Namdharis

[fatehsingh]

Alright! Enough fooling around, let's talk like adults and end the stupidity.

Bhai ms514, as for evidence to disapprove of Tankhanama and Rahitnama, I have ALREADY given it: Mahan Kosh of Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha. He was a Singh Sabha Scholar and perhaps even knew who made up the false writings. Hence he is reliable on this subject without a doubt. You have your doubts on all the ancient Sikh writings claiming that they were influenced by 'Brahminism' etc. I do not agree because they were after all 'Sikhs' and they SHOULD, with all common sense, KNOW who their Guru is. Benefits of Home (Havan) or Devi Puja is also written in Suraj Parkash. You say that Bhai Santokh Singhji somehow never read the Sri Granth Sahib or didn't consult It before writing the Sikh History. If you are satisfied with this answer then fine, that's your belief and I respect that. Though I still doubt that how can a Sikh not know his own Guru is a mystery but we all have different faiths in different things. There obviously is no point in persuing this topic any further.

Birkramjit Singh, I bypassed some 'lesser important' questions that I thought should have been answered by my other responses. If anything is not clear, please ASK (And not make assumptions).

Mr. Bikramjit Singh, why are you making so many assumptions? Nobody is expecting you to be an expert on the Sikh Samaj's issue. You DO NOT know everything. At least I can say for certain that you DO NOT know much about my Namdhari Panth. Yet you keep writing and claiming this and that EVEN AFTER MY REPONSES. What exactly is your point please? If you have an agenda that 'Namdharis are bad' or that 'All those believing in Living Gurus are bad', then please let me know so I and others can ignore your comments.

I am answering your questions in plain, simple, easy to understand English, so please try to UNDERSTAND.

You 'assumed' that all Namdhari Singhs do not carry 'Karad' or 'Kirpan' or any other symbol of weaponry. Just so you know the Namdhari Singhs carry the symbolic Karad which is tied to the Kanga and is wore inside the Dastaar. Also I cannot go around making sure that every Namdhari Singh is wearing a Kachera or is carrying a Kanga or not, it is none of my business and neither is it yours.

So let's make this clear, the majority of Namdhari Singhs do partake Khande Da Pahul, and hence are AMRITDHARIS. Whether or not they remain strict Amritdharis for the rest of their lives after receiving Amrit is in the hands of the Guru. If you complete a Doctrate's degree, you ARE a Doctor. Even if you don't use your knowledge at work and become a garbage collector you are still a Doctor. But ofcourse if you choose not to believe and thereby doubt in the Amrit of Guru Gobind Singh then that is your opinion and nothing that bothers me and nothing that I can do anything about.

Next you said that I 'lied' about Sant Nidhan Singh Alam not being a leader of the Namdhari Singhs. Well excuse me sir but I thought I AM A NAMDHARI AND NOT YOU. True he was a 'Sant' but so were thousands of Namdhari Sikhs, after all the original name of the Namdhari panth is "'Sant' Khalsa". Sant Nidhan Singh Alam was a former zealot Singh Sabhia who became a Namdhari Singh whereas Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha was more leaned towards the Namdhari Singhs (And also wrote many poems in praise of Satguru Ram Singh that were published in the 'Satjug' newspaper of Namdhari Singhs) and was forced to abandon his beliefs. For more about this read the following extract taken from sikh-heritage.co.uk:

Bhai Kahan Singh Nabha, an eminent Sikh scholar, writer of the great 'Mahan Kosh' and many other knowledgeable Granths, was of the conviction that Guru Gobind Singh did not die at Nander but came to Nabha and stayed in a small grove of forest, under the name of Baba Ajaypal Singh.

In an article written in the monthly magazine "Punjabi Bahen" in May 1916, he wrote under the heading of "Itihas de Unlikhey Patrey" (The unwritten History), wherein he narrated the story of Guru Gobind Singh-not dying at Nander but coming over to Nabha and staying there under the assumed name of Ajaypal Singh.

He further mentions that this story was told by his father Mahant Baba Narain Singh who had heard it from his grandfather Baba Saroop Singh, who was the personal attendant of Baba Ajaypal Singh Baba Narain Singh had written a small booklet, in which he narrated the story of his grandfather, the personal attendant of Baba Ajaypal Singh. He wrote that Baba Saroop Singh was shown the dagger wounds incurred at Nander by Guru Gobind Singh at the hands of the Pathan brothers. Hence Baba Saroop Singh was more than convinced that Baba Ajaypal Singh was no other than Guru Gobind Singh himself.

The agreement to this story was given by the editor of 'Punjabi Bahen", Master Bir Singh, and was acclaimed by scholars of the time, who regarded Bhai Kahan Singh as an authority in Sikhism.

This story was after ten years again reprinted in the monthly magazine "Phulwari" in March 1927. This time Babu Teja Singh, who was an enemy of Bhai Kahn Singh, along with some others, took up the subject and tried to defame Bhai Sahib. They agitated against him in such a derogatory manner that eventually Bhai Kahn Singh Ji succumbed to them and apologised for his writing, that Baba Ajaypal Singh was in fact Guru Gobind Singh.

If you cannot deal with this then that's none of my problems. So who knows if 'Hum Hindu Nahi' was even the honest feeling of Bhai Kahn Singh or something he was told to write by the British to satisfy their 'divide and rule' policy? As you can see this is a matter of faith. Namdhari Singhs believe that we share a lot of commonality with the ancient Hindu Dharma. We believe that while Sikhism is not a 'part' or 'branch' of Hinduism, it also is not entirely 'disconnected' from the Hindu Dharma as well. And yes I stand by my answer that the book was written essentially to bring Hindus and Sikhs together and it in no way sets Hindus to be higher than Sikhs or portray that Sikhs are just a mere subset of Hinduism. If you do not believe me, then there's nothing I can do.

You questioned that no one ever wrote anything about Baba Ajapal admitting he was Guru Gobind Singh. This is again your 'assumption'. Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha's great grand father is said to have been shown the very wound Guruji received at Nander by Baba Ajapal Singh Ji. Why didn't the Maharaja of Nabha present himself before Him? First of all this is again an assumption. Secondly, the Guru was under disguise, what part of this do you not understand please? Even Bhai Kahn Singh's great grand father (Baba Saroop Singhji) used to doubt from time to time if He really was the Guru or not until he was shown the wound.

You asked does Rattan Singh Bhangoo writes that the Guru left Nander in 1708 or not. The answer is YES, but indirectly. Rattan Singh Bhangoo, in a Dohra, writes 'Ab Satgur Ke Naam Bakhano' and writes the name of all the TEN Gurus but leaves out both Granth Guru and Panth Guru. How is this possible if he believed the Guru to have left His body in 1708? Also his mention about the forged Hukamnama sent via Bhai Nand Lal clearly illustrates this strong belief in the Sikh community. NO I AM NOT AT ALL MISTAKEN. Rattan Singh Bhangoo has clearly written so. As for the Hukamnamas made by Baba Banda, it seems to be my mistake for some misunderstandings. For this I sincerely apologize. But Dr. Ganda Singh wrote that Baba Banda had 'set an example' for the rest of the Sikhs, yet this is not true because other than Baba Banda (Who is believed to be in contact with the Guru [sachay Sahib]) no one else ever used this kind of Salutation.

You 'assume' that I again 'lie' about Guru Ram Singh rescuing the Granth Sahibs. Again this is your 'assumption'. There were EXISTING Birs in the Dharamsala of Sikhs, in fact many surviving Birs of the time are also well preserved at the Gurdwara Sri Bhaini Sahib. If the Granth Sahibs were actually 'treasured' then why was the Kartarpuri Bir so easily handed over to the British to be used by Maharaja Dalip Singh when he swore on It to leave his father's kingdom and surrender to the British? Why did Giani Gian Singh write: "No longer was recited the Japji or Rehras and those who did were ridiculed"? You are making assumptions upon assumptions thinking that you know everything. But let's face it, you don't. You probably don't even know why the police post was there at Sri Bhaini Sahib and that's why you again claim that I 'lied' to you about the Namdhari Singhs not giving aid to the British!!!

The first response after seeing your baseless claim is nothing other than laughter. Here is this Panth that was founded by the Guru to get rid of Malesh Sikhi, corruption and most importantly THE BRITISH, and you are making empty claims, based on Dr. Ganda Singh's imagination, that the Namdahri Singhs gave HELP to the British. This is plainly laughable. If you must know the reason WHY was the police post removed? Then first UNDERSTAND why it was placed there in the first place. The reason was because the outbreaks in Amritsar, Raikot, and Malerkotla which happened very close to each other. This made the British afraid and so they deported the Guru, without a single proof that He had anything to do with the outbreaks, his Subas, and then placed the police post there. For 50 years (and not 60) the Namdhari Singhs went through the pain and humiliation of having muslim policemen torture them infront of their Gurdwara. Then after Sri Satguru Partap Singh Ji ascended the Gurgaddi, His younger 'brother', Maharaj Gurdial Singhji, who took an active part in the politics of India, was determined to get rid of the police post. He wrote many letters to the British Government and even to the political leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi proving that the Namdahri Singhs were not criminals and not guilty of any charges so why should they be treated like one? Only after many letters were sent to various political leaders did the British Government finally agree to remove the police post. In a letter signed by G.C. Hilton, the Deputy Commissioner of Ludhiana, threatens the Namdhari Singhs that the post was removed as a 'trial' and if there was another outbreak or uproar, it would be reinforced again. Since there was no violent outbreak after the post was removed in 1923, hence it was not reinforced. Hope you have UNDERSTOOD. If not, then there's nothing I can do further.

Next you raise issue about Havan, which is performed by almost every other Sikh Sampardaya other than the Singh Sabha sect. Now this is clearly a matter of faith. Namdhari Singhs believe, as written in various historical literature such as Suraj Parkash, that Guru Gobind Singh performed Havan. If you don't, then that's your view and I respect that. Nothing I can do to change it.

Then you go on about the census number etc. Look at the year we have here, 1891, after the Singh Sabha Lahore was established and the Namdhari Singhs were oppressed the most. Need I REALLY say more?

As for the proof for Singh Sabha's oppression. It is funny you should ask for a newspapers' copy knowing full well yourself that the Singh Sabha WAS THE GOVERNMENT of Punjab. It bread English-Bhagat Sikhs who were used as 'bullets' in the world wars to fight and die for the British. I'm sure I don't need to supply you with any proof about this because it is a well 'cherished' fact in the Singh Sabha community. The Singh Sabha Lahore was the breeding ground of the government's loyal Sikhs. That is why they were able to even make up laws that outlawed even the 'possession' of a picture of Guru Gobind Singh conferring Gurgaddi to Guru Balak Singh which was hung in ordinary Namdhari Singhs' homes. No I do not have any newspaper print or certificate to prove this because there wasn't one but I have a proof that only a number of such original paintings are left. But ofcourse, this is again my faith and you have your own faith. We obviously disagree on many things but I hope I have atleast clarified about what I believe in and WHY.

If you got some other 'better' questions, please ASK. But do not start making claims as if you know anything about the Namdhari Panth because YOU DON'T. Oh and please if it is something out of that book written by Dr. Ganda Singh, then please help save my time and do yourself a big favour by reading the book 'Purakh Guru' by Giani Mehar Singhji Kanpur which will answer your questions without wasting this forum's bandwidth.

Fateh Singh

[ms514]

Sat Sri Akal:

Narsinga Sahib, Guru Gobind Singh was also a King of his domain. Guru Sahib details that the Chandi Vaar is a translation of Markande Purana. It is a translation of ancient texts and Guru Sahib also translated other works of Sanskrit (Ramayana and Mahabarata). But that is what it was, translations...done for people who requested him to do so or perhaps to give the public access to texts long hoarded by Brahmins.

Now I have one question for you...when the entire text of Guru Granth Sahib details worship for the ONE Almighty, when the origional compositions of Guru Sahib praise the one Almighty...why would Guru Sahib worship Durga? When Ganjnama, written by his close associate Bhai Nand Lal, states that Avatars worship Guru Sahib, why would Guru Sahib do otherwise? When the Almighty itself radiated through the Guru Sahib, what need would he have to worship or appease Durga with sacrifices?

[jsb]

fateh!

fatehsingh veerji. Assuming that this is correct about Guru Gobind Singh Ji, does Hazoor Sahib have any historical meaning for Naamdhari Singhs?

I hope this doesn't sound like a childish question, but it is on my mind.

Thanks

fateh!

[fatehsingh]

Mr. jsb,

Yes it does. In fact the Nihangs of Hazoor Sahib are very respectful of Satguruji even today.

The Takhat Sachkhand Hazoor Sahib was the only place, due to its remoteness, where Guru Gobind Singh's Maryada was preserved in its original form. Satguru Ram Singh Ji sent His trusted Sikh, Bhai Rai Singhji to Gurdwara Takht Sachkhand to retreive that very Maryada in writing. For the full Sakhi of the entire journey of Bhai Rai Singh and how the Guru did Kirpa on him visit this link: http://namdhari.faithweb.com/raisingh.htm

Fateh Singh

[jsb]

no but what i mean is like.. what do Naamdharis recognize it as? for the rest of us it's the place where Guruji left his body, but if this isn't true, then what significance does it hold in respect to Guru Gobind Singh Ji?

[fatehsingh]

Oh, well as you know the Gurdwara was not built on the actual spot where the Guru is said to have set the funeral pyre on fire so even according to the mainstream Sikhs it is probably not considered as the actual spot where they allege the Guru to leave His body. The actual spot where the burning took place is believed to have been merged into a river so that no one could build any place of worship over it as was ordered by the Guru. However Maharaja Ranjit Singh decided to build one anyway in memory of the Guru out of his devoutedness. As such, the Gurdwara is considered a 'Takhat' in the Namdhari Panth but mainly due to the fact that it housed the Guru's Maryada, which among only few other things is very dear to the Guru.

Fateh Singh

[jsb]

aright thanks!

[Guest BikramjitSingh]

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa

Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh

Fateh Singh

I know that it is not pleasant to have the fantasy stories drilled into you since childhood challenged but when you come on this site and sprout hatred against Sikh Historians, deny established Sikh history and try to promote your 'gurudom' then you should expect a suitable response.

A few comments on your flawed beliefs and strategy.

Your whole 'gurudom' relies on the belief that Guru Gobind Singh lived a human life for over a 100 years more than mainstream Sikhi believes. Your evidence consists of titbits of information which you bend to suit your theory. You lay great store on Rattan Singh Bhangoo and his claim that Mata Sundarji worked to sabotage Banda Singh Bahadur's activites. I know that you have a bias against Ganda Singh but try and get a hold of his book on Banda Singh Bahadur where he uses rational argument and official and non-official sources to show that this is just a story which may have been created because of the post-Banda Singh antagonism between the Tat Khalsa and the Bandais. See the banda Singh bahadur thread for the reasons for this story gaining currency. Before we accept everything written as fact we need to see what the factors were in existence when the writer was writing his work.

I do not claim to know everything. I must say that I am surprised that you chose to claim that I claim to know everything. I suspect that it is more to do with your pique at my not accepting everything you post as gospel. But before I accept any person's views I like to check the references. Having posted on Sikh forums for over 5 years I know that many people will try to ply their false theories as fact and will make sure that the readers of the post are not given the full facts. Just one side of the theory.Unfortunately it is human nature to be impressed by a post which claims to provide references for the views presented. I like to check all references and my experience has been that most of the references have either been misquoted or mistranslated. This is why I take most of what you say with a fair bit of skepticism. I have read the history of the Namdharis and my views are that they were Sikh reformers who in the end finished up with some of the very beliefs that they were created to end.

Your knowledge of the Singh Sahba is extremely faulty. Maybe because the Singh Sabha of Lahore was so successful and Ram Singh was so unsuccessful you need to show the the Singh Sabha had greater resources and influence in order to show how your 'guru' failed and a bunch of, in your words 'malesh Sikhi' Sikhs succeeded. I know that my comment about Ram Singh being a failure will hurt you but I write this in reply to your claim that-;

Here is this Panth that was founded by the Guru to get rid of Malesh Sikhi, corruption and most importantly THE BRITISH, and you are making empty claims, based on Dr. Ganda Singh's imagination

I am sure you will agree that what you term as malesh Sikhi ( Sikh Sabha ideology ) is still alive and kicking and that the British left more because of the problems they faced for a variety of reasons such as their economy after the world war, the resistence to british rule from the people and the very real danger of a revolt in their native armies. So we must conclude that Ram Singh was a failure. His namdharis number less that 50,000 made up of families who remained with their 'guru's because it was to their benefit.

Your comment

It is funny you should ask for a newspapers' copy knowing full well yourself that the Singh Sabha WAS THE GOVERNMENT of Punjab

shows just how much reliance you need to rely on falsehood in order to prove your theory. Anyone who has any knowledge of the Singh Sabha would laugh at your comment. I will do not laugh. I am just sad that you an intelligent person need to rely on such baseless lies in order to support your wall of sand costruct. I suppose next you will claim the Giani Ditt Singh was the viceroy of India !. I hope you can see that any falsehood in the end needs greater and greater falsehood to keep it propped up.

Your further comment about -;

Then you go on about the census number etc. Look at the year we have here, 1891, after the Singh Sabha Lahore was established and the Namdhari Singhs were oppressed the most. Need I REALLY say more?

again shows that you have had a pliant brain for being spoon fed your beliefs but when it comes to Singh Sabha history and knowledge of that time you are certainly found wanting.

The Singh Sabha was set up in 1873. For many years it remained just a organisation in name only. The leaders of this organisation believed in rites and rituals that were against the Guru Granth Sahib. The Lahore Singh Sabha was founded in 1879 and was affiliated to the Amritsar. It was virtually a one man show run by Bhai Gurmukh Singh and only after Giani Ditt Singh and Bhai Jawar Singh joined him in 1888 did they Sabha begin to make a headway. The greatest headway by the Singh Sabha was made in the decade 1890-1900. They faced opposition from the Amritsar Singh Sabha, the Arya Samaj, and the promoters of 'gurudoms' like the Namdharis. Even though the leaders like Giani Ditt Singh were from a humble background they had the 'Charhdi Kala' to take on all these 'gurudoms' and Arya Samajis and in doing so achieved remarkable victories. The writings of Giani Ditt Singh had a profound effect on the Sikhs who for the previous 50 years had been following non-Sikh rites and rituals. A case in point is that in Sarhali in Amritsar district there lived a family of Jats who were descended from a Jat women who when childless had prayed to Pir Sakhi Sarwar for a child. She had a son and from that son there were descended over 200 families living in the village of Sarhali. During the 19th century these families had become Sikhs but they still worshipped the Pir contary to Gurmat. One of the men from these families read Giani Ditt Singh's book 'Sultan Puara' which was a criticism of the Sakhi Sarwar cult. He invited Giani Ditt Singh to visit Sarhali and preach to these families. Giani Ditt was able to convince these families using the teachings of the Guru Granth Sahib that their worship of the Pir was against Sikhi. All thes people were given Amrit and became Amritdhari Sikhs. This event one of many highlights the influence that the Singh Sabha had, not because they were 'the governement of Punjab' but because their greatest asset was the Guru Granth Sahib. If the Singh Sabha teachings were against Sikhi they would have not been so successful. On a side note, Giani Ditt Singh also defeated Swami Dayanand Saraswati , the founder of the Arya Samaj on two separate occasions. The Swami was an arrogant man who thought that he could defeat any one in a debate. His favourite word of abuse for his opponents was 'Maha Moorakh' ( great fool ). It is sad reflection on Sikhs that whereas Dayanand has a hospital and countless schools named after him, Giani Ditt Singh only has a minor library named after him.

Your contention that the low number of Namdharis was due to the Singh Sabha influence is incorrect. Namdharis were joining mainstream Sikhi and renouncing their faith in Ram Singh because he had been shown to have been a failure in his aims. After his death in 1885 the namdharis dwindled to the low figure of 13,000 in 1891.

Your comment that Bhai Kahan Singh was forced to renounce his belief that Baba Ajapal was Guru Gobind Singh and that he may have been told by the British to write 'Hum Hindu nahi' and that this book may not have been his honest opinion shows the level that you need to stoop to to defend your false belief. As I stated before when someone tries to ply a falsehood it needs ever more more falsehood to keep that first falsehood propped up. This is why you have had to come up with ever more ridiculous comments such as the one of Bhai Kahan Singh.

You asked does Rattan Singh Bhangoo writes that the Guru left Nander in 1708 or not. The answer is YES, but indirectly. Rattan Singh Bhangoo, in a Dohra, writes 'Ab Satgur Ke Naam Bakhano' and writes the name of all the TEN Gurus but leaves out both Granth Guru and Panth Guru. How is this possible if he believed the Guru to have left His body in 1708? Also his mention about the forged Hukamnama sent via Bhai Nand Lal clearly illustrates this strong belief in the Sikh community. NO I AM NOT AT ALL MISTAKEN. Rattan Singh Bhangoo has clearly written so. As for the Hukamnamas made by Baba Banda, it seems to be my mistake for some misunderstandings. For this I sincerely apologize. But Dr. Ganda Singh wrote that Baba Banda had 'set an example' for the rest of the Sikhs, yet this is not true because other than Baba Banda (Who is believed to be in contact with the Guru [sachay Sahib]) no one else ever used this kind of Salutation.

You stoop lower and lower. If Rattan Singh Bhangoo believed that Guru Gobind had left Nander in 1708 and become Baba Ajapal Singh, he would have CLEARLY SAID SO. In fact when Rattan Singh Bhangoo was writing it had only been a few decades since the death of Baba ajapal Singh. He would not have left it to a biased Namdhari to look for an obscure line and then add 2 plus 2 and come up with 5 !. Like any theory which flies in the face of established history the namdhari theory relies on obscure quotes, misquotes, assumptions and conjectures.

GurFateh

Bikramjit

[fatehsingh]

Dear Cyber Sangat,

Fateh Bulai Parvaan Karniji.

It is quite saddening to see that this discussion has turned into exactly what I was afraid of; a fruitless argument with absolutely no point what so ever. It almost seems like without the use of 'slandering' and calling names, some people do not know of a more civilised way to have a discussion. I for one would not take part in such childish behaviours.

Since my very first message on this thread I have made it clear that I do not wish to even touch the subject of Guruship after Guru Gobind Singh or prove that I'm right or anyone else is wrong or anything like that. But somehow it has become unavoidable and even though I wrote clearly that if you discuss such topics some 'hurt' and 'pain' will be there, it seems no one heard the advice and now we are here 'blaming' things and defaming people and even doing nindya of the Satguru without any control or respect for anyone's beliefs. Part of this is no doubt my own fault for answering back some claims in the same tone that they were posted and for this I beg to be pardoned.

Since this thread has no future I am therefore not going to add more gas to this kindling flame. I am only going to clarify a few things that I think are important and then the rest is up to the readers. If anyone wants to ASK a question for the sake of EDUCATION and not for crowd-entertainment then please drop me a PM. I won't be adding anything to this thread, it might as well be locked, who ever wants the last word can have it.

Firstly it must be thoroughly understood that I am not here to spread 'hate' against the Singh Sabha scholars as someone has accused me of doing so. I have, repeatedly, pointed out regarding the false information they have put forth to the public's eyes regarding the Namdhari Panth and I have also provided the reasons and correct facts. If by refuting their baseless claims I have made some readers turn against them, then I can not be hold liable for I have only pointed out what I honestly believe to be the facts and not created any imaginary propaganda against them. If anyone is offended by what I said, they have my most sincere apology.

Secondly, my intention of responding to this thread was nothing about 'promotion' of Namdharism as someone has 'assumed' and I mentioned this very clearly in my very first post. My sole intention was to eliminate, or at least bring to light, the many false propagandas and misconceptions that are drained into many people's minds so that people do not 'hate' each other for no apparent reason or associate the Namdhari Sikhs with any other sect that has physically 'molested' and/or 'injured' the Singh Sabha Sikhs.

Thirdly, I am not blaming the Singh Sabha Sikhs for the conversion of some Namdhari Sikhs that happened almost a hundred years ago. Nor am I saying that the Singh Sabha Sikhs are 'Malech Sikhs' as someone has again accused me of doing so. Even in the FAQ that I pasted, the parchar of Singh Sabha movement is mentioned as ONE OF THE MANY reasons why other Sikhs outnumber the Namdhari Singhs. Every religion or sect is created BY the Satguru, even Muslims and Christians. We all abide by the Hukam of the Satguru. No one can be solely blamed for the increase or decrease of a population, it is all in the hands of the Satguru. Nevertheless it is one of the many things most people want to know that why is it that the Namdhari Singhs are outnumbered when they claim to believe in the truth and so an explanation for that is provided in that FAQ. Whether or not anyone believes in it is up to their own judgement. Nevertheless I apologize for pasting the specific portion on this thread, if by doing so I have offended anyone.

Fateh Singh

[Guest BikramjitSingh]

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa

Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh

Fateh Singh

I find it quite amazing that you would think we could have a thread on the Namdharis yet not touch on the subject of their dubious theory of Guru Gobind Singh making Balak Singh the '11th guru'. The whole basis of Namdhari existence relies on the fact that you believe that your present leader is the same 'jot' as Guru Nanak. You decry the fact that after Baba Ram Singh the majority of Namdharis joined mainstream Sikhism but the main reason for this was that they refused to place their faith in Ram Singh as the '12th guru'.

I know that most Namdharis shy away from discussing their dubious theories. Perhaps they wish to be accepted as Sikhs but where is the common ground when your belief system totally rejects the concept of the Guru Granth Sahib as Guru ?. How are the Namdharis different from the Ram raiyas, the Dheermalias and the Minas ?

It is easy to play the wounded party on this forum after you have not able to answer many of the questions put to you. You state that you do not wish to turn this thread into one of slandering and name calling. Unfortunately the truth hurts and nothing hurts more than having your belief system based on a dubious theory torn down brick by brick. If anything I hope this discussion has led you to THINK rather than simply believe in the theories spoon fed to you by your sect.

It does you no credit to first abuse mainstream Sikhs, Ganda Singh, Bhai Kahan Singh and the Singh Sabha and then cry when your 'guru' Ram Singh is given similar treatment. Do you actually know the meaning of the word Nindya ?. Nindya is when you criticise someone without any factual basis. You stated that the Namdharis were started by Ram Singh for throwing the British out of India, for getting rid of malesh Sikhi and corruption. I pointed out that on that basis Ram Singh and the Namdharis have been a failure. Is this Nindya ?.

You have also tried to wriggle your way out of inconvenient facts by stating that you never abused the Singh Sabha. What is the malesh Sikhi you wrote about, as far as I am aware Malesh Sikhi is the name given by Namdharis to the 'british influenced' Sikhi of the Singh Sabha. If you wish to make a point than stick to that point, if the point becomes indefensible then say so and accept the counter argument, denying that you ever made the point just makes your whole argument look very suspect. You are an intelligent guy but your trying to wriggle out of addressing my point by claiming this thread has become one of slandering brings you no credit.

GurFateh

Bikramjit Singh

[Guest]

Just deleted few off topic posts. Also, nobody needs to worry about getting banned from our site as long as they don't come here and bash Gurus or Guru Granth sahib. We have banned only one member name " Baba" who was not here to discuss but "cut and paste" ahhmadiya claims.

Keep going.

[fatehsingh]

Keep going.

Keep going? Where to, truthsingh?

As I said before, I don't want to continue with this thread anymore but your response is rather surprising.

So keep going till when? Or a better question would be, FOR WHAT? If after 6 pages long discussion someone is still asking questions like "What is the difference between Namdharis and dheermalias, ramraias ..." then what exactly have we accomplished so far if anything at all? Or if after so much discussion someone chooses to ignore the fact that the very independence of India is due to the boycott movement started and supported throughout by none other than the Namdhari Singhs, or blissfully ignores the Namdhari Singhs' unmatched contribution in the fields of Gurmat Sangeet, the promotion of Ahimsa and vegetarianism, the promotion of unity within the Sikh Panth which is something rarely (if ever) 'attempted' or shown any interest in by other sects, the recital of millions of Akhand Paths and Sadharan Paths and just blindly puts a 'Failure' label on them, then certainly there is something wrong that is beyond the scope of understanding. Either we are not talking in the same language or someone needs to straighten out their narrow-mindedness and prejudicial issues.

There is basically nothing left to be discussed. People have, in arrogance, forgotten that there are 'differences' in the world and that we need to live together despite these differences. Calling someone's faith 'dubious' or 'false' is just a sign of intolerance. What can I really say here? Unless we learn to accept the fact that Nihangs, Nirmalas, Namdharis, Singh Sabhas are the Sikhs of the same TEN Gurus and that they all have their differences and similarities that makes them who they are, there's no point to keep going because we'll be stuck in this loop for ever.

In the Sri Aad Granth Sahib, there's one very beautiful Shabad that goes:

Sarvar Hans Dhure Hi Mela Khasmae Ayvae Bhana |

Sarvar Under Hira Moti So Hansa Ka Khana |

Bagla Kagh Na Rahi Sarvar Je Hovai At Siana |

Ona Rijak Na Peio Othae Ohna Horo Khana |

(Page 956)

All the sects believe they are the Hans mentioned here but few realise that there has never been any need for Hans to fight with Bagla or Kagh in order to stay with Sarvar. Because no matter what happens, as commanded by God, Hans will always stay where he belongs and Bagla and Kagh will also stay where they belong. Infact Sarvar is so huge that if a Hans thinks his territory is being invaded when a few others are seen flying over it, then that Hans probably does not know what Sarvar is.

I hope this Shabad has some effect on all of us and we should realize what our aim in life is, or should be. Sikhs have reached Mukti, but so have Hindus, Muslims, Christians and Jews. In whoever or whatever you believe as your Guru, praise Him/It in anyway and everyway possible to you as singing the praise of the Guru and following His/Its Hukam is what our goal is if we choose to call ourselves religious people of any religion. Rejection and intolerence of other faiths is a sign of our own weakness and lack of faith in the supreme Guru who has created with His own orders the differences that we observe today.

Fateh Singh

[Guest]

Fateh Singh,

I know its surprising for you because there was little misunderstanding and topic was going off so i deleted those posts just to keep it clean. So, "Keep going" was for those participants. If you don't have wish to discuss it any further then you have a right to remain silent. I'm thinking about locking this topic as you have no desire to discuss any further so whoever has anything to add to this thread please do so as I'll be locking this topic in next two or three days.

Thanks!

[Guest BikramjitSingh]

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa

Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh

I agree this thread is not going to go anywhere because Fateh Singh's purpose is not served by having his beliefs questioned. As I have pointed out the whole basis of the separate existence of the Namdharis relies on their made up history. I say made up because in order to 'prove' that Guru Gobind Singh gave the Gur Gaddi to Baba Balak Singh the Namdharis have had to rely on titbits of information here and there in order to make these minor pieces of information add up to support their theory.

Fateh Singh criticises me for asking what is the difference between the Namdharis and the Dheermalias and the Ram Raiyas. The fundamental difference between the Sikhs and the Namdharis is that they do not believe in the Guru Granth Sahib as Guru but have set up a separate lineage of human 'gurus'. The Dheermalias also set up a separate lineage of Gurus. In fact owing to their being from the family of Guru Ram Das and their Sodhi origin they probably had as better case than the Namdharis ever did. In the end as with all 'guru' sects they come to an end with the mainstream Sikhi is preached properly. Only recently the Dheermalia families who in the 18th century controlled the Harmandir Sahib but now consist of a few hundred families asked to be admitted into mainstream Sikhism. This would no doubt also have been the case with the Namdharis had it not been the interest shown in them by the Gandhi family. Their 'guru' is a close friend of the Gandhis and it served the Gandhi family interests that the sect remain in existence as a counter to the Akalis. Whenever the Indian government needs a Sikh to publicise Sikh support for his policies, it invariably chooses a Namdhari. For this the 'guru' gets his photo in the newspapers and everyone is a winner.

Fateh Singh maintained a silence when I asked his regarding the use of Namdharis in Indian government propaganda videos in 1984. These videos were sent around the world to placate the Sikhs after the attack on the Harmandir Sahib. Most of the people featured as Sikhs were Namdharis and they let the world know how enthuastic they were that the Indian army had gone in.

I have nothing against Namdharis. But when they use their resources to set up 'satguru' Ram Singh chairs at Guru Nanak University, print books which try to cast doubt on established Sikh history and abuse the greatest reform movement in Sikh history then they should not be surprised when their theories are challenged.

I wished only to participate in a rational debate, to take nothing for granted and to look at the Namdhari theory anew. What Fateh Singh wants is that we do not touch on the fundamental difference between Sikhs and Namdharis but discuss the minor issues. He wants that we accept each and every word of his as the absolute truth. He has shown great disrespect to Ganda Singh a writer who was the foremost historian amongst the Sikhs. A writer who was a historian first before he was anything else. But in Fateh Singh's biased view because he didn't believe in the Namdhari theory than that makes his a Singh Sabha stooge. Anyone in fact who has the tamerity to question Fateh Singh and the Namdharis view of themselves as the foremost freedom fighters for Indian independence or their 'guru' is a Singh Sabha stooge. One day Fateh Singh will learn that not everything he has been taught by his sect is the whole truth. Fateh Singh also shows his true self when he writes that Bhai Kahan Singh might have written 'Hum Hindu Nahin' solely to please the British. Unfortunately when his argument becomes untenable he needs to resort to such underhand tactics.

I have tried to discuss the issue of the Namdhari claim of Guru Gobind Singh giving the Gur Gaddi to Baba Balak Singh in a rational fashion. But for Fateh Singh any discussion has to be on his terms which basically means that what ever titbits of historical information is used to support his theory should be accepted as the absolute truth.

There are many other points that I wished to raise here about the Namdharis. Perhaps it doesn't suit Fateh Singh's purpose to have other forum members read a view counter to his own about the Namdharis.

Fateh Singh has attempted to clothe his actions under the cover of Sikh unity. Yes, unity amongst all Sikhs is a commendable notion but you cannot have unity between Sikhs and the Namdharis when the whole basis of the Namdharis is to deny the Guru Granth Sahib it's rightful place. For the Namdharis if their leader can be referred as 'satgur' in a minor newspaper this is a victory for them. For some here this will be seen as a extremist viewpoint. I will give just one example. There was a sect called the Niranjanias in the 17th century. During the time of Guru Amar Das he had a sewak called Baba Handal. Baba Handal was a devoted Sikh and his devotion to the Guru was legendary. Guru Amar Das made Baba Handal the Masand of his native village, Jandiala. Baba Handal set up a Sangat in his village and with time he obtained a large following. This did not go to his head and he made no claims about himself just that he was a Sikh of the Guru. But his son Bidhi Chand came to believe that the sangat was his and not the Guru's. He set himself up as a Guru. Against the wishes of the Sangat he married a Muslim woman of a dubious reputation. The Sangat got split and a few remained with him because of his personality. He got the Janamsakhi rewritten into the Baba Bala Janamsakhi and added sakhis into it which showed that his father Baba Handal was a greater Bhagat than Guru Nanak. He also wrote that Guru Nanak was married to a Muslim woman and that Guru Nanak had predicted that Baba Handal would be born and would be greater than Bhagat Kabir. In the 18th the Niranjanias became the hated enemies of the Sikhs. Their last leader Akil Das made common cause with the Mughals and informed on any Sikhs living in the villages, it was he who informed on Bhai Taru Singh. The Niranjanias are long gone and forgotten today. A few families of theirs still live in Jandiala but they are just like the mainstream rural Sikhs. The only clue to their existence is the fact that Jandiala is know as Jandiala Guru after the Niranjania Guru who once resided there. Although the Niranajanias are forgotten today, their distortion of the Janamsakhis is still ultilised by enemies of Sikhism. The Ahmediyas use the story of Guru Nanak's marriage to a Muslim woman as 'proof' that Guru Nanak was a Muslim. They use the prophecy of Baba Handal as a prophecy of Guru Nanak that a great Bhagat, in their case their leader Ghulam Ahmed will be born.

Can anyone notice the common strain between the Niranjania and the Namdharis ?. A leader who was a Gursikh but the ones that followed him distorted his views. Lost the support of most of the original leader's followers. Kept only a few close followers, distorted Sikh history to make themselves 'gurus'. Leaders became friends with the government even though it was attacking Sikhs. Denying the Guru Granth Sahib and setting oneself up as a 'guru' can only lead to a fate similar to the Niranjanias.

'gurudoms' may come and go but their distortions of Sikh history and philosophy will remain and will have to be countered by every Sikh generation.

GurFateh

Bikramjit

[Ideal Singh]

'gurudoms' may come and go but their distortions of Sikh history and philosophy will remain and will have to be countered by every Sikh generation.

:bow:

[fatehsingh]

>>Fateh Singh maintained a silence when I asked his regarding the use of Namdharis in Indian government propaganda videos in 1984.<<

And the point is....? When everyone knows that the Namdharis DID NOT SUPPORT massacre of 1984 and were themselves victims of the massacre, so what is the point about this? It is not even worth replying to as someone is just using 'tidbits' to paint his own theories into driving people to 'hate' the Namdhari Singhs without any solid evidence. Unless someone can quote from a single newspaper sample or show that in the video the Namdhari Singhs said anything like 'We support the massacre of 1984', please exercise the right to remain silent and allow me to do the same.

>> I have nothing against Namdharis. But when they use their resources to set up 'satguru' Ram Singh chairs at Guru Nanak University, print books which try to cast doubt on established Sikh history and abuse the greatest reform movement in Sikh history then they should not be surprised when their theories are challenged. <<

And LET THE RECORD SHOW, that each and EVERYTIME that any publication has been made that disapproves Singh Sabha Scholar's theories, it has been ALWAYS done as a REPLY back to the baseless claims made by the Singh Sabha scholars. The Namdhari Singhs NEVER started the debate or argument, unlike the highly esteemed Dr. Ganda Singhji and other such scholars from the Singh Sabha Community who are agitated just by the sight of the Namdhari Singhs. This is just a shameful thing to be happening.

Other questions and baseless claims are just full of hate and anyone with true interest about the subject can find out for himself via 'better' means.

Fateh Singh

[Guest BikramjitSingh]

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa

Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh

Fateh Singh

And the point is....? When everyone knows that the Namdharis DID NOT SUPPORT massacre of 1984 and were themselves victims of the massacre, so what is the point about this? It is not even worth replying to as someone is just using 'tidbits' to paint his own theories into driving people to 'hate' the Namdhari Singhs without any solid evidence. Unless someone can quote from a single newspaper sample or show that in the video the Namdhari Singhs said anything like 'We support the massacre of 1984', please exercise the right to remain silent and allow me to do the same.

You are deliberately confusing my point. I personally saw these videos, apart from Hindus, Namdharis were used in order to show Sikhs abroad that the action was justified. I have no doubt that Namdharis suffered in delhi after Indira Gandhi's assassination but my point is about the period directly after the attack on the Harmandir Sahib. I don't know how much control your 'guru' asserts on his followers but I think he would have known about their use by the government if not actually given his consent for them. Your initial post was about Sikhs being 'misled' into believing that the Namdharis are a creation of the Indian government for use against Sikhs. But you can see where the Sikhs get this notion from because of your 'guru' being a friend of the Gandhis and the way he allowed his followers to be used by the givernment.

And LET THE RECORD SHOW, that each and EVERYTIME that any publication has been made that disapproves Singh Sabha Scholar's theories, it has been ALWAYS done as a REPLY back to the baseless claims made by the Singh Sabha scholars. The Namdhari Singhs NEVER started the debate or argument, unlike the highly esteemed Dr. Ganda Singhji and other such scholars from the Singh Sabha Community who are agitated just by the sight of the Namdhari Singhs. This is just a shameful thing to be happening.

Again you are not adverse to using falsehood to try and prove a faulty argument. The theory of Guru Gobind Singh giving the Gur Gaddi to Baba Balak Singh had been doing the rounds since the 1920's. It was only in 1946 that Ganda Singh wrote his book Kukiyan Di Vithya. So you cannot say that each and every book written by the Namdharis promoting this theory was a response. The book was published soon after your then 'guru' had started the patra path which meant disassembling the Guru Granth Sahib and giving different pages to Pathis to read and then burning the pages. This led to a great deal of agitation amongst the Sikhs and conferences were held against the Namdharis. The largest was held in 1944 at Mullanpur Dakha in Ludhiana district. It was with this background that Ganda Singh wrote his book. He did not write his book as a polemic against the Namdharis but to examine whether their theory was tenable in the light of historic literature of that time.

Again you show your lack of knowledge of the Singh Sabha by using the term unlike the highly esteemed Dr. Ganda Singhji and other such scholars from the Singh Sabha Community . By the early 1920's there was no such thing as the Singh Sabha movement. The Akali movement had replaced it. It is natural for a historian to examine a theory if it flies in the face of established history. Ganda Singh was the foremost Sikh historian fluent in the languages needed to study Sikh history. In fact it is to him we owe the discovery of many persian documents related to Sikh history. He scoured the length and breadth of India searching out documents in both public and private collections, which he copied down and on his death he bequeathed to Punjabi University.

Ganda Singh was not the sort of historian to just dismiss the Namdhari theory out of hand. He demolished it piece by piece using rational argument and referring to relevant contemporary documents. It is natural that you feel antagonistic towards Ganda Singh. The only other book Ganda Singh wrote which touches on Namdhari beliefs is his small booklet where he examines all the theories about Guru Gobind having lived beyond 1708. He uses various contemporary and near contemporary writings such as Sri Gur Sobha, Amarnama, Gurbilas Pathishah Das, Parchiyan Sewa Das etc. This small booklet was written in response to the large number of letters written by Namdharis to Sikh journals such as Sikh review where they would write about their theory as if it was an established fact.

Far from being a fanatic who hated the sight of a Namdhari Ganda Singh, as editor of the bi-annual journal of the Punjabi University Punjab past and present he did not attempt to stop any articles about the Namdharis being published. He only made sure that when referring to Baba Ram Singh the word 'satguru' is not used. If you ever check out any of these journal from the time that Ganda Singh was the editor ( late 1970's to 1987 ) you will see that there is at least one article on the Namdharis in each edition of the journal. The Namdhari writer Swaran Singh Sanehi wrote most to these articles. After the death of Ganda Singh in 1987, the Namdharis won a victory of sorts because articles in the journal now use the word 'satguru' before Ram Singh's name.

As you can see you are quite wrong that it is Sikh writers who have been disparaging of the Namdhari theory which has led to Namdharis writing books espusing their beliefs. In it is fact the complete opposite.

Since Ganda Singh only three other Sikh writers have ventured into Namdhari history, They were Sardar Trilochan Singh who wrote articles in Sikh review in 1971 about the Namdharis after the Namdharis had been successful in getting a Hindu journalist Shiv Lal to write articles in a magazine called Indian Progress promoting the Namdharis theory about Guru Gobind had lived beyond 1708. Shiv Lal has in fact included these theories in his book Dateline Punjab - Lifeline Sikhs published a few years ago. Falsehood has many guises.

Another writer was Ishar Singh Nara who in the 1980's wrote Panthik Mukadama where he also provides evidence that demolishes the Namdhari theories. The last writer was Giani Partap Singh.

GurFateh

Bikramjit

[fatehsingh]

Thank you and God bless. :roll:

Fateh Singh

[jjj]

All I want to say is

1)SGGS is the real Guru, because it is not possible for dasam pita to leave his sikhs and live in disguise for the rest of his life as Namdharis put it. He did make SGGS as the Guru and Nihang tradition is proof to it and also majority of the sikhs following SGGS. SGGS IS THE GURU and that is why it sits int he Harminder Sahib.

2) if you look back at past history of sikhs you will find that each time a new Guru came in a hundred fake Gurus popped up and this is the samething happening after the 10 Pita, Look at the sant-mat tradition, they got there own lineage of Gurus.

3)Sikhi will survive and be good if we are all united. We are all sikhs and we should follow the common Guru SGGS, therefore my good advice is for all Namdharis is to convert back to mainstream Sikhi.

I am not against anyone or being rude, but just giving my own reasoning. Moderator plz dont delete. I wanna hear the thoughts of fateh singh. This is a matter of faith and truth than rational reasonning provided from scholars who tend to distrot history like court prosceutors do.

Also, many sant mahapurshs of sikh hsitory believe in SGGS to be the Guru. Are there any namdhari sant mahapursh of God-realization?

[fatehsingh]

Thank you for your words of wisdom. God bless.

[Guest]

im opening this thread for movement so "Gurpreet Kaur" can post her question.

[Guest]

Gurfateh

I just wondered if someone can enlighten me on something I was thinking of concerning Namdhari Guru's.

It is well known that Guru Amardas Ji's daughter Bibi Bhani Ji was given a boon in return for her selfless Sewa for Guru Ji and her Pitaji. She asked for the Guruship, or Gurgaddi to remain within the family.

As I understand it, the Guru's were Sodhi's (from the Khatri caste) at the time. It of course makes no difference which caste they belonged to as these things are beyond Satguru Ji. However I just wanted to illustrate my point using this example.

The Guru's after Guru Amardas Ji were all related and belonged to the Sodhi family as promised to Bibi Bhani Ji.

However, the present Namdhari Guru, Satguru Jagjit Singh Ji belongs to the Ramgharia caste. Therefore, how is it possible that he is the next Guru?

If it is possible, can any Namdhari Sikh please give authentic sources to prove that Jagjit Singh Ji is a Sodhi, and related to Guru Amardas Ji.

If this is not possible, then unless they believe Bibi Bhani Ji was not given this boon, it is impossible to prove that there is a living Guru after the Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

This would totally contradict the Guru's Hukam, that all Guru's after Guru Amardass Ji would be from the same family.

I would appreciate your views as this has confused me for some time, and I want to say that I do not want this post to be seen as a way of slandering anyone.

Bhul Chuk Dee Khima

Gurfateh

Gurpreet

[Guest BikramjitSingh]

Gurfateh

I just wondered if someone can enlighten me on something I was thinking of concerning Namdhari Guru's.

It is well known that Guru Amardas Ji's daughter Bibi Bhani Ji was given a boon in return for her selfless Sewa for Guru Ji and her Pitaji. She asked for the Guruship, or Gurgaddi to remain within the family.

As I understand it, the Guru's were Sodhi's (from the Khatri caste) at the time. It of course makes no difference which caste they belonged to as these things are beyond Satguru Ji. However I just wanted to illustrate my point using this example.

The Guru's after Guru Amardas Ji were all related and belonged to the Sodhi family as promised to Bibi Bhani Ji.

However, the present Namdhari Guru, Satguru Jagjit Singh Ji belongs to the Ramgharia caste. Therefore, how is it possible that he is the next Guru?

Waheguru Ji Khalsa

Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh

Gurpreet Kaur Ji

That is an excellent point. The fact is that after Guru Ram Das all the subsequent Gurus were Sodhis. After Guru Har Kishan stated that the next Guru would be at Bakala, twenty two imposters appeared in Bakala and set themselves up as the ninth Guru. These twenty two imposters were all Sodhis because they knew that anyone who claimed to be the next Guru but was not a Sodhi would never get the Sikhs to follow him.

Baba Balak Singh who is claimed to be the '11th guru' was an Arora. Baba Ram Singh was a Ramgarhia, Baba Hari Singh '13th guru' was the brother of Baba Ram Singh and therefore also a Ramgarhia as have been all the other Namdharis leaders.

The claim to Guruship made by the Namdhari leaders goes against all established history and Sikh tradition.

GurFateh

Bikramjit

[fatehsingh]

Gurpreet Kaur,

Fateh Bulai Parvaan Karni.

Does Sri Aad Granth Sahib belong to Sodhi Kul? If no then how do you justify this? Does ANY Guru belong to a Jaat?

This sakhi is a singh sabha sakhi, not found in any historical literature written before the exile of Guru Ram Singh or creation of Singh Sabha. Just like how there was a 'sakhi' of Guru Teghbahadur Sahib 'blessing' the Sikhs with 'topiwala Sikhs' (The British) that was fabricated by the Singh Sabhias of the time. This can still be found in the works of Mcaullife.

Hope that answers your question. I sincerely do not wish to go on this road of questioning authority of the Gurus because I do not wish to insult your Guru either directly or indirectly. Please allow me to do so. If you still have a question, PM me.

Fateh Singh

[Guest]

Ok! Please use PM from now on to ask him question the way fateh singh stated.