Monday, 29 January 2018

Blood

KUn

AsIˆ jMgW bhuq lVIAW ny
swfy ih`sy mOqW ilKIAW ny [
AsIˆ KMifAW ‘qy n`cy Aw
swfy isr bQyry l`Qy Aw [
lokW dw ieiqhws iliKAw SwhI nwl
swfw iliKAw igAw swfy KUn nwl [
kul jhwn dw Enw KUn nI hoxw
ijMnHW swfw jMgW iv`c fu`ilHAw hY [
p`uCo cmkOr dI gVI nUM
ikMny isr EQy l`Qy sI [
zmIn EQy Qr Qr kMbI sI
jd k`lw k`lw isMG liVAw sI [
AsI mOq nwl hwsIAW kIqIAw ny
Brw smJ ky t`py sI [
mOq vI dUro peI socdI sI
ieh kOx juJwrU XoDy ny [
mYˆ cIkw peI kfwaudI Aw
eyh dyK mKOlW krdy Aw [
eyh nhI jwxdI mOq cMdrI
Kwlsw jMimAW KMfy dI Dwr iv`coˆ [
eyh Zulwm kdy nI huMdy ny
KMfw eyh KVkwaudy ny [
jy hY iksy nUM S`k hjy
Aw ky swnUM prK lvy [
eyh pMQ Kwlsw vwihgurU dw
jo sdw iKiVAw rhygw [

Sunday, 28 January 2018

Names of Waheguru in gurbani

God.
A word that has been in discussions for a long time. So many names and powers and rules are associated with it. When we talk about God, religions and tribes come in front of our eyes. Because to reach God or to experience God, there are some rules, and on the basis of rules a religion is defined.
Some rules are hard to follow and sometimes look barbaric as if it’s good if we keep them in the medieval times. One thing can’t be ignored though and that’s that people have been practising religions or some rules from a long time. They sometimes associated it with nature or something some supernatural beings.
And it’s the truth that when we try to understand a religion, and we are following a totally different religion, we judge or evaluate the other religion based on our beliefs. When we say it’s right or wrong, we have to have something to weigh it against, and it can be our morals too.
Without going into more philosophical way, let’s come to the point here.
Today (and in the upcoming days, as this post will be updated regularly) we will talk about the different names of God which came in gurbani.
First thing that we need to understand is that God was not created by some other person, or God was not born somehow like we humans do. God is different. God is unique. Over the period of time, so many names were given to God.
These days if we prefer to say the word ‘Ram’ for God, many Hindus will believe that we are talking about Ram Chandra ji, which will be wrong. This is the main purpose of writing this blog. We will have all the names of Waheguru (again a name of God) that are there in gurbani.

  1. Abhekhe (AByKy) – A (A) means without + Bhekhe (ByKy) means a way of dressing. Waheguru is Prakash Saroop (pRkwS srUp), He is not like humans/aliens/animals or has a body. So, He is without any Bhekh, means without any special dresses that many people think Waheguru/God/Ram/Allah wears.
  2. Abhinashi (AibnwsI) – Imperishable.
  3. Akaale (Akwly, Akwl) – A (A) means without + Kaal/kaale (mOq) means death. Waheguru is without death.
  4. Alekhe (AlyKy) – A (A) means without + Lekhe (lyKy) is something that can be described as an account of our actions on the basis of what we will be judged after our death. Waheguru can never be judged as there is no-one above Waheguru who will hold Him responsible for something and punish Him.
  5. Anoope (AnUpy) – An (An) means ineffable + Oope (aUpy) means praises. His praises can’t be described fully in words.
  6. Antarjaami (AMqrjwmI) – Inner-knower
  7. Aroope (ArUpy) – A (A) means without + Roope (rUpy) means form/face/body. Waheguru is without any form.
  8. Banwali (bnvwlI) – Protector of the World.
  9. Brahm (bRhm) – Omnipresent One.
  10. Daata (dwqw) – Giver.
  11. Damodar (dwmodr) – (dwm+Edr) (One) who’s Maaya under His control.
  12. Gobind (goibMd, goibd) – It’s made of two words Go (earth) + Bind (protector). Waheguru is the protector of the earth (all the earths that are there in the whole universe, not just Earth.)
  13. Gopal (gopwl) – Go (earth) + Pal (nurture). Waheguru is the nurturer of the earth (all the earths that are there in the whole universe, not just Earth) and all the beings/animals and everything else.
  14. Gorakh (gorK) – Go (earth) + Rakh (protector). Waheguru is the protector of the earth (all the earth that are there in the whole universe, not just Earth.)
  15. Har (hir) – Har has so many meanings. When ‘Har’ word comes in gurbani for Waheguru, it means harna; Waheguru takes away all the bad thoughts away; Waheguru kills all the people. In Mahan Kosh, 44 different meanings are there including lion, moon, parrot, horse, king, yellow colour, etc. Har word is used for Vishnu too, but in gurbani when it comes to refer to God, it’s not for Vishnu but Waheguru.
  16. Jagannaath (jgMnwQ) – Jagan (world) + Naath (someone who is supreme). Waheguru is the Supreme in the whole world.
  17. Jagdeesh (jgdIs) – Jagat (world) + Eesh (owner). Waheguru is the one whom the whole world belongs to.
  18. Kaal (kwl) – Destroyer. Waheguru destroys everything, so he is known as Destroyer too.
  19. Karta (krqw) – Doer.
  20. Kartaar (krqwr) – Doer. He is doing everything.
  21. Khasam (Ksmu) – The Lord Husband.
  22. Kirpaale (ikRpwly) – Waheguru is kind.
  23. Maadoo (mwDau, mwDv) – Maa (Maaya) + Doo/Dav (Husband). Waheguru is the Lord Husband of Maaya, His creation power.
  24. Madusudhan (mDusUdn) – (Waheguru kills) the ego-like Madh demon, so called Madusudhan.
  25. Mahakaal (mhwkwl)Kaal of kaal, means someone who even kills death. Waheguru is all powerful that at last He submerged everything into Him, and there is no one left to kill, that means the end of death. Some people who don’t have the knowledge of gurbani say that it’s for Shiv ji, which is wrong.
  26. Mohan (mohn) – (mo+hn) Waheguru kills the worldly attachments, so called Mohan.
  27. Narayan (nwrwiex) – (nw+rwiex) Waheguru doesn’t have Avidya, so called Narayan.
  28. Nidhaan (inDwn) – Have-it-all. Waheguru has everything.
  29. Niranjan (inrMjn) – Nir (without) + Anjan (maaya – illusion). Waheguru is the one Who can’t be influenced by maaya. Or without any illusion.
  30. Nirankaar (inrMkwr) – Without any form.
  31. Nirbha(u) (inrBau) – Fearless.
  32. Nirvair (inrvYr) – Hatred-less.
  33. Oan(g)kaar (Eå) (EAMkwr) – This is another word that is pronounced incorrectly by many people. It’s not Ohm-kaar, or Ohm. It’s Oan(g)kaar. Meaning Waheguru is Enlightener of All (sBnw dw pRkwSk).
  34. Parbrahm (pwrbRhm) – Par (away; without any beginning and end) + Brahm (Waheguru). Waheguru doesn’t have any beginning and end.
  35. Purakh (purK) – Complete; Waheguru is complete, there is nothing that Waheguru doesn’t have. And the second meaning is the Lord Husband.
  36. Raghnaath (rGnwQ) – It’s made of two words, Ragh (Light or divine light) + Naath (someone who is supreme) Raghnaath means Waheguru is Divineful and Supreme.
  37. Rahim (rhIm) – Merciful.
  38. Ram (rwm) – Ramya hoya, means omnipresent. God is omnipresent that’s why he is called Ram in gurbani. (Here it is not for Ram Chandra ji.)
  39. Rikhikes (irKIkys) – Waheguru is Lord of Senses (He gives chetna to senses.)
  40. Sahib (swihb) – Supreme.
  41. Sirjanhaar (isrjxhwru, isrjxhwrw) – Creator.
  42. Thakur (Twkur) – Thakur is someone who is supreme like king. Sometimes ‘Thakur’ word was used to refer to worldly kings. But in gurbani, Thakur is used for Waheguru as he is the King of the World.
  43. Veparwaah(o) (vyprvwhu) – Carefree.

Debunking the claims of Ajit Vadakayil about Sikhism – Part II

First part

T
his is the continuation of the replies to the lies told by a blogger named Ajit Vadakayil about Sikhism. In the first part, we discussed the very basic things and the ideology of the writer behind the article, and how claiming something without giving any proof is wrong and to some extent criminal too. But this is the World of Internet, where so many propaganda websites/blogs will be there without giving any evidence. Sometimes it’s very easy to check if it’s a lie or truth. Does the writer give any reference to a book if talking about history? Can the book be trusted? No; he is lying and has a made-up story ready to tell. Yes; he is telling the truth because he’s something to show (conclusion and observation both are different things), not just words.
We’ve also discussed a fake story of Ramayana that how it’s not logical to bring forward something that has no base.
I want to say it again about 1469 and 1699: 1469 was the year of the birth of Guru Nanak Dev ji and starting of Sikhism; 1699 was the year of the creation of the Khalsa Panth.

4. ‘You cannot "paper convert" any of the first 9 gurus into Sikhism -- before the 10th Guru Gobind Singh had his amrit chakna ceremony for his Panj Piaras into Sikhism and created the 5K Sikh religion.’ – Deductive reasoning is a good method to convince someone. The blogger writes a story of a boxer and then tries to compare that with the Sikh Gurus and comes to a conclusion. Ta dah!
The very basic thing from where he started writing is false. If the base of a story is false, you can’t develop a good story, unless people who are reading don’t have any brains.
In the beginning, he says ‘Before 1699 there was NO Sikhism at all’ and ‘Guru Gobind Singh started Sikhism on the Baisakhi day of 1699.’ After this he concluded that the first nine Sikh Gurus were Hindu. The very first notion is wrong and that is that Sikhism was started in 1699. 1699 was the year of the creation of the Khalsa Panth. A person who doesn’t know what happened when cannot give the right story to the readers. And after writing this he even has the audacity and thinks that the readers are so foolish, so he says ‘Capt Ajit Vadakayil can think crystal clear.’
Crystal clear thinking is not based on wrong information.
Anyways, let’s create a fake story here about a tribe.
Evolution happened. It’s the truth. And the first human who was evolved was from a tribe name Jukansa. It was the name of their religion too. Jukansa was the oldest religion of the world, older than all the known religions. It had the area of the whole Asia. They lived there peacefully and later some invaders showed up from the seaside. In their holy book it’s said that Hinska, the god of Power, helped the enemies to annihilate Jukansa.
They were murdered so brutally that not even one of them was left alive. Their places were burned down and scriptures and belongings were used by the enemies. All the other tribes came from the enemies.
All the people that we see in these days, especially in Asia, are the descendants of the enemies.
Now, think of a blogger having his story based on Jukansa tribe and says ‘we all are the sons and daughters of the enemies’, without checking if the story of the Jukansa tribe is correct or not.
Same is what Ajit Vadakayil did on his blog. He first said that the first nine Sikh Gurus were Hindu, and then said there was no Sikhism before 1699, then came to a conclusion that ‘You cannot "paper convert" any of the first 9 gurus into Sikhism.’
Simple and easy. How easy it’s to debunk this!
As we are going to discuss more about religions on this series of posts, let’s first discuss what we are going to talk about.
‘Religion’, a word, if we go with the definition of the dictionary, it will say ‘The belief in God’ or ‘A system of beliefs and group of rules to worship God.’ But the definition that I like here is ‘A set of rules to reach God or to achieve Oneness.’
A religion is not a person but something that you follow, can be rules. Some people have not understood it so far that’s why they say a religion comes from a religion, which doesn’t hold any truth. The ancestors of someone to have a different set of beliefs than the person today makes sense somewhat. But no religion comes from another religion. It’s not some personnel thing but a set of rules that can be followed.
We call a person to be religious if and only if he follows the rules of the religion, and that can be totally wrong according to the morality of many people around the world. But it is the truth. Even if a religion says roam naked and have sex with the women that you meet every day, that’s also a religion according to those who follow it, but our conscience might not allow us to do so.
If a person is not following the set of rules defined by the religion or the person who started the religion, then he can’t be said to follow or belong to that religion. It’s just the very basic thing in religion if we have the understanding of it. Following are the points that I want to highlight here:
1.      No religion comes from a religion.
2.      A religion is a set of rules that a person follows.
3.      A person who doesn’t follow the rules of the religion can’t be said to follow the religion or belong to the religion.
4.      Religion is not a person-thing but a set of rules.
Remember the above-mentioned points, as we might refer them while having the discussion on the claims of the blogger.

5. ‘Their Hindu ancestors stood up arms ONLY to protect their motherland from the rampaging Muslim invaders.’ – The base of the story is wrong, which always is of any lie, and then he is concluding something with the same lie and adding more lies by capitalizing ‘only.’
This is what we discussed in the last article that how Muslims are getting targeted by saying they were ‘invaders.’
Before debunking this claim of his, let’s talk about religion once more, but now about the ‘land’ which is attached to a religion.
Indian religion, Nepali religion, Chinese religion, or Pakistani religion, these words don’t make any sense. Sometimes we want to associate a religion to a particular land. It’ll make more sense if we say the religion was started on a particular land. But saying that a religion belongs to a land is somewhat idiotic. History of a religion can be there on a land, but a religion can’t be associated with a land.
This is what Ajit Vadakayil is doing. Saying that Sikhism was there to protect a land from invaders! Seriously? Even the people who are living in India were invaders at some time. Aryan race was not on the land of India from the beginning, this is a fact. But some person with a small brain will claim that the Aryan race was on the land of India from the beginning. Slow clapping!
Even in the first part, we discussed how some people are trying to tell Sikhs that they should also not have polite talks with Muslims as they were the reason behind the death of two Sikh Gurus. They want Sikhs to be as dumb as they are. Here, I am not talking about all the Hindus, no. So many good Hindus are there in the world, but there are some dumb too, same is true for Sikhs and Muslims and Christians and other religions. Because they don’t know the religion and history, so they start preaching according to their own tiny brains.
The Sikh wars or battles were against injustice, not against a particular community. There are stories of Akbar that how he gave so much land to Guru Sahibaan to spread the religion, and in Goindwal Sahib he came to the gurdwara sahib and sat among the Sikh sangat to eat langar. If guru sahib didn’t discriminate then, why should we?
But, yes, when there was killing of innocents, that was condemned by Guru Sahibaans.
We’ll talk about the battles of Guru Sahibaans in details at some other time of the series when Ajit Vadakayil talks about it, and will show that Guru Sahibaans never battled against someone who is ruling. The battles were there when the Mughals captured an opportunity to attack the Sikhs, then the Sikhs retaliated. It’s not because they were Muslims. Attacking a person just because he is from a different religion seems like the mentality of a sick person who needs a shrink.

6. ‘Desh bhakt Sikhs must know that all their ten gurus were born Khatri Hindus.’ – This is another fallacy. A person is not born as a religious person, this is what we discussed above. See the second point.
A baby who is born now doesn’t have any religion unless he practises something. There was a very good movie named ‘PK.’ There when PK (Aamir Khan) comes to know that there is something called ‘religion’ that can let you reach to God, he becomes very happy. But as he’s an alien, he doesn’t know what his religion is and how to check a person belongs to which religion.
So he goes to a hospital, picks up a baby and checks if there is any kind of mark on the body of the baby to know he belongs to which religion. There was nothing.
Sometimes movies can teach us so many things.
No person was born as a religious person. He adopts something, and then becomes religious.
In his article, we are going to see fallacy after fallacy, nothing more. But will give all the details that I can give because many young Sikhs are not reading gurbani and listen to gur-itehaas, but read online content and believe that. So, this whole blog is for them to get to know their true history, and don’t read something written by an eight-year-old boy who doesn’t have a sketch book.
He is saying ‘all their ten gurus’, we read the first article and saw some verses from Guru Granth Sahib ji that how Guru Nanak Dev ji, the first Sikh Guru, didn’t even wear a janeu at a very young age, the very basic thing that is done by Hindus to young boys, and calling Guru Nanak Dev ji a Hindu will be a laughable thing. But some ignorant people will do that to just satisfy their low level of understanding of Sikhism.

7. ‘This name was conferred by Guru Gobind Singh along with a sword of honour.’ – Here Ajit Vadakayil is talking about Baba Banda Singh bahadur that Guru Gobind Singh ji met him at Nanded.
But the shocking thing here is that he’s been calling Baba Banda Singh bahadur a Hindu and saying all the victories of his were because he’s a Hindu. On the other hand, he is saying that the name ‘Baba Banda Singh’ was given by Guru Gobind Singh ji.
Now, a person who knows even a little bit of history, or has been in Punjab and read some 10th class history books, knows that Sikhs didn’t have the name ‘Singh’ before 1699. It’s after the creation of the Khalsa Panth when Sikhs started having names with ‘Singh’ and ‘Kaur.’
Later in the article, he will claim that Baba Banda Singh bahadur didn’t take amrit and he’s still a Hindu. The problem with that theory is that if you are saying, on one hand, that the name ‘Baba Banda Singh’ was given by Guru Gobind Singh ji and he didn’t take amrit, then there wouldn’t have been ‘Singh’ word after the name. (These days all the Sikhs are having the last name as ‘Singh’ and ‘Kaur’, in the earlier times only those people had the name with Singh or Kaur who took amrit.)
We will discuss this later in more details from the sources, not just believe in some made-up stories of an eight-year-old boy.

8. ‘Some of these historians are just naïve with no perception or ability to connect the dots’ – Here the word ‘historians’ is used for Sikhs. To connect the dots first, you have to have a surface and then you should really know which dots you need to connect. Just using the name ‘Rothschild’ and justifying the story is not how you connect the dots.
Before moving on and talk more on anything else, first let’s understand the word ‘Rothschild.’ The Rothschild Family is pointed out in enormous illegal activities happening in the world. Some even say that the Word War I and II were influenced by the Rothschild Family.
You can Google the word and read all the stories, you can even believe that if you want to. But while writing this blog here, I really want to tell that if there is something bad happening or ever happened in the world, Ajit Vadakayil will point the finger at Rothschild because he doesn’t seem to have any evidence of what he is claiming. By saying this, I am not concluding that the Rothschild Family is clean, no. They might have their own share of doing bad things.
Whenever there are some references or history that says Sikhs are different than Hindus, our eight-year-old boy will come forward to say that it’s changed by Rothschild. Phew! I wish I had other good stories to read, this whole fictional article of Ajit Vadakayil is so anti-Sikh, egotistical, sham, and illogical that people should have captured its unauthenticity quickly. They did it other way around though.
Sikhs who know history and know the meaning of gurbani understood it at once; but those who are still enjoying the 21st century world by assuming everything on the web is true, or if even the deductive reasoning makes some sense for the time being, haven’t quite gotten into the details of his article.
We really need to ask ourselves especially when we read history. History is a tricky thing and can be moulded into any way. Like we had the example of a fake story from Ramayana. There the characters were real, but the incident was fake, and if it’s on the web and people are talking about that story, many of them will believe that because I used the word ‘British.’

9. ‘The same SECULAR duo was actively involved in passing the Anand Marriage act in 23rd May 2012.  The Nirankari Conference in Rawalpindi in March 1855 introduced Anand Marriage act , which was drafted by Rothschild’ – Anand Marriage act was passed in 2012 in India, earlier Sikhs used to register their marriages under the Hindu Act (or something).
In the constitution of India, Sikhs are still referred to be part of Hindus and so many times protests erupted in Punjab for that. But the Anand Marriage act was a first victory and assurance that Sikhs would change that part of the constitution too which says Sikhs are Hindus.
Some people with tiny brains come with some logic that Sikhs were referred as Hindus because it’s to unite all of the Indians. Slow clapping! Bullshit logic.
Now come to the word ‘Rothschild’ again. Before writing this line, he referred few things how Rothschild is wrong and then put the word here to hold the attention of the readers. This is how the article of his started with word like ‘traitors.’ Because this is the only way of separating the people and convince them again. I read a very good quote few days back:
“It stared politicians dividing the people with ‘us vs them.’ It started with intolerance and hate speech and when people stopped caring, became desensitised mindlessly obedient and turned a blind eye.”
The same thing is here. First tell how Rothschild is bad, then bring forward an incident, end with Rothschild. Simple. So, people will believe Rothschild is bad, everything that he did was bad (if he ever did, like in this Anand Marriage Act example). Ta dah!
Even just for the sake of the argument, if we believe that the Anand Marriage Act was drafted by Rothschild, why should we have a problem with it?
I gave this example in the video too that if Rothschild says 2+2=4, should we stop believing it just because he said it? Seriously?
Even if an alien comes from Mars and says Sikhs are different than Hindus, why should we have any problem with it? Problem should be for those who say Sikhs are Hindus, like Ajit Vadakayil. His whole article is to prove that Sikhs are Hindus, so he’d to make up some stories to convince the readers.
But the captain is different. He forgets what he’s written, maybe he is old and somewhat insane and perhaps suffering from schizophrenia, that’s why there are so many contradictions in his article. Will discuss that at the end of the series.
“If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.”

10. ‘In 1857 later Rothschild stopped all pretenses of being a trader and took over India with Sikh help.’ – It needs so much of understanding to know the truth. Will do it later but say few things here.
The Sikh Empire was the last empire that was conquered by the British. That being said, if apart from Punjab everything was under the British after the Anglo-Indian wars were won/lost by them, how Rothschild took over India with the help of Sikhs? (Or are you saying that Sikhs are the bravest people who could defeat the whole nation? 😊) There were other empires in India which came under the rule of the British first. Following are the empires that were there in India at the time of the British.
·        Sikh Empire
·        Maratha Empire
·        Gorkha Empire
·        Kingdom of Mysore.
Throughout his article he didn’t mention who came with the British to conquer the Sikh Empire, maybe he’s ashamed of that, or trying to blur that part of history so that the whole focus of the readers will be on the Sikhs.
Let me tell you this if you have not heard this. The Sikh Empire were conquered by the British with the help of Hindus and Muslims whose empires the British had already conquered, sometimes known as poorbias (eastern people of India.)
I remember an incident back in 1957, when 100-year of the ‘first war of independence’ was celebrated. Someone said that if Sikhs hadn’t helped the British, India would have got its independence in 1857. At that time, Dr Ganda Singh was in Punjabi University. Articles were published in The Tribune, a war of words, and so many known historians – actual historians, not some made-up storytellers like Ajit Vadakayil – like Dr R. C. Maujumdar, Sir Jadoo Naath, Dr Ganda Singh said that it’s never the war of independence as it’s taught to us in school.
The war of independence should be something that has a plan and leaders (Tantia Toppe, Jhansi di Raani, etc., will discuss them in more detail in some other post, but you can get to know about them why they joined the mutiny at the following link) to fight against a monarch.
In 1857, it was never the case. The mutiny started in Meerut on 10th May, 1857. The reason behind it wasn’t the independence but religious sentiments of Hindus and Muslims as ‘Enfield rifle ammunition had to be manually loaded before firing which involved biting the end of the cartridge, which was greased in pig fat and beef tallow.’
And there are the troops of Bahadur Shah, who said they wouldn’t fight without salaries. What kind of war of independence was it as they wanted to get paid for their services?
The ‘betrayal’ doesn’t even make sense at all. Sikhs were never disloyal to any other kingdom or promised that they would join the war against the British. Sikhs were never consulted for the 1857. What kind of betrayal are they saying it was? Just lies.
1857 is a very big discussion, if we are considering the role of Sikhs. Will write a completely different blog and put the link here in the future.
Following are what the researchers or historians said.
"I thought it necessary ... to counteract the current view that the outbreak of 1857 was the first national war of independence. I have
tried to show, with the help of details given, that it was neither 'first', nor 'National' nor 'a war of independence." - Dr R. C. Maujumdar
"Some Indians have written on the struggle in the early years of the century. If truth is to be told, we have to admit that the books
they have written are not history but mere political propaganda. These authors wanted to represent the uprising as a planned war of
independence organized by the nobility of India against British Government" - Maulana Abul Kalam Azad
Below is the link that you check to know more about 1857. Beware! You might read something that is not taught in your school books.

Saturday, 27 January 2018

Debunking the claims of Ajit Vadakayil about Sikhism - Part I

A
jit Vadakayil, a blogger who goes with the same blog name, has written many articles over many things. People read his blog with so much certainty that whatever he’s written is true and can be believed just because it’s some elements that convince them. The first thing that needs to be understood is the mentality of the person who claims to know many things without giving any proof. The falsification of the stories that he’s written can be seen from the words that he chooses while writing and sometimes the contradictions to his own statements. A person with a brain can easily see through the lies that have been written on Ajit Vadakayil’s blog.
Before moving to the assumptions made by the blogger about Sikhism, we should first discuss the different categories of people around the world who have failed to understand Sikhism and its core beliefs.
1.      People who believe that Sikhism is part of Hinduism as many words in Guru Granth Sahib ji resemble with what the Vedas and Shastras talk about.
2.      People who believe that Sikhism was influenced by Hinduism because of the saints that Guru Nanak Dev ji had met in his early life.
3.      People who claim that Sikhism was influenced/copied from Islam as Islam talks about one God, not many like in Hinduism (some say that God is one but in multiple forms, especially in Hinduism, just saying.)
4.      People who say Sikhism is an amalgamation of Hinduism and Islam.
Many Sikhs have understood that their claims are false and without any logic. Over the years, people have given the proof and talked in length on the above-mentioned points. Even in the times of Guru Sahibaans, some knowledgeable pandits debated with the Sikh Gurus to convince them that their belief system was superior than what Guru Sahibaans were teaching. We have a perfect example of Guru Nanak Dev ji’s time when Guru Nanak Dev ji went to a mountain to talk with the Sidhs – people who believe in asanas and believe that God can be seen or Oneness can be achieved by controlling the breathing or concentrating just on breathing. We have path of Sidh Ghostt in Guru Granth Sahib ji, and Jap Ji Sahib is also the conversation between Guru Nanak Dev ji and the Sidhs.
Everything was getting as good as it should be. Questions were raised, answers were given. Normal. Now comes the interesting part when Ajit Vadakayil wrote an article back in 2013, the date on the blog is 6th July 2013.
Whenever you want to convince someone with false claims, you have to bring forward some convincing lies about the history. It’s new and really interesting, if you ignore the real history and gurbani. People start following it as if it were true. I have a friend who happens to be a follower of the blog and shares Ajit Vadakayil’s articles on social media because he’s been convinced by his articles. It’s sad to say that he’s a Sikh and he believes that the Sikh Gurus were Hindus just because the blogger has written it. This is what has been happening to us – we don’t read gurbani and history written by the gursikhs but adopt the ideology of the Internet strugglers who are trying their best to prove Sikhs are Hindus.
Our history is written by so many gursikhs, few of them are Bhai Santokh Singh ji, Bhai Sukha Singh ji, Giani Gian Singh ji, Bhai Ratan Singh Bhanggu. And the gursikhs who wrote books about Sikhi, including some history too, Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha, Giani Ditt Singh, Bhai Vir Singh, Bhagat Puran Singh, Giani Sant Singh Maskeen, Bhai Pinderpal Singh ji, etc. How many of us have read the books written by these gursikhs? Very few.
There can be some verses in the granths, which talk about history, that are not according to gurmat, that can be ignored, but ignoring the whole granth will be a sign of burying our own history. Gurbani, history and baana are the three things which are very dear to Sikhs. Our whole religion is based on these three things, and over the centuries people have been trying to destroy all of them, including Sikhs too – the double-agents actually.
Before we debunk the claims of the blogger, let me bring to you the ideology behind the article written by Ajit Vadakayil. It’s a very old trick and known as divide and rule. The very first part of the article starts to hold the attention of the readers by saying ‘BEWARE-- IT WILL BE FAKE HISTORY --  AIMED TO PRODUCE DESH DROHIS.’ A person living in India who has a great respect for the country and the diverse cultures will be captivated to know if someone/something is doing something against the country to produce traitors. How many patriots will say that it’s okay to be a traitor to a country? None.
More than half of the readers will hold their grounds to know more about the people who are dividing India. And then will start the lies and more lies to convince the people about the fake history. If we weigh the words written by Ajit Vadakayil for this specific article about Sikhs, you will find so many contradictions in the article. Not only this, but all the articles on the blog. Here, our focus will be to know the false stories and claims made by him so that our history can’t be smudged and we know what our history is and what gurbani teaches us.
I think we have diverted from our conversation. Let’s go back to the uniqueness of that blogger’s article to convince the readers.
The name of the article is ‘UNKNOWN HISTORY OF SIKHS AND SIKHISM , PAWNS IN DIVIDE AND RULE POLICY OF BRITISH EMPIRE’ and can be found here. (I will try to provide as many links/verses as possible to tell why the article is a sham.)
You can read the article first there and then read it here or do vice-versa. It depends on you. But most of you who have reached to this article might already have read the article written by Ajit Vadakayil.
The article seems to be written by an eight-year-old boy who didn’t have a sketch book to draw a sketch so thought of writing something to get good marks at school. Really, not funny, I have a reason to believe that. And the reason is that the article has so many false things. A person who claims to write ‘UNKNOWN HISTORY OF SIKHS AND SIKHISM’ must provide some irrefutable evidence to hold his points true, which is not the case here.
When he finds it impossible to give evidence, his words would be as sham as the article saying that the British changed the history of Sikhs and the holy scriptures of Sikhs, so you will never find it written anywhere. But if the history is changed and Ajit Vadakayil was born after 1947, after the British left India, how he happened to know this if everything was changed by the British? Doesn’t make sense. Even if we think that whatever he’s claiming is true or can be to some point believable, he should give some references to a book or something, and later we have to ask ourselves why that can be trusted, I mean the book, and who wrote the book, how he gathered the information. These are all the basic questions that come in mind when we talk about history. It should not be some false story and then say ‘the history was changed so you should believe what I’m writing.’ No.
History doesn’t work in that way.
Now let’s discuss a false story here. It’s from Ramayana. I’m not writing this to hurt someone’s feelings but to tell why it won’t make any sense to claim something to be true without giving any source. Sorry, if it is going to hurt you.
“Ramchandra’s father knew that his wife will ask for Rama’s exile so that Bharat could rule the kingdom. Dasharatha didn’t want to do that but he’s the person who would keep his promise. Lakshman was very upset of that. He wanted to have the rule for himself, not for Bharat or Ramchandra. He talked with his father and Sumitra, his mother, to give him the rule of the kingdom. They didn’t agree. He went on saying that if he doesn’t get it, he will kill both Bharat and Ramchandra.
“Dasharatha was very angry with him and told him that there would be repercussion of that and he would be amputated in front of everyone. Lakshman didn’t listen to his father and tell that he would be going with his brother Ramchandra and his wife. Before going out with them, he talked with his father at night and told him that he would kill both Ramchandra and Sita and then will return to kill Bharat and claim his throne by throwing him in jail. He left with Ramchandra later. Dasharatha knew that Lakshman was as good at keeping his words as he was, so he jumped over the wall and killed himself.”
Now, let’s justify this story by saying ‘All the different Ramayanas that you see now are all corrupted. The British changed the whole history of Hinduism and didn’t let us keep the real history. This is the true history that you can’t find anywhere.’ Simple. This is how the article on Sikhism was written by Ajit Vadakayil. Write a story, claim it to be true, and then spread some true events to convince that everything else is true.
Let’s go in details about the points made by Ajit Vadakayil.

1. ‘BEWARE-- IT WILL BE FAKE HISTORY --  AIMED TO PRODUCE DESH DROHIS.’ – This we have discussed. To tell some patriots about a fake story or something that’s not true but is against something that they hold near to their heart, it’s the best option to start a war of words.
It’s been seen especially in the last decade that now people don’t have anything to blame, so they come with new stories; how some Khalistanis are trying to divide India or planning to do so. The problem is that if a country has some powers working against it, it will try to destroy that at any cost. There is no doubt in that that in Canada and England there are Sikhs who hold the key positions in the government and they have their own opinions about the innocent Sikhs who got killed back in ’90s in Punjab, and those opinions are not same as what the Government of India believed. They will definitely detest that. To have them stand down or to convince people that they can’t be trusted, some false stories are published by the media houses.
Sikhs are very hard-working people and they have shown themselves to the world what they truly are. There was a ban on wearing kirpan in England, that was lifted too and Sikhs are still trying in France to wear turbans on their heads. In recent news, Canada has allowed Sikhs to wear kirpans on plane. All these series of incidents are not digested by those who want to keep Sikhs only in one country, so destroy the history and true meaning of gurbani by writing online articles or by showing on some media channels that how Sikhs are planning against India. (I am here in no way saying that some Sikhs are not demanding a different land. India got its independence by doing the same thing. Sometimes you can’t control the revolution, doesn’t matter who you are or what powers you have.)
This is how to control the masses. There was an operation in the US known as Operation Mockingbird back in the early ‘50s to control masses by manipulating the media houses for brainwashing purposes. The same is done by many countries with/without some serious involvement of the secret agencies.
And the incident that got the author of the article to write the line ‘AIMED TO PRODUCE DESH DROHIS’ is the fact that in England/(other countries) there are books on Sikhism – the real history, not the fake one that is getting written by Ajit Vadakayil – which are exposing the claims of Ajit Vadakayil.

2.  ‘Check out the Sikh hand in the picture above-- restraining the Muslim hand .’ – There are two groups, actually non-Sikh groups, that tell two different stories. First one says that Sikhs saved Hindus at the time of the Mughal Empire, gives the example of the sacrifice of Guru Teg Bahadur ji to save Kashmiri Pandits. On the other hand, there is a fringe group that claims that Sikhs didn’t do anything for Hindus; Marathas and Rajputs fought against the Mughals and protected their own women. The Maratha Empire has a great history, some very brave warriors were born and fought against other forces. But trying to bring forward that part of the history and ignoring the Sikh history of protecting the Hindus insinuates how people could be ignorant while trying to justify history.
There are hundreds of incidents when Sikhs protected the women who were taken by the Mughals to sell in the brothels of Ghazni. Baba Deep Singh ji fought with the Mughals to free 10,000 women and asked Singhs to send the women to their houses. This was the character of the Khalsa; not like asking/giving the women to expand the territories. Won’t go more than that, otherwise some people will get offended to know how their kings gave the women to the enemies to save themselves.

3. ‘Before 1699 there was NO Sikhism at all.’ – There is another falsifying thing about this article, and most of the article revolves around it to convince how the first nine Sikh Gurus were Hindu.
Let’s start.
There are two years in the history of Sikhs that are very important. First one is 1469 and the second one is 1699. 1469 was the year when Guru Nanak Dev ji was born and this is the year when Sikhism was started. How?
Starting of a religion is the time when the person is enlightened or born or starts preaching. In Christians, the year when Christianity was started was the year of the birth of Jesus Christ. In Islam, the year when Prophet Mohammad was born or the time when he’s enlightened was the year of the beginning of Islam (there are some scholars too who say that the first person who was born was a Muslim i.e. Adam, and some even claim Jesus Christ to be a Muslim according to the new definition of Islam which says that if you submit to Allah, you are a Muslim. Let’s not go there and have our discussion on the current topic.) In Hinduism, there is no specific time or person who started the religion. Hinduism itself is a word that you can’t see in the scriptures of Hindus. This was a name given by the Persians. So, the name which is there in the Hindu scriptures is ‘Sanatan Dharama.’
The problem with people these days is that they claim that their religion is the oldest religion of the world and the first person who was born or evolved was a person who belonged to that specific religion. It sounds so insane that I laugh sometimes when people make these claims. That can hold true for them, no doubt in that. When you try to convince someone, it should be to a broader level; you can give examples from your religions to talk about your religion, but trying to talk about history that is not convincing will be false.
My take on Hinduism is, no offence to anyone, that Hinduism or Sanatan Dharma is a collection of cultures or religions. You can’t find it to be a centric religion. It’s like a culture, not a religion though. Some claim it to be a way of life and tell that there is no specific word in English that can be equivalent to ‘Dharma.’ All the stories that have no base. Then there are so many scriptures in Hinduism, sometimes they are totally different from each other. From that, I assume that it has to be a collection of something that people practised thousands of years ago, not a centric religion that can tell you what needs to be done but tell you different ways of doing something. And this take of mine is totally without any offence to any person who practises the religion. But just saying as we are going to discuss so many things about Hinduism because the blogger has written so many things in his article to have a conclusion that the Sikh Gurus were Hindus.
Coming back to 1469 year. This was the starting of Sikhism. And there was no enlightened year or someone who influenced Guru Nanak Dev ji. Guru Nanak Dev ji Himself was Waheguru, and Waheguru doesn’t need someone to tell Him what to do. But in the lives of Guru Sahibaans, you will see so few examples that tell us that the Sikh Gurus’ all-powerful nature was showed to the people. They didn’t do that to gather the people around them like the Sidhs were doing at that time.
When we are talking about Guru Nanak Dev ji, it’s necessary to talk about the claims of some people who say that Guru Nanak Dev ji’s guru was Sant Reinn ji (I’m sure you have heard the sakhi of 20 rupees.) There Guru Nanak Dev ji met Sant Reinn ji and talked to him and gave food. People who follow Sant Reinn they say that he was the guru of Guru Nanak Dev ji, no. When we read Suraj Parkash we see the real truth behind it. Here are the lines:
ਭਯੋ ਅਸਹਿ ਮੁਝ ਤੇਜ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਊ । ਯਾਂਤੇ ਦੀਨੀ ਜਾਨਿ ਰਜਾਊ ।
ਅਸ ਕਹਿ ਤਬ ਕੀਨੋ ਪੁਨ ਅਸਨਾ । ਖਾਨ ਲਗੇ ਸ੍ਵਾਦਨ ਤੇ ਰਸਨਾ ॥੫॥
Before giving the translation of these lines, let’s talk about the background of the story. When Guru Nanak Dev ji gave food to Sant Reinn ji and asked that he could serve them too, Sant Reinn ji said that you could go, we would do it ourselves. And when the followers of Sant Rein ji asked him why you sent Guru Nanak Dev ji away, these were the verses that he said. Here is the translation:
The Divine Light from him was so intense. I couldn’t sit in front of that (meaning the light inside Guru Nanak Dev ji was so bright and intense that it’s hard to sit in front of him) and told him to go.
By saying this, he sat on his seat. And start eating the delicious food.
Here is the video on our YouTube channel about it – Was Sant Reinn Guru Nanak Dev ji’s guru?
This is the truth with proof from the scripture, not some made-up story. This is the reason why people will always find a reason to tell not to read the old historic granths of Sikhs, because all the nonsense talks that they do about the history of Sikhs are debunked by the granths; and say that they were influenced by the British or are against gurmat. If there is something that contradicts with gurbani, we can always say that it’s wrong because this is not right according to gurbani. But we can’t ignore the whole granth. People like Jeonwala, Kala Afghana, Darshu and the people who follow them they are having this task in hand to stop Sikhs reading gurbani and old granths. BEWARE OF THESE IDIOTS.
1469 was the year when Guru Nanak Dev ji was born and started Sikhism. From the life of Guru Nanak Dev ji and the gurbani, we can always see that Guru Nanak Dev ji was neither a Hindu nor Muslim as claimed by some people. Will write a post on that later, but will give some examples here.
1.      When Guru Nanak Dev ji was asked to wear a janeu, Guru Nanak Dev ji said following verses to the pandit.
ਦਇਆ ਕਪਾਹ ਸੰਤੋਖੁ ਸੂਤੁ ਜਤੁ ਗੰਢੀ ਸਤੁ ਵਟੁ ॥

ਏਹੁ ਜਨੇਊ ਜੀਅ ਕਾ ਹਈ ਤ ਪਾਡੇ ਘਤੁ ॥

ਨਾ ਏਹੁ ਤੁਟੈ ਨ ਮਲੁ ਲਗੈ ਨਾ ਏਹੁ ਜਲੈ ਨ ਜਾਇ ॥
ਧੰਨੁ ਸੁ ਮਾਣਸ ਨਾਨਕਾ ਜੋ ਗਲਿ ਚਲੇ ਪਾਇ ॥
ਚਉਕੜਿ ਮੁਲਿ ਅਣਾਇਆ ਬਹਿ ਚਉਕੈ ਪਾਇਆ ॥
ਸਿਖਾ ਕੰਨਿ ਚੜਾਈਆ ਗੁਰੁ ਬ੍ਰਾਹਮਣੁ ਥਿਆ॥
ਓਹੁ ਮੁਆ ਓਹੁ ਝੜਿ ਪਇਆ ਵੇਤਗਾ ਗਇਆ॥੧॥ – ਅੰਗ ੪੭੧

2.      The following shabad was said in a very young age when Guru Nanak Dev ji was sent to a Maulvi to learn Farsi. The name of the Maulvi was Kutabdeen.
ਯਕ ਅਰਜ ਗੁਫਤਮ ਪੇਸਿ ਤੋ ਦਰ ਗੋਸ ਕੁਨ ਕਰਤਾਰ ॥

ਹਕਾ ਕਬੀਰ ਕਰੀਮ ਤੂ ਬੇਐਬ ਪਰਵਦਗਾਰ ॥੧॥

These incidents happened before 20-rupee sakhi of Guru Nanak Dev ji. Now if we believe that Guru Nanak Dev ji’s guru was Sant Reinn ji, how Guru Nanak Dev ji happened to know these verses or divine words?
Anyways, the conclusion of telling all these things is that Sikhism was started back in 1469, not 1699. And Guru Nanak Dev ji’s guru was no man, and neither he was influence by Hinduism or Islam or some Bhakti Movement.
Now let’s talk about 1699.
1699 was the year when the Khalsa Panth was created by Guru Gobind Singh ji. Ajit Vadakayil has not understood it so far that 1699 was the year of the creation of Khalsa, and 1469 was the year of the birth of Guru Nanak Dev ji and the starting of Sikhism.
Before 1699, Sikhs used to wear weapons too from the time of Guru Hargobind Sahib ji, the sixth guru, after the martyrdom of Guru Arjan Dev ji, the fifth guru. Guru Hargobind Sahib ji fought battles with the Mughals.
·        Battle of Amritsar
·        Battle of Gurusar
·        Battle of Kartarpur
·        Battle of Hargobindpur
People who claim that the Khalsa Panth was created to protect only Hindus from Muslims don’t make any sense. Maybe they don’t know the real history or the reason behind the creation of the Khalsa Panth. The very basic question that comes in mind is if they believe that the Khalsa Panth was created to protect only Hindus, then by saying this, are they saying the Hindus were not saved before Guru Gobind Singh ji created the Khalsa Panth? What about the sacrifice of Guru Teg Bahadur ji? What about the Hindus who were saved at the time of Guru Hargobind Sahib ji and Guru Har Rai ji?
All the false stories on the Internet are so confusing and misleading that people who write them should be very stupid to even think to write them.
Just to clarify why the Khalsa Panth was created, let’s take the verses from Guru Gobind Singh ji’s writing in Dasam Guru Granth Sahib.

ਤਿਨ ਕੀ ਠਉਰ ਦੇਵਤਾ ਥਾਪੇ ॥
ਤੇ ਭੀ ਬਲ ਪੂਜਾ ਉਰਝਾਏ ॥ ਆਪਨ ਹੀ ਪ੍ਰਮੇਸਰ ਕਹਾਏ ॥੭॥
ਮਹਾਦੇਵ ਅਚੁੱਤ ਕਹਵਾਯੋ ॥ ਬਿਸਨ ਆਪ ਹੀ ਕੋ ਠਹਿਰਾਯੋ ॥
ਬ੍ਰਹਮਾ ਆਪ ਪਾਰਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਬਖਾਨਾ ॥ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਕੋ ਪ੍ਰਭੂ ਨ ਕਿਨਹੂੰ ਜਾਨਾ ॥੮॥

ਕੇਤੇ ਸੂਰ ਚੰਦ ਕਹੁ ਮਾਨੈ ॥ ਅਗਨ ਹੋਤ੍ਰ ਕਈ ਪਵਨ ਪ੍ਰਮਾਨੈ ॥੧੦॥
ਕਿਨਹੂੰ ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਪਾਹਨ ਪਹਿਚਾਨਾ ॥ ਨਾਤਿ ਕਿਤੇ ਜਲ ਕਰਤ ਬਿਧਾਨਾ ॥
ਕੇਤਕ ਕਰਮ ਕਰਤ ਡਰਪਾਨਾ ॥ ਧਰਮਰਾਜ ਕੋ ਧਰਮ ਪਛਾਨਾ ॥੧੧॥

ਤਬ ਹਰਿ ਸਿੱਧ ਸਾਧ ਠਹਿਰਾਏ ॥ ਤਿਨ ਭੀ ਪਰਮ ਪੁਰਖ ਨਹੀ ਪਾਏ ॥
ਜੇ ਕੋਈ ਹੋਤ ਭਯੋ ਜਗਿ ਸਿਆਨਾ ॥ ਤਿਨ ਤਿਨ ਅਪਨੋ ਪੰਥੁ ਚਲਾਨਾ ॥੧੪॥

Then I created Devtas (deities) to replace them.
By showing their powers, even they started their own worshipping. And started calling themselves God. ||7||
Shiv ji started calling himself God. Vishnu started saying he is God.
Brahma started calling himself God. Nobody was worshipping God but deities. ||8||

So many people worshipped Sun and Moon. Some are doing worshipping of Fire by doing yajna and some worshipping Air. ||10||
Some believed God is in stones. Some believed bathing at the religious places is great.
So many people are doing these things just because they are afraid. And they called Dharamraj their religion. ||11||

Then Sidhs were sent on earth. None of them understood God.
If someone got the understanding of God. They started their own Panth. ||14|

When all the people who were sent on the earth didn’t start the panth of Waheguru, Guru Gobind Singh ji was asked by God. (Mind you, Guru Gobind Singh ji also said that there is no difference between all the Sikh Gurus who were born before him; and they all were the roop of Waheguru. And same is true for Guru Gobind Singh ji. Thought of clearing this thing as some people are there who don’t know much about Dasam Guru Granth Sahib and start claiming false things.)
ਮੈ ਅਪਨਾ ਸੁਤ ਤੋਹਿ ਨਿਵਾਜਾ ॥ ਪੰਥੁ ਪ੍ਰਚੁਰ ਕਰਬੇ ਕਹੁ ਸਾਜਾ ॥
ਜਾਹਿ ਤਹਾਂ ਤੈ ਧਰਮੁ ਚਲਾਇ ॥ ਕੁਬੁਧਿ ਕਰਨ ਤੇ ਲੋਕ ਹਟਾਇ ॥੨੯॥
In the next verses, Guru Gobind Singh ji said why he came in this world. Let’s see if he says it’s just to protect only Hindus from Muslims as said by fake scholars/bloggers.
ਹਮ ਇਹ ਕਾਜ ਜਗਤ ਮੋ ਆਏ ॥ ਧਰਮ ਹੇਤ ਗੁਰਦੇਵ ਪਠਾਏ ॥
ਜਹਾਂ ਤਹਾਂ ਤੁਮ ਧਰਮ ਬਿਥਾਰੋ ॥ ਦੁਸਟ ਦੋਖੀਯਨਿ ਪਕਰਿ ਪਛਾਰੋ ॥੪੨॥
ਯਾਹੀ ਕਾਜ ਧਰਾ ਹਮ ਜਨਮੰ ॥ ਸਮਝਿ ਲੇਹੁ ਸਾਧੂ ਸਭ ਮਨਮੰ ॥
ਧਰਮ ਚਲਾਵਨ ਸੰਤ ਉਬਾਰਨ ॥ ਦੁਸਟ ਸਭਨ ਕੋ ਮੂਲ ਉਪਾਰਨਿ ॥੪੩॥
For this work I came in the word. Waheguru/God sent me here.
Spread the righteousness everywhere. People who are doing bad things and killing innocents, fight with them to stop them. ||42||
I came in the world for this. Understand this in your mind, all the saints.
I am here to spread the panth of Waheguru and save saints. And to stop the evil people. ||43||
Nowhere I saw Guru Gobind Singh ji talking about saving only Hindus from Muslims. These so-called stories are spread by those who don’t want to tell the truth to people. The Khalsa Panth was created to fight against injustice, not to fight against Muslims.
In India, there has been a continuous growth of hatred these days towards Muslims by calling them to go to Pakistan; or they are just invaders and all. This is the root cause of hatred that we see these days. People even go and say Muslims killed two Sikh Gurus and you shouldn’t be polite with them. They want Sikhs to be like them – idiot, illogical and hostile.
Just to summarise the two years, here it is:
·        1469: The year of the birth of Guru Nanak Dev ji and beginning of Sikhism.
·        1699: The year of the creation of Khalsa Panth.
There are only three points that we’ve discussed and it consumed 15 pages of my Microsoft Word. Anyways, it’s going to be a long series and will consume so much of time to know about the truth. I will post here as we move along it. You can also watch our expose of Ajit Vadakayil on the following link: