Replying to Vashi Sharma Agniveer: 7 Questions

Replying to Vashi Sharma Agniveer: 7 Questions

Okay, I want to keep this article as short as possible, if the words allow me to summarise in few paragraphs, which never is possible.

There are few questions that have been circling on the Internet, especially on the social media, and the same questions have been put to Sikhs to tell how they are not different than the other religious people. Everyone loves their religion, there’s no doubt in that. Sometimes religious people use ‘science’ to prove how their religion is the ultimate truth and according to science. Some Sikhs are following the same pursuit. People mix religion and science. They want it to be the same.

Let’s keep it in our mind that doesn’t matter which religion we talk about, if there’re miracles, you cannot prove them by science. Never. Ever. There’s no harm to show some similarities between science and religion, but corelating a religion to science and disregarding all the unexplainable incidents of the past is not to be called religion-following-science.

The post on the social media says about what Sikhs believe and then some man with passing marks in English in 10th class and zero marks in history gives an explanation of how millions of people who follow Sikhi are wrong and his post makes more sense. And many points that he talked about are assumptions of Ajit Vadakayil, a dilettante that we are talking about in other articles.

Will use SS as Sikhs Say, and ANS as answer of the man with zero marks in history.

SS:  Sikhs are different from Hindus.

ANS: Sikhs are Hindus. Khalsa was the Hindu Army created by Guru Gobind Singh ji.

His answer is based on (according to him) ‘Bachitar Natak’, a bani written by Guru Gobind Singh ji. It’s very important to know that ‘Bachitar Natak’ is what many Sikhs with no knowledge of Sikhi and some handful of Hindus talk about to prove their points. Kaala Afghana, an agent of the agencies, wrote many books about Sikhism, and his tenth book of ‘Bipran ki Reet’ was to degrade the gurbani of ‘Bachitar Natak.’ His assumptions were so laughable that a bhujangi of 20 years who is well-read in Damdami Taksaal can answer his questions raised in the book.

‘Bachitar Natak’ is the bani that shatters the core beliefs of Hinduism including brahman is at the highest level, caste system, the three main deities, the yajnas, etc. Yes, there is mentioned of Ram Chandar ji and his sons and how the bedis were from that family. But that doesn’t make a new generation to be the same followers of the old tradition.

As we are talking about Ram Chandar ji, let’s take his example. His grandfather was Raghu, on whose name Raghuwanshi family was named. Raghu’s father was Dilip, say if Dilip had some family name or something, why people don’t call him of his great-grandfather’s name? Why people don’t call Dilipwanshi but Raghuwanshi? If there’s a term Dilipwanshi or some other name, why was it abandoned? We can go on to the ancestors of Dilip too: Dighbahu, Khatang, Vishvshe, Edvid, etc. Let’s go back to the time when humans were living in jungles and were not fully developed, why not the original clan, but his grandfather’s? Any answers?

So if you can’t answer that, how can you say if Guru Nanak Dev ji was born in the same family as of Ram Chandar ji, then he was a Hindu? My thinking is somewhat blurred here and can’t see a link to connect the two dots that emerged from nowhere. Can you?

Over the years, many Sikhs have written books on this ‘Sikhs are not Hindus’, but some tiny-brained people are so ignorant and disgusting they can’t understand this that Sikhs are not Hindus. Actually, what they are trying to do is what Buddhist did to them. There was a time when Buddhism was at the top in India, back in the 2nd or 3rd century, and I heard that they changed many books of Hindus, wrote several Ramayana, one of them says that Sita killed Ravan, later around the 9th century, some scholar, if I am not wrong his name was Adi Shankaracharya, people believe that he was an incarnation of Shivji, tried to stop them from maligning the history of Hindus further. And now some Hindus (not all, note this) try to do the same: ‘Sikhs are Hindus’, ‘Buddhism is Hinduism’.

Few behind-the-keyboard scholars say that Hinduism is an ocean where all the religions merge. Actually, it’s totally the opposite. Hinduism, in the older times, was not a religion at all (spare me with it’s a way of life), it’s the smaller groups (religions) that made a big religion/culture called Sanatan Dharma. Like we can say of Punjabism, it’s not a religion, but a cultural thing, and many religions or groups are there in Punjab, but calling Punjabism one religion will be sheer stupidity. Same is with Sanatan Dharma. Different groups are there in Sanatan Dharma, but you can’t collectively call it a religion if there’re contradictions among the smaller groups: Shaivism believes that Shiva is the Supreme God. Vaishnava believes that Vishnu is the Supreme God. And some videos on the Internet also dictate that you can be an atheist too in Sanatan Dharma. Confusing smiley*

I believe that Sanatan Dharma is a cultural thing, and the smaller groups in Sanatan Dharma are actually the religions that made a culture Sanatan Dharma.

Now the second point in the line. Khalsa was a Hindu army? Damn, I am laughing while writing this and my stomach is aching. And I really want to puke on those who say this without understanding. I remember this joke from the Internet: people who didn’t know in their childhood the difference between Raveena Tandon and Twinkle Khanna are calling themselves scholars and historians.

In his writings, Guru Gobind Singh ji mentioned that if the Khalsa goes the way of brahmins/pandits, I won’t even want to see them. How can the Khalsa be a group of Hindus then? (That’s not said because of the hate towards Hindus but their practices that were shunned by all the Sikh Gurus.) So many Hindus and Muslims found the True Path with the teaching of the Sikh Gurus. Even in ‘Akaal Ustat’, Guru Gobind Singh ji wrote several verses in the praises of Waheguru, and said He is omnipresent, present in Hindus and Muslims both, but rejected the philosophy of both the religions, although some similarities were there.

Now, some narrow-minded people will say, ‘well, if that’s true, then how the idea of God present everywhere came from? It’s the Hindu philosophy.’ No, buddy, you’re so wrong here. Philosophy is knowing of something or more of a guideline to tell us how to behave. Especially if we’re talking about religions, you cannot say ‘God is present in everything was made by some XYZ group.’ That doesn’t work in the field of religion. If God is present everywhere, He is present everywhere. Nobody put God in everything and then claimed that’s because of him. No. Like gravity. Someone found it. Okay. But the person doesn’t create gravity. And all the knowledge that people had before the arrival of Guru Nanak Dev ji, most of the times it came from the Divine, directly or indirectly. Guru Nanak Dev ji didn’t learn it from some saint, no. He was the Divine Himself. He was not to be taught by a man. He knew from the birth. But as many forms are there, there’re two main forms: nirgun and sargun. Nirgun was Waheguru, and His sargun form was Guru Nanak Dev ji (although everything is the sargun form of Waheguru, including the deities, but they are not above maaya, including us, but Waheguru and the Sikh Gurus are.)

So, no, the Khalsa was not a Hindu army. It doesn’t even make sense to create some Hindu army; there’re so many Mountain Chieftains (paharri raaje) present, who fought with Guru Sahib too, so creating some Hindu army is totally nonsense.

Throughout his writing, Guru Sahib didn’t mention of Sikhs to be same as Hindus or Muslims. It’s the third panth that emerged from the khanda. Five heads were taken by Guru Sahib to create the Khalsa Panth, not some simple logic ‘it existed from the beginning.’ Khalsa is Guru Sahib’s own form, not Hindus.

So stop lying to yourself. You haven’t changed a bit of the way of Khalsa Panth and you’ve been trying for decades, bought some sold-out Sikhs, still, you are standing where you were decades back. The only people that can be influenced by your writing are the ones who have no knowledge of Sikhi. If you sit in front of a well-read Sikh, you will wet your pants because all you have will be some hard truths in your face.

SS: Sikh Gurus are superior to all great souls.

ANS: Sikh Gurus are as great as any other saint in Hinduism. There is no superiority involved.

I am a Sikh and it’s in my teachings that I shouldn’t abuse a saint of any religion. It can be from Islam or Hinduism or Christianity, etc.

We read in ‘Sukhmani Sahib’ what happens if you use bad words for saints. Guru Arjan Dev ji – the fifth Sikh Guru – wrote a whole ashtpadi for it. And in gurbani, it’s said saints and Waheguru both are same, there’s no difference between them, like waves of an ocean and ocean itself. Eventually, the saints, despite their religions, merge with Waheguru. There’s a small difference here if you compare the saints with the Sikh Gurus.

Guru Nanak Dev ji’s guru was Waheguru, not some human being. And all the other Sikh Gurus’ guru was Guru Nanak Dev ji and the next to him. In ‘Chandi di Vaar’, Guru Gobind Singh ji mentioned the first nine Sikh Gurus’ names. Likewise, Guru Angad Dev ji’s guru was Guru Nanak Dev ji.

1.      Guru Nanak Dev ji

2.      Guru Angad Dev ji

3.      Guru Amardas ji

4.      Guru Ramdas ji

5.      Guru Arjan Dev ji

6.      Guru Hargobind Sahib ji

7.      Guru Har Rai ji

8.      Guru Har Krishan ji

9.      Guru Tegh Bahadur ji

10.   Guru Gobind Singh ji

11.   Guru Granth Sahib ji

12.   Guru Khalsa Panth ji

13.   Guru Sadh Sangat ji

If we talk about the saints in the twelfth century onwards, their guru was Parmanand ji; Bhagat Farid ji’s guru was Qutbuddin Bakhtiar Kaki ji. Even Ram Chandar ji and Krishan ji had their gurus in human form. But Guru Nanak Dev ji was the one whose guru was Waheguru. There’s no middle man between Guru Sahib and Waheguru.

That’s the difference.

Guru Nanak Dev ji was satguru from birth.

The writer who wrote there’s no ‘superiority’ involved cannot say that Krishan ji and Ram Chandar ji and other deities are not superior to the saints. Can he? But during the conversation of the Sikh Gurus his mindset changes and he bends the rules to prove his point.

If there’s no superiority of the, say, three main deities in Hinduism, then they can revere the saints too and should remove their idols from the temples and call the saints their gods. No! Come on, there’s no superiority, remember?

In Guru Granth Sahib ji, the banis of different saints were included because their philosophy was same as what Guru Sahibaan had – meditate on Waheguru’s name. The names were different because of His attributes. One can say Him Merciful, Omnipresent, Doer, Destroyer, Self-Illuminating, Fearless, etc. There are infinite names.

Yes, there’s superiority involved, if there’s not any, Sikhs would have called the saints whose banis are in Guru Granth Sahib ji as gurus, but we don’t, we just respect them as saints/bhagats.

SS: Sikh God is different.

ANS: Sikh God is exactly same as described by Guru Maharaj in Chandi Di Var. The God of Vedas.

While talking about religions the thing that fascinates me is that people try to divide God into different subgroups, or religions. Many debaters call terms like Hindu God, Sikh God, Muslim God, Christian God, etc. to have a difference between them. There’s only one God, there’s no need to divide Him in subgroups. So there’s no term as ‘Sikh God’ or ‘God of Vedas’, what a person can call is I define God according to this specific religious book. That will make more sense while talking to someone. The definitions are definitely different in religions, but the truth remains the same i.e. God is one, He has multiple forms. Simple.

If we go according to the book of Muslims i.e. the Quran, even in this book Allah is defined as Formless, Timeless, etc. Why can’t we say that ‘Sikh God’ is exactly the same as defined in the holy book of Muslims? And if that is same as mentioned in the Vedas, have you heard someone say Allah is exactly the same as Ram in Hindus? You have not. The reason being people have failed to understand that both are same. That’s why Guru Sahibaan kept both the names of Waheguru in gurbani, Ram and Allah, and many more because they are same. (Here it is not about Ramchandra.) Once reading an online article, I read that you can call Waheguru/God with any name but it shouldn’t be specifically of a human being’s name. If you know an attribute of Waheguru, call Him with that name.

Coming to ‘Chandi di Vaar’, nowhere in there Guru Sahib mentioned the form of Waheguru or gave an overview of Waheguru. The writer might be a follower of Shaktism sect, which worships Kaali and Durga, and confusing Waheguru with the deities. Actually, in ‘Akaal Ustat’ and ‘Bachitar Natak’ Guru Sahib wrote so many verses in the praise of Waheguru. The first chandd in ‘Chandi di Vaar’ is about the names of the Sikh Gurus except Guru Gobind Singh ji, and the second one is to talk about how the incarnations of deities took their power from Waheguru.

qY hI durgw swij kY dYqw dw nwsu krwieAw ]

qYQoˆ hI blu rwm lY nwl bwxw dhisru GwieAw ]

qYQoˆ hI blu ikRsn lY kMsu kysI pkiV igrwieAw ]

Krishan, Ram, Durga, every single one of them got their power to fight with the enemies from Waheguru/God. I don’t see any similarities that say the deities are Waheguru. Many of the sects in Hinduism talk about Dasam Guru Granth Sahib ji without knowing that it’s something that will segregate Sikhs from other sects of other religions. Unknowingly, they’re talking about this granth, soon it will show a way to (them to) distinguish between the old traditions and Sikhi.

That is also the main reason why some handful of Sikhs are disregarding the bani of Guru Gobind Singh ji. They know it’s the tool that will cut all the links that many people ignorantly talk about between Sikhi and Hinduism/Islam. So the agencies and some religious organizations hired people like Kaal Afghana and Darshu to promulgate that the Dasam Bani is not written by Guru Gobind Singh ji. They are afraid the truth will come out. Anyways, Khalsa know this from the beginning what reasons those sold-out Sikhs have to talk against gurbani.

The guy who wrote the article has not even read ‘Chandi di Vaar’, otherwise he wouldn’t have written so shamelessly that Guru Sahib mentioned about Waheguru in the sense of the Vedas. Although I don’t hate the Vedas or any other religious book that exists in the world, nor do I revere them. I just respect them and want to read every single of them before dying. But my trust will always be in gurbani, and if there’s something that is shunned by gurbani and preached by other religious books, I will always go according to gurbani. Other religious people can follow the exact opposite. It’s their choice. Eventually, we want to meet Waheguru. Which way people think is better suitable for them, they chose that.

Just to conclude this answer, there’s nowhere mentioned that the deities are above Waheguru or maaya. If the Vedas teach that there’s only one God and deities are below Him and Waheguru is Formless, Timeless, etc., I don’t see any problem if we say Sikhism and Hinduism or Islam have the same definition of God. But saying in ‘Chandi di Vaar’ it’s written … you really need to work on the study of religious books.

And, no, nowhere Sikhs say that Sikh God is different than other religions’ God. That’s some stupidity I came across the first time.

SS: Sikhs don’t worship idols. Hence they are superior.

ANS: Many sects of Hinduism don’t worship idols. It doesn’t establish any superiority of one sect over others. But if Hindus are to be hated because of they worship Idols, Sikhs will be hated because they worship book, Muslims will be hated because they worship Kaba and so on.

I believe no one should be hated because of their beliefs. We can say we don’t follow the rituals but shouldn’t hurt someone’s feelings towards their religion. And in today’s world it is a major issue that we human beings are facing. We bash other religions just because they do something that we do not do. I have seen many Muslims and Christians fighting over whose religious book is the best book and according to science. That works as a fuel to instigate violence or loathing for a particular community. I request whoever is reading this post, DO NOT HATE SOMEONE BECAUSE OF HIS RELIGION OR COUNTRY.

Now let’s discuss the point. I have talked so much about Sikhi to different religious people, including Hindus too. I have not seen Sikhs calling themselves superior because they don’t worship idols. It might be that the guy who wrote the post might have read it on some blog or heard from someone. It’s actually insane to say if we do not do some rituals as followed by other religious people then we are superior. We Sikhs should always remember that we follow the Code of Conduct, and also don’t hate any deities or other religious people, even if we have cultural and religious differences.

I have seen some Sikhs bashing deities all the time, that is also wrong. If we have to talk about some incident related to the incarnation of any deity, using that as a base is a different matter, but wasting all of your time saying deities are bad is just stupidity. They are just the servants of Waheguru. Have you heard any deity say that the Sikh Gurus are bad? No. Why show hatred towards them then? Same is true for other religious people too. If we want to survive as a human race, we should stand together, despite our differences, to fight against hatred because of the religious beliefs, and be ready to fight against injustice.

We have come to that stage if a person is injured, first we check if he belongs to a specific religion/country or not. If he doesn’t, we conclude that it happened because of so and so reasons. If he’s from the same group that we follow, we are happy to help him. You can see so many people calling Pakistan a bad country without knowing how the people are living there. In India, it’s become a trend to say ‘go to Pakistan’ if you don’t agree with someone. Governments can be bad, police and army can be bad, but you CANNOT judge the whole country just on the basis of its government. Think of 1984, 2002, etc., what if someone from another country judges us on the basis of what happened in those years and how the governments were involved? Does that mean we are all happy to hear the incidents of the past where innocent people were killed? No. Never blame the whole group, but, yes, if a person is doing something bad, we blame him, although that is purely subjective.

Now, let’s talk about Guru Granth Sahib ji. We bow our heads in front of Guru Granth Sahib ji because the Granth is our guru. For us, it’s not just a knowledgeable book, but a living guru. Purely just a thought didn’t start this. Guru Arjan Dev ji used to sleep on the floor but keep the Granth on the bed to show how much respect Sikhs should have. And Guru Gobind Singh ji said the Granth will be the guru, he bowed to the Granth in Nanded Sahib. Sikhs followed it as it’s the command of the Guru.

SS: Sikhism was founded because Hinduism was faulty.

ANS: Khalsa, as I said, was not any religion. I was an army to protect Hindu and Hindustan as per Guru Gobind Singh ji. I dare anyone to prove otherwise.

At the time of Guru Sahib, someone asked why there’s gurbani needed when other religious books (Vedas) were present at earlier time. Answer to that, it’s said think of it as rain. Even though the water is present under the earth, but rain is necessary to grow the crops.

In Gur Nanak Parkash, Bhai Santokh Singh ji mentioned it very beautifully before the birth of Guru Nanak Dev ji that how the people were fighting with each other; they were not following the True Path, still practising yajna and all, which were not of any use in the Dark Age (kalyug), even in gurbani it’s mentioned that bathing at the holy places and yajna were of different age, in the Dark Age only the naam-simran is required; how the Muslims of the time were converting other religious people, and the rulers were exploiting the poor; there’s a story too that I heard that the ruler would call a Hindu, and he would open his mouth, the ruler would spit in the mouth of the Hindu and he would throw it out, like a dustbin; even the Jains were fighting over who’s good Digambar or Shwetambar; pandits and Imams were looting the believers, etc. There’re so many reasons that Waheguru had to come on this earth in the form of Guru Nanak Dev ji.

Now coming to the faulty thing. In Bachitar Natak, the guy mentioned in the aforementioned points without reading it, even Guru Gobind Singh ji said that all the deities and starter of different religions (before Guru Nanak Dev ji) didn’t complete the job of Waheguru. Would the guy say even Bachitar Natak is wrong now because it’s not according to his claims?

Akwl purK bwc ies kIt pRiq ] cOpeI ]

jb pihly hm isRsit bnweI ] deIq rcy dust duKdweI ]

qy Buj bl bvry hÍY gey ] pUjq prm purK rih gey ]6]

qy hm qmik qnk mo Kwpy ] iqn kI Taur dyvqw Qwpy ]

qy BI bl pUjw aurJwey ] Awpn hI pRmysr khwey ]7]

mhwdyv Acu`q khvwXo ] ibsn Awp hI ko TihrwXo ]

bRhmw Awp pwrbRhm bKwnw ] pRB ko pRBU n iknhUM jwnw ]8]

qb swKI pRB Ast bnwey ] swK nimq dyby Tihrwey ]

qy khY kro hmwrI pUjw ] hm ibn Avr n Twkuru dUjw ]9]

prm q`q ko ijn n pCwnw ] iqn kir eIsr iqn khu mwnw ]

kyqy sUr cMd khu mwnY ] Agn hoqR keI pvn pRmwnY ]10]

iknhUM pRBu pwhn pihcwnw ] n@wiq ikqy jl krq ibDwnw ]

kyqk krm krq frpwnw ] Drmrwj ko Drm pCwnw ]11]

jy pRB swK nimq Thrwey ] qy ihAW Awie pRBU khvwey ]

qw kI bwq ibsr jwqI BI ] ApnI ApnI prq soB BI ]12]

jb pRB ko n iqnY pihcwnw ] qb hir ien mnuCn Tihrwnw ]

qy BI bis mmqw huie gey ] prmysr pwhn Tihrey ]13]

qb hir is`D swD Tihrwey ]iqn BI prm purK nhI pwey ]

jy koeI hoq BXo jig isAwnw ] iqn iqn Apno pMQu clwnw ]14]

prm purK iknhUM nh pwXo ] bYr bwd AhMkwr bFwXo ]

pyf pwq Awpn qy jlY ] pRB kY pMQ n koaU clY ]15]

Throughout his small QnA, he didn’t mention anywhere any verse to prove his points, it’s just words after words. Claiming something, especially about the religious studies, without giving evidence is not how it works. Think of all the wrong claims and mentioning the names of any religious saint of Hinduism and Islam, and then preaching it’s said by him. In this, he said Guru Gobind Singh ji said that the Khalsa was to protect Hindus only. If that were the case, there wouldn’t have been any battles between the Mountain Chieftains (who were Hindus) – they chose a side with the Mughals at the Battle of Chamkaur and the Battle of Anandpur, etc – and the Khalsa. The problem with these beyond-the-keyboard scholars is that they’ve not read a single religious book of other religions (I doubt if they read theirs too) but start arguing aimlessly on social media. What most of these people have done is read some articles about other religions, but no study of the history and the holy books.

So the Khalsa Panth was not created solely to protect a country or a religion. It’s to fight against injustice, despite the religious and cultural boundaries. People these days just want to limit Sikhi to a specific land, only to India, and call how they should only love India, and try to change their minds with fake patriotism and history. But that can never be limited to a country. We have seen it. There’re Sikhs sitting in the parliaments of Canada and Britain.

Keep trying, buddies, you’re still stuck where you were decades ago.

SS: Sikh Gurus started a new faith.

ANS: 9 out of 10 Sikh Gurus even didn’t know that they were some different Sikhs from hindus. 9 out of 10 Sikh Gurus never wore Panj Kakars. They were living like any other Hindu. They were fighting cow-killers like any other Hindu. They were invoking Chandi and Durga like any other Hindu. Thus they were Hindus.

The knowledge is power. It leads to no contradictions while talking about history. As someone said if you tell the truth, you don’t need to remember it. Lies have to be remembered. Many people, who have read articles of Ajit Vadakayil – a dilettante, do not even know there’re two terms: Khalsa Panth and Sahejdhaari Sikhs. The latter are the ones who are not baptised yet. Panj Kakaars are worn by the Khalsa Panth, not Sahejdhaari Sikhs. But, yes, these days all Sikhs despite if they’ve been baptised or not will wear a karra, but a kirpan is worn by the Khalsa Panth.

It is totally bovine to say the first nine Sikh Gurus didn’t wear panj kakaars so they were not Sikhs. Actually, gurbani says that there’s no difference between Guru Nanak Dev ji and Guru Angad Dev ji till Guru Granth Sahib ji. Only the form is changed, but the jot was same throughout the time of Guru Sahibaan in human form. Even now, Guru Granth Sahib ji has the same jot as was in Guru Nanak Dev ji. A perfect example was given in Gur Nanak Parkash that it’s like a king changes his clothes; the king will be same, but his clothes get changed every day. Same is with the Sikh Gurus. The bodies were changed but the Akaal Jot was same in all the Sikh Gurus. And in ‘Bachitar Natak’, Guru Gobind Singh ji wrote that many people didn’t understand this, only few were there who understood it.

nwnk AMgd ko bpu Drw ] Drm pRcuir ieh jg mo krw ]

Amr dws puin nwmu khwXo ] jn dIpk qy dIp jgwXo ]7]

jb brdwin smY vhu Awvw ] rwmdws qb gurU khwvw ]

iqh brdwin purwqn dIAw ] Amrdwis surpuir mgu lIAw ]8]

sRI nwnk AMgid kir mwnw ] Amrdws AMgd pihcwnw ]

Amrdws rwmdws khwXo ] swDin lKw mUV nih pwXo ]9]

iBMn iBMn sbhUM kir jwnw ] eyk rUp iknhMU pihcwnw ]

ijn jwnw iqn hI isD pweI ] ibn smJy isD hwQ n AweI ]10]

rwmdws hir so iml gey ] gurqw dyq Arjnih Bey ]

jb Arjn pRBu lok isDwry ] hirgoibMd iqh TW Thrwey ]11]

hirgoibMd pRB lok isDwry ] hrI rwie iqh TW bYTwry ]

hrI ikRsn iqn ky suq vey ] iqn qy qyg bhwdr Bey ]12]

iqlk jM\U rwKw pRB qw kw ] kIno bfo klU mih swkw ]

swDin hyiq ieqI ijin krI ] sIsu dIXw pru sI n aucrI ]13]

Drm hyq swkw ijin kIAw ] sIsu dIAw pru isrru n dIAw ]

nwtk cytk kIey kukwjw ] pRB logn kh Awvq lwjw ]14]

‘Living like any Hindu’? Are you saying they were wearing dhotis and tilak and janeu and reading the Vedas and all? When was the last time you went to a doctor for a check-up? I strongly recommend you to go to a hospital at the earliest, because you are suffering from a rare disease which is spreading among many (mainly) Hindus (not all though), known as SAHD (Sikhs are Hindus disorder.) If you do not want to go to a doctor, you can read history and gurbani and ask the questions to Sikhs rather than believing online articles.

Now coming to Chandi and Durga. I have covered this in another article (here), you can check out. (It’s about the people calling Guru Gobind Singh ji a worshipper of some Hindu deity, wife of Shivji, Parbhati.) So invoking some Chandi and Durga is completely foolishness. Gurbani says that there are millions of Durga, which one are you talking about?

mhwdyv Aru kiblws ] durgw koit jw kY mrdnu krY ]

bRhmw koit byd aucrY ]1] – AMg 1162

Millions of Shivas and Kailash mountains. Millions of Durga goddesses massage His Feet. (Under His command.)

Millions of Brahmas chant the Vedas for Him.

So which Durga?

These whole baseless arguments to portray the Sikh Gurus as Hindus cannot stand in front of Sikhs. Yes, those who go to some brainless teachers in some organizations can applause on these findings of yours, but in reality, you have not even read the Nursery class syllabus of Sikhi.

SS: Hindu Brahmans betrayed Sikh Gurus and got them killed (Guru Arjan and Guru Tegh Bahadur)

ANS: Betrayal of a few individuals is not justification of calling an entire faith weak. Did not some key Sikh characters betrayed Banda Vairagi in the crucial moments against Mughals? Did not some Sikhs side with British against freedom fighters? Does that make whole Sikhs traitors? No. Similarly, some Gangu (again, no solid evidences of such ugly character as portrayed by Khaslistani extremists) can not represent Hinduism.

Hindu and Sikh were same for Gurus. This is what true history tells us. Any other narrative that gives even slightest hint of separatism is concocted. Read lives of Banda Vairagi (Bahadur), Maharaja Ranjit Singh, Hari Singh Nalwa and others. You will know what I mean. Khalsa Army and Hindu Army have been used extensively as synonyms throughout their campaigns.

Yes, Banda Vairagi, Nalwa and Maharaja were Sikhs just like I am a Sikh too which means someone who respects Gurus and their holy teachings. But if tasting Amrit or possessing 5 Kakars is the sole requisite to be a Sikh, even 9 Gurus and Banda Vairagi were not Sikhs because none of them had ever tasted Amrit.

Separatism only breeds terror. Siblings must stay united. Or else the outsiders will win.

Crust separatism. Crush terrorism.

Wahe Guru… Om Tat Sat

This is the only point where the guy actually wrote something (and even that’s baseless arguments.) I wish these people could write more and provide some examples from gurbani to back up their claims, which they never do.

I agree to only the line which says that we shouldn’t blame an entire religion. I completely agree.

He mentioned two points in this: first one of Baba Banda Singh Bahadur; second, about 1857. Let’s go in detail about them.

No Sikh betrayed Baba Banda Singh Bahadur. This is also what Dr. Ganda Singh wrote about 1857 when uneducated masses started spreading the words back in 1957 that the Sikhs betrayed other freedom fighters in 1857. Dr. Ganda Singh wrote articles in newspapers to reply to them. It’s also available as a small book that can be found here. He also mentioned, and the other contemporary historians too, that 1857 was never about the independence but to get back their kingdoms who’d lost in Anglo-Indian wars.

Following are the words of two prominent figures in India.

"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

Betray is something like doing directly opposite of what’s promised. In the case of Baba Banda Singh Bahadur, the Sikhs didn’t betray him. The disagreement happened when Baba Banda Singh Bahadur started calling himself the 11th Sikh Guru. He’d achieved great victories in Punjab when Guru Gobind Singh ji sent him with the five Sikhs.

But those victories blinded him to some extent. That’s the reason. It’s not called ‘betrayal’ but to stick to the rules of the Guru Sahib. Even there’re Bandi Sikhs in India, and you can ask them, they will tell the same story. There’s also mentioned that Banda Singh Bahadur didn’t die when he was tortured, he used some ‘technique’ to stop his breathing and then started again after his body was thrown. Same was captured in Panth Parkash by Giani Gian Singh, and Mahan Kosh by Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha.

Even in these days, we have so many fake saints who call themselves gurus. Are you saying if one of them starts calling himself the Guru of Sikhs, Sikhs should agree with him, and if we don’t we will be betraying him? What? If you don’t mind me asking you, do you have a brain? Have you ever used it? Sikhs don’t have any problem if some ‘sects’’ leader calls himself the guru of the ‘sect.’ But no one can call themselves the Guru of Sikhs. Only ten Sikh Gurus, Guru Granth Sahib ji, and the Panj Pyaare will be the Guru, no one else. Simple.

Now come to 1857, the so-called ‘first war of independence.’

People who will bring forward this argument of Sikhs betraying their ‘brothers’ and stood with the British will not tell you about the Anglo-Sikh wars and how Sikhs lost their mighty empire – the Sikh Empire. They will not tell you the assassinations of the sons of Maharaja Ranjit Singh by the Dogras. They will not tell you poorbias (people from the east, they were known as poorbias in the British army) coming to destroy the Sikh Empire. They will not tell you how the other empires’ armies sided with the British to take control of the Sikh Empire after Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s death.

Sikhs do not forget anything.

Even Subramanya Swamy said it in his interview that Indira Gandhi told him that Sikhs would not let her live longer. Even Sonia Gandhi said the same thing that she knew she would be killed.

Now back in late 1840s, when the Sikh Empire came under control of the British and the Sikhs got the chance to teach a lesson to poorbias and others who were fighting against the Sikhs, do you think Sikhs would stand with them? It’s like saying you betrayed others because you didn’t stand with Aurangzeb. Wait, what? Where are you getting all the arguments? Seriously, man, you really need to stop reading online articles and read some good books, and then use your brain, if you have any.

Yes, the Sikhs did stand with the British at that time, but they didn’t betray anyone. And later Sikhs suffered a lot too when the British tried to take control of the Gurudwaras and then the movements and morchas started to take them back.

At one side the guy is talking about that Gangu didn’t exist and on the other hand he’s trying to justify that Gangu didn’t represent Hinduism. If there is no evidence of his existence, why are you justifying it? You can simply say he never existed. But you won’t. Deep inside you are well aware of the existence of Gangu and Chandu. What the history talks about, it’s the truth. But I, as a Sikh, don’t hold any grudge against Hinduism, but for the people who were responsible for the martyrdom of Guru Arjan Dev ji and Guru Tegh Bahadur ji.

These are the people who don’t agree with the history of Sikhs and gurbani too. If there’s something that’s shunned by the Sikh Gurus, they will say these verses were written at the time of British. Laughing smiley*

They don’t have any base.

If we talk about the Sikh history, you might find some incidents which are not according to what gurbani teaches us. For them, we can say that it didn’t happen or added later or the poet wrote what he heard. On the other side, these clans don’t have any base. They can say anything or everything is wrong if it’s not according to what they believe in. Simple.

Hindus and Sikhs were same for the Gurus? If that were true, there wouldn’t have been any Sikhism or the Khalsa Panth. Guru Sahibaan loved only the rehat of what’s taught by them, not a person from a specific religion. If I’m baptised and I am not following what the Panj Pyaare told me, the Guru is not happy with me. And if a Sikh is doing what the Sikh Gurus didn’t preach, then he is not good in the eyes of the Gurus. And then if it were not true again, Guru Gobind Singh ji wouldn’t have said this:

ienhI ky pRswid su ibdXw leI ienhI kI ikRpw sB sqRU mry ]

ienhI kI ikRpw ky sjy hm hYˆ nhI mo so grIb kror pry ]2]

syv krI ienhI kI Bwvq Aaur kI syv suhwq n jIko ]

dwn dXo ienhI ko Blo Ar Awn ko dwn n lwgq nIko ]

AwgY PlY ien hI ko dXo jg mY jsu Aaur dXo sB PIko ]

mo gRih mY mn qy qn qy isr lau Dn hY sBhI ienhI ko ]3]

Why Guru Gobind Singh ji didn’t write about Hindu Mehma, but Khalsa Mehma? Now those witless who say Khalsa Army is same as Hindu Army, then let me refresh your memory that the above verses were said to a pandit that all of what I have is because of these Sikhs (not Hindus.) If that were not true then Guru Sahib would have said ‘all is because of you, Pandit ji.’ Here I am not saying this to spread hatred or something. No. I hate those who spread hatred, can be Sikhs or Hindus or Muslims. This is just to tell you some harsh truth because you have only heard the sugar-coated incidents to feel happy.

If you want to be a Sikh, you just have to respect the teachings of Guru Sahibaan! What? Sikhi is not that cheap. It takes so much time to be a Sikh, just because you are born in a Sikh family doesn’t make you a Sikh. And all those who just ‘respect’ the teachings of Guru Sahibaan are not Sikhs at all. You have to follow the teachings, without that you’re just like this Agniveer – nothing.

At last when he saw his post is not making any sense, he said that if wearing 5 Ks make you a Sikh then all the first nine Sikh Gurus were not Sikhs. Those who’ve not skipped the paragraphs know that 5 Ks make you a part of the Khalsa Panth, if you don’t wear them you are a Sahejdhari Sikh.

And don’t worry, outsiders will never win. It’s the Khalsa Panth, the army of Kaal Purakh. Khalsa know its enemies very well.

I stop now because it’s become a very long post.

Waheguru ji ka Khalsa, Waheguru ji ki Fateh ]