the original text up so we can all see? 

 

That's how we do on this forum!

 

It's the main platform for sharing Gurmukhi text and encouraging an interest in Panjabi/Sikh literature amongst western based Sikhs. So any effort or time spent you spend doing this won't be a waste - far from it.

 

Plus I would personally love a little peek. 

[paapiman]

Here is an extract from Guru Kian Sakhian, which proves that Baba jee took Amrit:

 

 

Bhul chuk maaf

 

 

[dalsingh101]

5 minutes ago, paapiman said:

Here is an extract from Guru Kian Sakhian, which proves that Baba jee took Amrit:

 

 

Bhul chuk maaf

 

 

Have you read the foreward to that? I don't believe it is contemporary myself. 

[Jatro]

3 hours ago, dalsingh101 said:

Bro, can't you stick up a few pages of the original text up so we can all see? 

 

That's how we do on this forum!

 

It's the main platform for sharing Gurmukhi text and encouraging an interest in Panjabi/Sikh literature amongst western based Sikhs. So any effort or time spent you spend doing this won't be a waste - far from it.

 

Plus I would personally love a little peek. 

Sure brother, Paapiman ji has quoted the relevant passage from the main body of Guru Kiyan Sakhian, i'll first post the relevant passage from Gurbilas Patshahi 10 and then from the foreword Guru Kiyan Sakhiyan which contains extracts from Bhatt vahis and a footnote on Baba ji's lineage. I'll also share little bit from Bansavalinama by Kesar Singh Chhibber. I don't thing we should make too much out of the missing 'Singh' from Baba ji's name, i think it's largely a stylistic choice early writers may have made depending upon the colloquial usage. Also, i think Sikh and Khalsa may have been used interchangeably by these writers.

[Jatro]

2 hours ago, dalsingh101 said:

Have you read the foreward to that? I don't believe it is contemporary myself. 

It was written in AD 1790 in Bhatt-akhri, later it was transliterated in Gurmukhi in 1868, so it's fairly close.

[chatanga1]

Banda Bahadur is also a "takhalas" so don't get confused by the omission of the name Singh.

Panth Parkash is sometimes very harsh on Banda Bahadur.

[JustAnotherSingh]

I personally have little doubts Banda took Amrit just from a logical perspective. I mean c'mon, the guy changed his name after meeting the Guru, contemporary sources noted he had a turban, beard, and the full Khalsa roop (apparently he physically resembled Guru Gobind Singh in structure), and was the jathedar of the Khalsa army. The Persian sources all mention him having taken Amrit too. Plus, if he hadn't taken Amrit why would the faction that named themselves after him be the Bandai *Khalsa*? Why not just some breakoff sahejdhari group? The only logical evidence to the contrary is that he retained his vaishnavite diet, but it's not like that was antithetical to Sikhi (I can't imagine a hardcore vegetarian suddenly eating meat anyway)

 

The reason I think there's even a relatively significant controversy is because, sad to say, but late-1800s writers had their own biases, particularly those against Banda Singh. In same way we refer to "Sikhs" who engage in unpallatable activiteis as "they're Punjabi not Sikh, don't mix up the two," I imagine the lingo of old was to deny that Banda took Amrit in the first place, let alone be stripped of it for his supposed blasphemous actions. Remember that this guy's name was heavily maligned because of people perceiving him as a traitor, imposter, and liar. It doesn't help that Hindutva fudhus have tried to capitalize on this discrepancy by trying to concoct a false narrative that Guru Gobind Singh begged for help from a proud Hindu Vaishnavite warrior.

[BhagatSingh]

2 hours ago, JustAnotherSingh said:

I mean c'mon, the guy changed his name after meeting the Guru

Dude, he changed his name to Madhav Das. The name "Banda" may have been given to him.

Quote

why would the faction that named themselves after him be the Bandai *Khalsa*

I doubt a faction of warriors named themselves as "slave khalsa". Again this name too may have been given to the followers of Banda.

2 hours ago, JustAnotherSingh said:

The Persian sources all mention him having taken Amrit too.

I would like to see these sources for myself.

2 hours ago, JustAnotherSingh said:

The only logical evidence to the contrary is that he retained his vaishnavite diet, but it's not like that was antithetical to Sikhi (I can't imagine a hardcore vegetarian suddenly eating meat anyway)

Ironically, a vegetarian diet is actually prescribed by Guru Granth Sahib.

2 hours ago, JustAnotherSingh said:

The reason I think there's even a relatively significant controversy is because, sad to say, but late-1800s writers had their own biases, particularly those against Banda Singh. In same way we refer to "Sikhs" who engage in unpallatable activiteis as "they're Punjabi not Sikh, don't mix up the two," I imagine the lingo of old was to deny that Banda took Amrit in the first place, let alone be stripped of it for his supposed blasphemous actions.

I'd like to see these writings as well.

 

[BhagatSingh]

2 hours ago, JustAnotherSingh said:

It doesn't help that Hindutva fudhus have tried to capitalize on this discrepancy by trying to concoct a false narrative that Guru Gobind Singh begged for help from a proud Hindu Vaishnavite warrior.

That is actually a more plausible story than a successful Guru (Madhav Das) offering himself as a slave to another Guru (Gobind Singh)... out of nowhere. Just randomly because "reasons". It raises big question "Why?" Which is never answered. it makes the whole story look sketchy.

Remember Madhav Das ji was already enlightened and had attained Sidhi. He had also obtained supernatural powers, Ridhi, similar to the ones possessed by Guru Amar Das ji. He was a guru already enjoying a large following of his own sikhs. Why would he give up his comfortable lifestyle to fight for someone else's cause and risk his death?

--

Another version I've heard is that Guru Gobind Singh ji was an old friend of Madhav Das ji. This too is a more plausible than the story we are more familiar with.

--

Suppose a neutral point of view -

In this version where Guru Gobind Singh ji asks him for help. Guru Madhav Das ji then responds with "i am your Banda"  - meaning "don't lower yourself to me, I am lower than you".

This act emphasizes the humble demeanour of both masters, and would be a perceived by their followers as merging of two separate groups.

 

You might think - that is too far-fetched!

 

This has actually happened before with Guru Lehna ji and Guru Nanak Dev ji.

Remember before Guru Angad Dev ji was known as Guru Angad Dev ji, he was known as Guru Lehna ji by his own followers.

Just like how Madhav Das ji was already a Guru before he met Guru Gobind Singh ji, Lehna ji was already a Guru before he met Guru Nanak Dev ji.

So when the time came, Guru Nanak Dev ji bowed down to Lehna ji and gave him the name of Angad in order to pronounce him the Guru of his own following. When asked about this, Guru Angad Dev ji responded that Guru Sahib bowed down in order to pick up a spiritually poor man.

This means - "don't lower yourself to me, I am lower than you".

This act emphasizes the humble demeanour of both masters, and would be a perceived by their followers as merging of two separate groups.

This gesture is similar to the one seen with Guru Gobind Singh ji and Guru Madhav Das ji.

[dalsingh101]

Quote

That is actually a more plausible story than a successful Guru (Madhav Das) offering himself as a slave to another Guru (Gobind Singh)... out of nowhere. Just randomly because "reasons". It raises big question "Why?" Which is never answered. it makes the whole story look sketchy.

Actually it's been answered. He tried his riddhian siddhian on Guru ji by trying to flip him on some bed, which flopped, then his strong men (birs) got battered by Singhs. So he submitted to his superior. 

 

Oh yeah, apparently he was p1ssed that Guru ji had some of his bakray slaughtered in his ashram. 

[BhagatSingh]

1 hour ago, dalsingh101 said:

Actually it's been answered. He tried his riddhian siddhian on Guru ji by trying to flip him on some bed, which flopped, then his strong men (birs) got battered by Singhs. So he submitted to his superior. 

Oh yeah, apparently he was p1ssed that Guru ji had some of his bakray slaughtered in his ashram. 

Sounds like a load of bollocks.

So Guru Sahib got his Singhs to physically intimidate another Guru to get him to avenge his children? Is that what you saying?
Sound ridiculous already.
Why is our Guru intimidating other Gurus in this story?

Then this intimidated Guru declared himself Guru Sahib's slave and gathered his Sikhs to help out Guru Sahib...He risked his own life for what purpose exactly? What bond does he have with the Sahibzadas? What motivation did he have to avenge them? What bond does he have with Guru Sahib? Because some goats were slaughtered at his place, he went to fight for the guy who slaughtered the goats? Why would he do that?

Do you see where I am getting at?

It's a rubbish story.

[BhagatSingh]

In History of the Sikhs, Khushwant Singh  recognizes this problem as well.

He asks in the book  - Why does Banda Singh do this for Guru sahib?
Why does Guru Gobind Singh ji select Banda Singh as the leader of Sikhs?

 

My hypothesis addresses these questions.

And it is plausible given the incident that happened during Guru Nanak Dev ji's time. Guru Gobind Singh ji selecting Guru Madhav Das ji (Banda Singh) was similar to Guru Nanak dev ji selecting Guru Lehna ji (Guru Angad).

Both were outside of the family, and were selected based on their merit and the value they brought.

[JustAnotherSingh]

@BhagatSingh This is an odd line of thinking in general. Why would Bajjar Singh Rathore waste his time teaching Guru Gobind Singh shastar vidiya? Why did Bidhi Chand suddenly change from robbery to being Guru Hargobind's chela? Why would anyone join the Gurus on what would have appeared to be at the time a suicide mission? Addressing specific points (I don't know how to quote)

>Dude, he changed his name to Madhav Das. The name "Banda" may have been given to him.

Clearly it was a name he went by and was well known with given the fact that you have contemporary Persians, Europeans, and Sikhs calling him that. Being the "Banda" of Guru Gobind Singh doesn't suggest the relationship works with the power dynamic the other way. His name being Madhav Das in the past is as relevant as Gobind Rai post-1699. I know MacAuliffe said his actual name was Gurbaksh Singh but I haven't seen this cited elsewhere. Contesting this is just being cynical to ad absurdum; similar to one British source I read who believed that Sikhs didn't even receive the name "Singh" from the Guru but added it later on in their history to make themselves feel special.

>I doubt a faction of warriors named themselves as "slave khalsa". Again this name too may have been given to the followers of Banda.

The name had a significance at that point. It would be rather silly for someone to call a book a Guru in the pre-1469 period but the Sikhi attached a new meaning to the word. Nobody thinks of scaly reptilians when you hear the Nihangs. His followers were the progenitors of movements like Namdharis and NIrankaris; they accepted general Khalsa tenants but just believed Banda was the 11th Guru after Guru Gobind Singh and went with some of his customs (wearing red)

>I would like to see these sources for myself.

Ganda Singh collated them.

>Ironically, a vegetarian diet is actually prescribed by Guru Granth Sahib.

We'll agree to disagree. In any case the Khalsa were not expected to be vegetarian by any standard and Banda (and Bandai's) were seen as an exception to that. Cue the story of the Tat Khalsa feller shoving pork down a Bandai's throat during a wrestling match to "rebaptize" him. 

Plus, it was not just a vegetarian diet, it was specifically vaishnavite. 

 

Regarding the rest of your post, I do not know about Guru Lehna. Where is that historical dialogue even recorded? What I do now is that what you're proposing (if I even understand it correctly) is such a conflation of ideals that it makes no sense. So he didn't take Amrit...yet he led the Khalsa Raj...and his followers were Khalsa in every way but their reverence for Banda Singh? To be honest part of my confusion is I **don't** really know what you are getting at.

So I will say I agree with you on the terms that Banda Singh Bahadur was picked for duty because he had shown exemplary martial, spiritual, and leadership qualities on his own merit and that there must have been a bit more backstory (I'm sure he had at least heard of the Guru if not know him). I think it's pretty clear that the Guru did not beg for help--nor is it true that this was a merger of spiritual ideologies. Banda Singh represented the Khalsa and I don't think he ever really betrayed that ideal; it's just the fact that certain segments of his followers revered him to an excessive point combined with personal disagreements of him with his Panj Pyare tarnished his reputation for a long time in the Parkash Granth's .

[dalsingh101]

Quote

 

Sounds like a load of bollocks.

So Guru Sahib got his Singhs to physically intimidate another Guru to get him to avenge his children? Is that what you saying?
Sound ridiculous already.
Why is our Guru intimidating other Gurus in this story?

 

Your jumping from one thing to another. 

According to Amarnama, Banda (before he became Sikh) already had a reputation for treating visitors to his ashram badly, this may have intrigued Guru ji into visiting him. 

Maybe Guru ji went over there to teach him that intimidating others is no big thing? So Banda received a lesson in humility. And having met his match, Banda submitted himself to his superior. 

 

 

[amardeep]

Cheers for those scans Jatro.

 

Quote

I know MacAuliffe said his actual name was Gurbaksh Singh but I haven't seen this cited elsewhere. Contesting this is just being cynical to ad absurdum; similar to one British source I read who believed that Sikhs didn't even receive the name "Singh" from the Guru but added it later on in their history to make themselves feel special.

I think he is named as Gurbaksh Singh in Bansavalinama

[dalsingh101]

20 hours ago, Jatro said:

Sure brother, Paapiman ji has quoted the relevant passage from the main body of Guru Kiyan Sakhian, i'll first post the relevant passage from Gurbilas Patshahi 10 and then from the foreword Guru Kiyan Sakhiyan which contains extracts from Bhatt vahis and a footnote on Baba ji's lineage. I'll also share little bit from Bansavalinama by Kesar Singh Chhibber. I don't thing we should make too much out of the missing 'Singh' from Baba ji's name, i think it's largely a stylistic choice early writers may have made depending upon the colloquial usage. Also, i think Sikh and Khalsa may have been used interchangeably by these writers.

Brother, what work is this from? 

[amardeep]

The text in the last Picture looks familiar. I think thats a text from the Bansavalinama. The opening lines of the 12/13th chapther of bansavalinama also says something like "Some Sikhs referered to Banda as Guru. Banda was not Guru; He was immersed in the lotus feet of Dasam Patshah".

[Jatro]

1 hour ago, dalsingh101 said:

Brother, what work is this from? 

First two pics are from Gurbilas Patshahi 10, the next three are from the foreword to Guru Kiyan Sakhian and the last one is from, as amardeep ji rightly pointed out, the Bansavalinama

[dalsingh101]

1 hour ago, Jatro said:

First two pics are from Gurbilas Patshahi 10, the next three are from the foreword to Guru Kiyan Sakhian and the last one is from, as amardeep ji rightly pointed out, the Bansavalinama

Thanks for the clarification.

Is that pretty much the extent of what they say about Banda Singh?

I'll be honest, my area of interest right now, is to see if the earlier Sikh sources on Banda mirror the image presented in Bhangu's Panth Prakash?

 

I'm wondering if they reference any conflict between Banda Singh and those that were called the Tat Khalsa in PP?

 

Any chance of getting those footnotes from Gurbilas Patshahi 10? 

[Jatro]

1 hour ago, dalsingh101 said:

Thanks for the clarification.

Is that pretty much the extent of what they say about Banda Singh?

I'll be honest, my area of interest right now, is to see if the earlier Sikh sources on Banda mirror the image presented in Bhangu's Panth Prakash?

 

I'm wondering if they reference any conflict between Banda Singh and those that were called the Tat Khalsa in PP?

 

Any chance of getting those footnotes from Gurbilas Patshahi 10? 

Bansavalinama says that Baba Banda Bahadur was not happy with attitude of some Sikhs, but it makes the whole division in the Panth more of a post-Banda phenomenon fuelled by his followers. It also says that there was a four-fold division in the Panth after Baba Banda ji's death. These were, the "Akal Purkhia"(equivalent of what later came to be called Tat Khalsa), the "Bandiae' (followers of Baba Banda Bahadur), followers of adopted pretender to Guruship Ajit Singh (mentioned as Jit Singh) and followers of Chaubanda (have no clue what this means). It should be noted that all of this is portrayed as a conflict within the Sikh family only, revolving around disputed Guruship. So it's not as if some Vaishnav Bairagis appeared on the scene. Gradually the Akal Purkhias won. I'm attaching the relevant pages.

[JustAnotherSingh]

@Jatro Damn, that's some awesome stuff! Some sort of tangential points to think on:

1) Regarding the usage of Singh; even Sainapat (one of the earliest Sikh writers) and Nand Lal don't put Singh in their names or say it much in their writings. It seems like you can slowly see the adoption of Singh as a word, to the point where we use it as a specific noun to refer to Khalsa (something not the case w/Rajputs where it's just a surname).

2) Who was Ajit Singh?
 

3) this whole struggle for legitimacy is so intriguing...Sikhs in the later period (Ranjit Singh's time) seemed to be much more chill with syncretism, so this evolution is very cool as well...