Cliched arguments - Part II

Cliched arguments – Part I

Identity II

Clichéd argument 6: Guru Teg Bahadur ji wore a jenau, Guru Gobind Singh ji wrote in his writing:

ਤਿਲਕ ਜੰਞੂ ਰਾਖਾ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਤਾ ਕਾ ॥ ਕੀਨੋ ਬਡੋ ਕਲੂ ਮਹਿ ਸਾਕਾ ॥

Reality: I remember reading it here the first time. Anyone who’s not able to understand Gurmukhi can be deceived by giving any meaning in the language that he understands. Like if someone is quoting something in Sanskrit or Arabic, I will never understand because I don’t even know ABC of the language. The same is true for others whose mother tongue is not Punjabi. I am not saying that Punjabi will help you translate Gurbani correctly, but it will somewhat give you an idea to at least know some words.

Before we move on to read about Koenraad Elst’s version, let’s first discuss the information which’s highly mistranslated in the given link to give a completely different angle to the martyrdom of Guru Teg Bahadur ji.

A book named ‘A short History of the Sikhs’ written by Teja Singh and Ganda Singh wrote that how the wrong translation was made by few historians to convey a different view about the martyrdom of Guru Teg Bahadur ji:

The reason for the Guru’s arrest, as given by the Sikh chronicles, was that he had taken up the cause of the Kashmir Hindus who were being persecuted by Aurangzeb (see Macauliffe, IV. 371-72). This is supported by Guru Gobind Singh’s words quoted at the end of this chapter. Malcolm and Cunningham, however, give a different reason. Basing their allegations on a very wrong translation of Siyar-ul-Mutaakhirin (p.401) by Raymond (p. 85) who is mostly followed by Briggs (I.112-113), they accuse the Guru of living on plunder and making a common cause with a Mohammedan zealot, named Hafiz Adam, in extorting money from Hindus as his colleagues did from Muslims (as if robbers ever made communal distinction between their victims!). A look at the original reveals that there is nothing like it in the text, which simply says that ‘Tegh Bahadur gathering many disciples became powerful, and thousands of people accompanied him. A contemporary of his, Hafiz Adam, who was a fakir belonging to the order of Sheikh Ahmed Sarhindi, had gathered about him a great multitude of followers. Both of these took to the practice of levying forcible exactions, and moved about in the land of Panjab. Tegh Bahadur took money from Hindus and Hafiz Adam from Mussalmans. The royal newswriters wrote to Emperor that two fakirs, one Hindu and the other Muslim named so-and-so, had taken to that practice. It would not be strange if, with the increase of their influence, they created trouble.’ There is nothing here to justify the words: ‘he subsisted himself and his disciples by plunder.’ Bute Shah also refers to the same complaint in his Tarikh-i-Panjab I.393.

Half of this information was quoted by the person who runs TrueIndology, a contrary to what his website is about, and another half was left to misguide the readers.

The simpleton goes on talking about Bhai Santokh Singh ji too and his writing Suraj Parkash. He said that in Suraj Parkash there’s no mentioning of the persecution of Guru Teg Bahadur ji because of the Kashmiri Pandits.

It is noteworthy that Gursobha again makes no mention of Kashmiri Pandits. The same narrative  is repeated in Das Gur Katha composed by Kavi Kankan and Suraj Pratap Granth by Bhai Santokh Singh that we have noted above. The above Granths refer to Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji sacrificing his life for the sake of dharam(roughly religion). But what did Sikhs themselves write about the reason for Guru Tegh Bahadur ji’s execution? - TrueIndology

Following are the verses that can be found in Suraj Parkash:

ਸੁਨਤਿ ਦਿਜਨਿ ਕਰ ਜੋਰਿ ਉਚਾਰੀ । 'ਹਸਤਾਮਲ ਜਿਮ ਜਾਨਹੁਂ ਸਾਰੀ ।
ਤੀਨ ਲੋਕ ਕੋ ਅਖਿਲ ਬ੍ਰਿਤੰਤ । ਰਿਦੈ ਗ੍ਯਾਤ ਸ਼੍ਰੀ ਗੁਰ ਭਗਵੰਤ! ॥੩੪॥
ਤਊ ਹੁਕਮ ਬੂਝਨਿ ਹਿਤ ਕਯੋ । ਸੁਨਹੁਂ ਪ੍ਰਸੰਗ ਦੇਸ਼ ਜਿਮ ਭਯੋ ।
ਚਿਰੰਕਾਲ ਕੋ ਰਾਜ ਜਮਨ ਕੋ । ਪੀੜਤ ਪ੍ਰਜਾ ਲੇਤਿ ਧਨ ਗਨ ਕੋ ॥੩੫॥
ਅਬਹਿ ਦੁਸ਼ਟਤਾ ਅਧਿਕ ਉਠਾਈ । ਚਾਹਤਿ ਹਿੰਦੁ ਤੁਰਕ ਬਨਿ ਜਾਈ ।
ਦੇਸ਼ ਪਹਾਰਨ ਕੋ ਸਭਿ ਜੇਈ । ਧਰਮ ਬਿਗਾਰਿ ਜਮਨ ਭੇ ਤੇਈ ॥੩੬॥
ਉਤਰੇ ਜਗ੍ਯੁਹਪਵੀਤ ਏਕ ਦਿਨ । ਤੋਲਨਿ ਕਰੇ ਸੁ ਭਏ ਸਵਾਮਨ ।
ਪੁਨ ਪੁਰਿ ਮਹਿ ਹਮ ਪਰ ਬਲ ਘਾਲਾ । ਬਨਹੁ ਤੁਰਕ ਸਭਿ ਤਜਿ ਨਿਜ ਚਾਲਾ ॥੩੭॥

You can see yourself how much misinformation is there on the Internet. That’s the prime reason for us to start ‘Sikhs and Sikhi’ to have the right information in public about Sikhism and the history of Sikhs.

In the same post, the guy said that there’s nowhere mentioned that the Mughals were forcefully converting the Hindus in Kashmir. People can stoop so low to prove something, especially in the 21^st century. There’s a gurudwara in Anandpur Sahib where the Kashmiri Pandits met with the Guru Sahib, so in the memory of which it’s built never happened then, huh? It’s like saying in Khadoor Sahib where Bhai Baala’s last rites were done is not part of history because Bhai Baala didn’t exist. We will talk more on the existence of Bhai Baala in some other post and why his name is being swept like dirt under the rug.

Dr Tirlochan Singh wrote in his book Guru Teg Bahadur: Prophet and Martyr:

Iftikhar Khan, a Governor of Aurangzeb, was using force to convert the Pundits in Kashmir to Islam. Some pious men among the Pundits then met and decided to go to Amarnath and invoke the mercy of Siva there for deliverance from the tyrannies of the bigot. At the Amarnath cave one of the Pundits saw in a dream Lord Siva who told him to go to Tegh Bahadur the ninth Guru of the Sikhs, in the Punjab and ask for his help to save the Hindu Religion. He spoke to his companions about this revelation. About 500 Pundits proceeded to Anandpur where Guru Tegh Bahadur was living.

He quoted P. N. Kaul Bamzai’s A History of Kashmir. I remember reading it the same, but in length, in some granth, probably in Suraj Parkash.

In Shahid Bilas, (written in the first half of the 19^th century?), the same was stated that the pandits came to Guru Teg Bahadur ji.

ਦੋਹਰਾ ।
ਦੁਖੀਏ ਬਿਪ੍ਰ ਜੁ ਚੱਲ ਕੇ ਆਏ ਪੁਰੀ ਅਨੰਦ
"ਬਾਂਹਿ ਅਸਾਡੀ ਪਕਰੀਏ ਗੁਰ ਹਰਿ ਗੋਬਿੰਦ ਕੇ ਚੰਦ" ।੩੩।
ਤੇਗ ਬਹਾਦਰ ਜਗਤ ਗੁਰ ਸੁਣ ਇਮ ਹਾਹਾ ਕਾਰ ।
ਰਛਿਕ ਗਊ ਗਰੀਬ ਕਾ ਕਲ ਜੁਗ ਕਾ ਅਵਤਾਰ ।੩੪।

Koer Singh, who wrote Gurbilas Patshahi Dasvi, mentioned the pandits also:

ਸਵੈਯਾ ।
ਸੰਗਤ ਆਵਤ ਦੇਸਨ ਦੇਸ ਤੇ ਗਾਇ ਮੁਨੀ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਰੂਪ ਨਿਹਾਰੀ ।
ਸੰਗ ਅਯੋ ਇਕ ਦੇਸ ਕਸਮੀਰ ਰਹਿ ਆਨ ਗੁਰੂ ਪਦ ਬੰਦਨ ਧਾਰੀ ।
ਕੁਸਲ ਬੁਝੀ ਜਬ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਗੁਰ ਜੀ ਤਬ ਰੋਵਤ ਨੈਨ ਕਹੀ ਕਥ ਸਾਰੀ ।
"ਹੇ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਤੂਟਤ ਬ੍ਯੂਹ ਜਨੇਵਨ ਗਊਅਨ ਘਾਤ ਘਨੋ ਦੁਖ ਭਾਰੀ ॥੩॥੯॥
ਸੰਕਰ ਛੰਦ ।
ਸਵਾ ਮਣ ਤੂਟਤ ਜਨੇਊ ਏਕ ਦਿਨਸੁ ਮੰਝਾਰ ।
ਗਣਤੀ ਭਈ ਮਹਾਰਾਜ ਜੂ ਸਭ ਦੁਖਤ ਜਰੈ ਅਪਾਰ ॥"

Next evidence that we can have is from Gurbilas Patshahi Dasvi by Sukha Singh:

ਇਕ ਕਸਮੀਰ ਸੁ ਸੰਗ ਜੁ ਆਯੋ ॥ ਤਿਨ ਬ੍ਰਿਤਾਤ ਹਜੂਰ ਸੁਨਾਯੋ ॥
ਤੁਰਕਨ ਅਧਿਕ ਅਨੀਤ ਉਠਾਈ ॥ ਹਿੰਦੂ ਕੀਏ ਸਭ ਤੁਰਕ ਬਨਾਈ ॥੧੦॥
ਏਕ ਦਿਵਸ ਉਹ ਠਵਰ ਮਝਾਰਾ ॥ ਤਗ ਸਿਵਾਮਣ ਪ੍ਰਗਟ ਉਤਾਰਾ ॥
ਜਿਯੋਂ ਜਿਯੋਂ ਬਤੀਆਂ ਸਿਖੁ ਸੁ ਭਨੈ ॥ ਸੁਨਿ ਸੁਨਿ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਸਿਰ ਧੁਨੇ ॥੧੧॥

The granths which are mentioned so far were written in either the 18^th century or the first half of the 19^th century. My point to give all these references was to prove the guy wrong who said the first time the incident of the Kashmiri Pandits appeared was in the work of Bhai Ratan Singh Bhangu. If we take a glance at the work of Koer Singh, which was written before Bhai Ratan Singh Bhangu’s Puratan Panth Parkash, we see that the pandits coming to seek help from Guru Teg Bahadur ji was penned down there also.

So this whole propaganda of the machinery is to change the history of Sikhs.

Today, I was thinking how people argued about the birth date of Guru Nanak Dev ji or refute the existence of Bhai Baala … whatever the story, it’s always to put the historical granths in the closets and not to read. Or bring the lame arguments to have the myths on the top of history. Like here we are dealing with a guy who probably doesn’t even know Punjabi.

The other argument which is emerged sometimes from the discussion with non-Sikhs is that in the memoirs of the Mughal Kings, the Sikh Gurus were called Hindus. Those parchments are not the truth of the Sikhism. Not going to the Mughal sources, sometimes in the historical granths of the Sikhs, some incidents are mentioned which are repugnant while compared to gurmat. We Sikhs do not fully trust the historical granths of ours, if not according to gurmat, and you propagandists bringing the Mughal Kings’ books! Anyway, I should cover this in some other cliché.

The funny thing is that many of the anti-Sikh forces will rely on the scholars who are living in the dark corner and their importance is null, or their research or points have no value in Sikhi. Many of these bring the names of Ernest Trumpp and W. H. McLeod to prove their point as if they are held in high esteem in Sikhism and their work will be regarded as the gospels. On the other hand, Cunningham or mainly Macauliffe’s word will be disregarded by them because they put the Sikhs in a much appreciable form; although there’re some mistakes too that they made. But the ignorance of the BHs and SSs while discussing their work is very appalling; because Macauliffe showed the beliefs of the Sikhs in a good manner which expose the propaganda of the ancestors of BHs. And the argument that they’ve against him is that he’s a foreigner and was with British. If that’s the finest argument that’s brought to ignore the work of a person, then we can imagine the knowledge of the people in discussion.

As already said, we Sikhs are standing with gurmat. If someone writes according to gurmat, they are welcome; otherwise they can shout outside the door of Sikhi.

References of different granths showed that sava mann (around 50 kg) jenaus were removed from the bodies of Hindus every day, and the people are denying this!? Just imagine how many Hindus were either killed or converted every day by the Mughals by just thinking how much a single jenau weight will be!

Now let’s move the focus to Koendraad Elst. Koenraad Elst’s knowledge about Sikhi is very, very limited. His work can be found on his site. Our focus to bring Elst’s name is not to go through his whole work but the current point that we are discussing and what his opinion is on that.

He writes about the verses of Dasam Guru Granth Sahib ji:

The phrase commonly translated as the Lord preserved their tilak and sacred thread (tilak-janjû râkhâ Prabh tâ-kâ), referring to unnamed outsiders assumed to be the Kashmiri Pandits, literally means that He preserved b is tilak and sacred thread, meaning Tegh Bahadur’s.

Further he explained that unka is taken both as their and his:

Hindi unkâ, his or their, as opposed to the non-honorific singular uskâ), and vice-versa; by contrast, the singular form only indicates a singular subject.

After this he wrote, quoting Kushwant Singh, that Guru Gobind Singh ji wrote:

He suffered martyrdom for the sake of his faith

I have read few Orientalists/Indologists, and Koenraad Elst is my least favourite because of his no knowledge of other faiths. Had he had good books in his disposal to study Sikhism, he would have some good points to make in his book/article. If not many, then the above-mentioned granths about the lives of the Sikh Gurus might have given him profound knowledge to write the sketch of Sikhs or an opinion of the verses from Gurbani.

Let’s first talk about Khushwant Singh’s first book on Sikhs that Indologist mentioned in his post. The copy that I have has the verse written on the page 71. Here is the couplet translated by Khushwant Singh:

He suffered martyrdom for the sake of his faith. He lost his head but revealed not his secret.

In Gurmukhi, it’s written in this way:

ਧਰਮ ਹੇਤ ਸਾਕਾ ਜਿਨਿ ਕੀਆ ॥
ਸੀਸੁ ਦੀਆ ਪਰੁ ਸਿਰਰੁ ਨ ਦੀਆ ॥

Before translating the above couplet, also he wrote:

To protect their right to wear their caste-marks and sacred threads, did he, in the dark age, perform the supreme sacrifice.

Here Kushwant Singh wrote ‘their’, not ‘his.’

In his article, Koenraad Elst wrote ‘he’ with a capital H (He) to show that it’s God who’s talked about, and his intention was to somehow bend the meaning to prove that God saved the sacred thread of Guru Teg Bahadur ji. His libellous statement not only showed how little he knows about Sikhs but also the language in which the verses are written. That’s the reason these so-called Orientalists/Ideologists rely on the English translation, because learning a new language at a very late age is somewhat difficult.

Following are the verses before the couplet in Bachitar Natak:

ਹਰੀ ਕ੍ਰਿਸਨ ਤਿਨ ਕੇ ਸੁਤ ਵਏ ॥
ਤਿਨ ਤੇ ਤੇਗ ਬਹਾਦਰ ਭਏ ॥੧੨॥
ਤਿਲਕ ਜੰਞੂ ਰਾਖਾ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਤਾ ਕਾ ॥
ਕੀਨੋ ਬਡੋ ਕਲੂ ਮਹਿ ਸਾਕਾ ॥
ਸਾਧਨਿ ਹੇਤਿ ਇਤੀ ਜਿਨਿ ਕਰੀ ॥
ਸੀਸੁ ਦੀਯਾ ਪਰੁ ਸੀ ਨ ਉਚਰੀ ॥੧੩॥
ਧਰਮ ਹੇਤ ਸਾਕਾ ਜਿਨਿ ਕੀਆ ॥
ਸੀਸੁ ਦੀਆ ਪਰੁ ਸਿਰਰੁ ਨ ਦੀਆ ॥

Not only here ta ka is written, but when we read Rehraas Sahib the same comes there too. Let’s try to bend the meaning here a little and check if it makes sense or not as the Indologist suggested.

ਕਾਹੇ ਰੇ ਮਨ ਚਿਤਵਹਿ ਉਦਮੁ ਜਾ ਆਹਰਿ ਹਰਿ ਜੀਉ ਪਰਿਆ ॥

ਸੈਲ ਪਥਰ ਮਹਿ ਜੰਤ ਉਪਾਏ ਤਾ ਕਾ ਰਿਜਕੁ ਆਗੈ ਕਰਿ ਧਰਿਆ ॥੧॥

So in the above verses, it’s written that God created the insects between the stones and then His food He’s put in front of them, huh?

There’s another famous shabad that many of you might have heard. Let’s discuss that too to clear this.

ਜਾ ਕੀ ਪ੍ਰੀਤਿ ਗੋਬਿੰਦ ਸਿਉ ਲਾਗੀ ॥ ਦੂਖੁ ਦਰਦੁ ਭ੍ਰਮੁ ਤਾ ਕਾ ਭਾਗੀ ॥੧॥ - ਅੰਗ ੧੮੬

‘Those, who are attached to the devotion of Waheguru, His pain goes away.’ Seriously? No, the correct translation is their pain goes away.

At some places, ta ka might be singular too, but in the couplet of Bachitar Natak, it is not. And more importantly ta ka is used for the third person. Following are the points which will come in mind if the translation is inaccurate.

1. In the following verse, het word means reason/sake, not his, as translated by Khushwant Singh. If the sacrifice was for his own religion, then saadhan het won’t make any sense.

ਸਾਧਨਿ ਹੇਤਿ ਇਤੀ ਜਿਨਿ ਕਰੀ ॥

There is one more author which’s quoted by few and I’ve not got my hands on his work, who said that Guru Teg Bahadur ji’s talk with the Mughal King wouldn’t have changed his mind because Aurangzeb was a cruel emperor, so this story of self-sacrificing for the sake of others is fake.

This is the level of knowledge that people have who are writing books on Sikhism. Had he read the above verse, his thinking, which’s fogged by the anti-Sikh forces, wouldn’t be so clouded to conclude something without reading Gurbani.

The words ‘saadhan het’ show the Sadhus for whom the sacrifice was made. By ignoring these two words, we will be missing the link between the sacrifice of the guru and the reason, because the reason is mentioned right there!

2. If we ignore that the Kashmiri Pandits came to Guru Sahib as mentioned by the Indologist:

Kashmiri Pandits are not mentioned in the contemporaneous accounts is confirmed by Khushwant Singh’s translation of the whole poem (History of the Sikhs, vol. 1, p.74-75, from Govind Singh’s Bachitar Nâtak)

Then we have to ignore this too that the Guru Sahib was martyred at Delhi because the city and the place are not mentioned in Bachitar Natak. But the Indologist wrote:

It is significant that when Tegh Bahadur was summoned to Delhi, he went as a representative of the Hindus.

The question arises in mind, from where he’s getting this? Although he’s quoted Khushwant Singh in this line too, which almost every paragraph of his has. How can he be so sure that it happened in Delhi when Bachitar Natak doesn’t say it? Or is it that to prove Sikhs Hindus just bring lame argument that the Kashmiri Pandits are not there, explicitly, in the verses, ignore the whole history, but when it comes to the place of the martyrdom then don’t care about Bachitar Natak!?

3. People getting killed because of their religions were common in the Mughal Empire. If it’s the religion of Guru Teg Bahadur ji, i.e. Hinduism, then there’s nothing new in that. People died because of their faith. The below verse asserts it vehemently that the martyrdom of Guru Teg Bahadur ji was not because of his faith but others’.

kIno bfo klU mih swkw ]

Dying for own faith was already there. But dying for other’s faith was not something that might have happened before. That’s why Guru Sahib wrote that in Kalyug it’s the supreme saaka (sacrifice.)

I would recommend Koenraad Elst to read the whole book of Kushwant Singh with his eyes open because he missed this:

The Sikh version, though undoubtedly biased in favour of their guru, has the advantage of being based on contemporary sources. According to this, a delegation of Kashmir Brahmins had approached the Guru to help them out of their predicament. (They had been ordered to accept conversion to Islam.) The Guru is alleged to have advised them to tell the Mughal officials that if Tegh bahadur would accept conversion they would follow suit. The Guru was consequently summoned to Delhi, and on this refusal to renounce his faith was beheaded. This version is supported by Teg Bahadur’s son, who was then old enough to know what was going on.

This Kushwant Singh quoted from Macauliffe’s work.

It is known to all that in Bachitar Natak, there’s no mentioning of Pir Buddu Shah, so it doesn’t mean that he never existed, like some Sikhs talk about Bhai Baala ji and the vaar of Bhai Gurdas ji. Same is true for the Kashmiri Pandits; it didn’t mention the Kashmiri Pandits explicitly, but the words ta ka and saadhan het are enough to prove the point that the sacrifice of the guru is because of the others, because of the other’s religion, not his.

Kushwant Singh also translated one of the verses as ‘He suffered martyrdom for the sake of his faith,’ which might arouse some suspicion because the word ‘his’ might be taken as if Guru Sahib was martyred for the sake of his religion, indicating, according to some anti-Sikh propagandists, Hinduism, which is inaccurate. The words in the verse are ਧਰਮ ਹੇਤ, which do not imply it’s his religion which’s talked about. It’s more of dying fighting for the righteousness. Same type of verses can be seen in Guru Granth Sahib ji:

ਸੂਰਾ ਸੋ ਪਹਿਚਾਨੀਐ ਜੁ ਲਰੈ ਦੀਨ ਕੇ ਹੇਤ ॥

ਪੁਰਜਾ ਪੁਰਜਾ ਕਟਿ ਮਰੈ ਕਬਹੂ ਨ ਛਾਡੈ ਖੇਤੁ ॥੨॥੨॥

Jenau and Sikhism

Janeu and Sikhism do not go side by side. First, the anti-Sikh forces bring the name of the first guru and then the ninth guru to prove that the Sikh Gurus used to wear a jenau whose significance is not related to spirituality in any way in Sikhism. Although, Sikhs don’t go and argue about if it should be worn by the Hindus or not, because it’s their right and decision and beliefs to do the rites according to their religious books.

It’ll not be an exaggeration if I say the first guru, since his childhood, showed the characteristics of a person who was neither a Hindu nor a Muslim. From his verses as well as the history, it’s very evident that the guru never wore a janeu for the sake of the religious philosophy of the Hindu religion, but, if he did anyway, was to confuse the people, like in one of the clichés’ answer Bhai Lalo told the guru that he was wearing a janeu, but the guru ignored his remark and said give him the food wherever he’s sitting, which was against the rules that one has to follow after wearing a janeu. So this is significant enough that these actions of the guru were just for the purpose of guiding the people.

During his visit to Mecca, the guru wore both janeu and the attires of a Muslim to confuse the people there. Just for his own kautaks (highlighted in bold below), the guru did this. Now if a person is going to paint a picture of the guru by imagining him according to the verses and then claiming the guru to be a follower of Brahminical Religion or Islam, or both, then it’ll be highly unacceptable to come to a conclusion that these were his daily chorus and activities.

ਨੀਲ ਬਸਤ੍ਰ ਲੇ ਪਹਿਰ ਸਰੀਰਾ । ਕਾਂਖ ਕਿਤਾਬਹਿ ਗੁਨੀ ਗਹੀਰਾ ।
ਊਚੀ ਕੁਲਹਿ ਧਰੀ ਨਜਿ ਸੀਸੰ । ਆਸਾ ਹਾਥ ਬਿਖੈ ਜਗਦੀਸ਼ੰ ॥੨੧॥
ਗਰੇ ਜਨੇਊ ਪਾਇ ਕ੍ਰਿਪਾਲਾ । ਤਿਲਕ ਕਰ੍ਯੋ ਸੁੰਦਰ ਪੁਨ ਭਾਲਾ ।
ਸੁਨਹੁ ਗੁਰੂ ਅੰਗਦ! ਰਸ ਭੀਨੇ । ਕੂਜਾ ਮੁਝਹਿ ਮੁਸੱਲਾ ਦੀਨੇ ॥੨੨॥
ਚੌਪਈ
ਗਰ ਮਹਿ ਸੇਲੀ ਪਾਹਿ ਬਿਸਾਲਾ ।ਬਨੇ ਸੁ ਹਾਜੀ ਰੂਪ ਕ੍ਰਿਪਾਲਾ ।
ਕਉਤਕ ਹਿਤ ਯਿਹ ਰੂਪ ਬਨਾਏ । ਹਿੰਦੂ ਤੁਰਕ ਨ ਜਾਤਿ ਲਖਾਏ ॥੨੩॥ – ਨਾਨਕ ਪ੍ਰਕਾਸ਼

At the time of Guru Harkrishan ji, a pandit removed his janeu after he got to know the guru. Now, if the janeu was an integral part of the Sikh religion, then a pandit, who’d been wearing a janeu for so long, should never have removed it. Doesn’t it show the pandit knew it very well that to become a Sikh you should remove the janeu? Some apologists who’re hellbent to prove the Sikhs Hindus or Sikh Gurus Hindus may have an argument that it must not be an integral part of the Sikh religion, but a choice; because not all the Hindus wear a janeu, likewise it might be true in the case of the Sikhs. These illogical statements and shallow arguments will never stop coming from them.

Anyway, just for the sake of the argument if it were true, then the pandit should never have removed it, because in wearing it you have a choice as you’ve to decide if you’re going to put it on or not; but once you have it on you, you don’t have a choice anymore because you’ve already worn it. And BTW, why the pandit removed it anyway in the first place?

ਸੁਨਿ ਦਿਜ ਨੇ ਗਰ ਸੂਤ ਉਤਾਰਾ । 'ਮੈਂ ਭਾ ਸਿੱਖ੍ਯ ਰਾਵਰੇ ਦ੍ਵਾਰਾ ।
ਨਹੀਂ ਜਾਤਿ ਕੋ ਮਦ ਮੁਝ ਰਹ੍ਯੋ । ਏਕ ਆਸਰੋ ਤੁਮਰੋ ਗਹ੍ਯੋ ॥੪੭॥

Bhai Gurdas ji writes that a Gursikh leaves the janeu and the keeping the tuft of hair at the back of the head as faeces.

ਘਰ ਬਾਰੀ ਗੁਰ ਸਿਖੁ ਹੋਇ ਸਿਖਾ ਸੂਤ੍ਰ ਮਲ ਮੂਤ੍ਰ ਵਿਡਾਣੈ । - ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰਦਾਸ ਜੀ, ਵਾਰ ੬, ਪਉੜੀ ੮

The scribe who wrote Guru Granth Sahib ji, who’s a Sikh during the time of Guru Arjan Dev ji, who knew much of the Sikh Religion than any other common Sikh these days, he said the janeu is as worthless to a Sikh as faeces. This’s so, so big. Bigger than anything. The acceptance of janeu, if it’s there during the time period of the Sikh Gurus, he would never have penned down such a strong verse, and ignore the sacred thread worn by the first guru. He himself had written about the first guru in his first vaar, not everything but enough to give us an idea of few incidents. Why would he ignore such an incident and its importance while writing the above verse?

Clichéd argument 7: Guru Teg Bahadur ji said that he’s a Hindu.

ਤਿਨ ਤੇ ਸੁਨਿ ਸ਼੍ਰੀ ਤੇਗ ਬਹਾਦਰ ।
ਧਰਮ ਨਿਬਾਹਨਿ ਬਿਖੈ ਬਹਾਦਰ ।
ਉੱਤਰ ਭਨ੍ਯੋ 'ਧਰਮ ਹਮ ਹਿੰਦੂ ।
ਅਤਿ ਪ੍ਰਿਯ ਕੋ ਕਿਮ ਕਰਹਿਂ ਨਿਕੰਦੂ ॥੩੪॥

Reality: I remember some Sikhs talking about it on some site, and one of them asked to give a reference because they doubted the verses existed anywhere. I had the same doubt.

But one of them got the reference in Suraj Parkash, in twelfth rutt.

There are few stories mentioned in different historical granths of Sikhs which are not according to gurmat. So they can’t be taken as the truth. If something is against gurmat, then it’s not true. That doesn’t imply that the historical granths have no significance. They are the valuable sources to provide the detailed accounts of the lives of the Sikh Gurus. But not everything written in them can be the truth if not complying with the gurmat.

This is the same case. So far, I saw only one source mentioning this. Suraj Parkash. In Puratan Panth Parkash by Bhai Ratan Singh Bhanggu, and in Panth Parkash by Giani Gian Singh, I didn’t see any corresponding lines to assert its affirmation. Moreover, when Gurbani talks about ‘na hum Hindu na Musalman’, there’s no chance whatsoever that Guru Teg Bahadur ji had said that he’s a Hindu.

In Twarikh Khalsa, there’re few chapters which circle around the talk between the guru and Aurangzeb. Aurangzeb told the guru that the Hindu’s way of worshipping (to deities and superstitions) is not what you preach, then why to sacrifice the life for these people! If the guru’s Hindu and following the rules of the Hindu religion, then he would not have said that.

ਕਿਉਂ ਤੁਸੀਂ ਆਪਣੀ ਜਾਨ ਦੇ ਵੈਰੀ ਬਣ ਕੇ ਪਰਾਈ ਅੱਗ ਵਿੱਚ ਸੜਦੇ ਹੋ? ਜਿਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਹਿੰਦੂ ਕਾਫ਼ਰਾਂ ਦੀ ਰੱਖਿਆ ਵਾਸਤੇ ਤੁਸੀਂ ਢਾਲ ਬਣ ਚੋਟਾਂ ਖਾਂਦੇ ਐਡੇ ਔਖ ਸਹਿ ਰਹੇ ਹੋ, ਏਹ ਪੱਥਰਾਂ ਦੇ ਪੂਜਕ ਜੜ੍ਹ ਬੁੱਧੀ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਅਰ ਤੁਹਾਡੀ ਉੱਮਤ ਦੇ ਕਦੇ ਮਿੱਤ੍ਰ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੋਣਗੇ ਕਿਉਂਕਿ ਏਹਨਾਂ ਦਾ ਆਸ਼ਾ, ਇਸ਼ਟ, ਉਪਾਸ਼ਨਾ ਤਿੰਨੇ ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਨਾਲ ਨਹੀਂ ਰਲਦੇ । ਸਾਡੇ ਨਾਲ ਬਰਾਬਰ ਮਿਲਦੇ ਹਨ । ਬਾਕੀ ਖਾਨ, ਪਾਨ, ਪਹਿਰਾਨ ਜਿਉਂ ਏਹਨਾਂ ਦੇ ਤੁਸਾਂ ਨਾਲ ਨਹੀਂ ਮਿਲਦੇ; ਤਿਉਂ ਸਾਥੋਂ ਵੱਖਰੇ ਹਨ । ਏਹ ਛੀ ਚਿੰਨ੍ਹ; ਜੋ ਮੇਲਦੇ ਹਨ, ਹਿੰਦੂਆਂ ਨਾਲ ਤਾਂ ਇੱਕ ਭੀ ਤੁਹਾਡਾ ਨਹੀਂ ਮਿਲਦਾ ।

One moot point here is the BHs who will talk about these verses in Suraj Parkash will most probably deny that the guru martyred because of the Hindus. They would always say that the guru martyred because of himself only, not for the Hindus in Kashmir, like mentioned in the above cliché. But in Suraj Parkash the Kashmiri Pandits came to the guru asking for help. Isn’t it cherry-picking? On what basis are they doing it? Have they started it like they do in their religion? Like they start saying the religious books like Manu Smriti is not relevant in today’s world just because people have started questioning the bigotry nature of the priests in earlier times.

I have said it many times: Sikhi doesn’t work in this way. We can’t pick and drop the verses according to how we like! There’s Gurbani to evaluate the Sikh history; if some incidents are against Gurbani, then they’re wrong. Simple.

Then how these words came into Suraj Parkash? I do not know it so far. Maybe someone altered it, or Bhai Santokh Singh ji heard from someone and wrote the same. There’re many granths in handy when Bhai Santokh Singh ji wrote about the lives of the Sikh Gurus. But which one would have the verses, I can’t confirm it as of now. I will stick to the two points that I mentioned: firstly, it’s altered; secondly, he heard from someone and wrote it.

In the pdf format of Suraj Parkash, Bhai Baljinder Singh ji (Rarha Sahib) made a note on page 467 when this part comes, which is a copy of Bhai Vir Singh ji’s comment. The brief is like this.

In Shri Guru Granth Sahib ji, it’s written that ਨਾ ਹਮ ਹਿੰਦੂ ਨ ਮੁਸਲਮਾਨ ॥ ਅਲਹ ਰਾਮ ਕੇ ਪਿੰਡੁ ਪਰਾਨ ॥੪॥ In Bihagrre ki vaar this verse is there: ਹਿੰਦੂ ਮੂਲੇ ਭੂਲੇ ਅਖੁਟੀ ਜਾਂਹੀ ॥ ਨਾਰਦਿ ਕਹਿਆ ਸਿ ਪੂਜ ਕਰਾਂਹੀ ॥ How is this possible that Guru Sahib had mentioned himself a Hindu in terms of those twenty-two crore Hindus who worship the stones!? You were the leader of Sikhi Marag, a leader can’t be the one who follows others.

After this, Bhai Vir Singh ji discussed what we’d in the answer of the 6^th cliché, mainly the meaning of ta ka.

If it’d to be believed then the sixty-eighth aanssu has the following verses:

ਹਿੰਦੂ ਤੁਰਕਨਿ ਪੰਥ ਅਨੇਕ ।
ਕਹੈਂ ਕਹਾਂ ਲਗਿ ਉਡਨਿ ਬਿਬੇਕ ॥੨੫॥
ਗਨ ਕੋ ਚਮਤਕਾਰ ਛਪਿ ਗਯੋ ।
ਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਤਾਪ ਸਭਿ ਊਪਰ ਭਯੋ ।

There are two things to discuss here. First is that here for Hinduism the word is panth, like Turkan, means Islam. Second is it’s stated that Guru Sahib is above all; their (other religions’) brightness is like stars, but in front of Guru Sahib they’re nothing. Now how many Hindus will agree to the point that Hinduism/Sanatan Dharma is a panth, not a religion/Dharma especially when they’re shouting every day to tell how Sikhi is a panth? And the guru is above all of them, including their deities!

There’re so many confused souls out there on the Internet, and their incorrigible behaviour, which sometimes is their limited knowledge, makes them say that Sikhism is a panth, not a religion or Dharam; on the other hand, they will confirm that Hinduism or Sanatan Dharma is a Dharam, not a panth.

During the time of the first guru, there’re few instances when the people around him asked about his religion and beliefs because the guru was not living his life according to both the major religions of that time – Islam and Hinduism. He didn’t answer them with a yes or no, or mentioned his religion by choosing one of the religions. Although in one case, he mentioned he’s neither Hindu nor Muslim. I will come to that later.

When the guru gave the message of ‘na koi Hindu na Musalman’, he met a Qazi after this. The Qazi didn’t have his mind in his prayer and Guru Nanak Dev ji smiled at him. When he got to know the guru is omniscient, the puzzled Qazi asked the guru if he’s a Hindu or Muslim. Guru Nanak Dev ji didn’t reply by choosing one of the religions. The guru said some people call him a lost soul, some Betaal. Now the guru who knew he’s a Hindu would never choose these words, because as the BHs say for the ninth guru his religion (Hindu) was very dear to him, then the first guru would never have ignored this thing. Remember, the Qazi who’s not aware of the guru much and called the guru Hindu had to ask the guru what religion he belonged to as the guru was not showing the leaning to any of the religions.

ਤਾਂ ਇਕ ਦਿਨ ਫੇਰ ਖਾਨ ਬਾਬੇ ਦੇ ਪਾਸ ਲਗਾ ਜਾਵਣ ਤਾਂ ਕਾਜੀ ਆਖਿਆ, ਕਿ ਤੁਸੀਂ ਮੁਸਲਮਾਨ ਹੋਇਕੇ ਹਿੰਦੂ ਦੇ ਪਾਸ ਜਾਂਦੇ ਹੋ ਸੋ ਉਸਨੂੰ ਇਥੇ ਹੀ ਸਦ ਲਵੋ ।

-

ਤਾਂ ਸੁਣ ਕਰ ਕਾਜੀ ਸਰਮਿੰਦਾ ਹੋਇ ਗਇਆ ਅਤੇ ਫਿਰ ਕਾਜੀ ਪੁਛਿਆ ਨਾਨਕ ਜੀ ਤੂੰ ਹਿੰਦੂ ਹੈਂ ਕਿ ਮੁਸਲਮਾਨ ਹੈਂ ਤਾਂ ਬਾਬੇ ਬੋਲਿਆ:-
"ਕੋਈ ਆਖੈ ਭੂਤਨਾ ਕੋ ਕਹੈ ਬੇਤਾਲਾ, ਕੋਈ ਆਖੈ ਆਦਮੀ ਨਾਨਕੁ ਵੇਚਾਰਾ" – ਜਨਮਸਾਖੀ ਭਾਈ ਮਨੀ ਸਿੰਘ, ੩੬੯, ਜਨਮ ਸਾਖੀ ਪਰੰਪਰਾ

The guru went to Mecca, and there the Hajis asked the guru if he’s a Hindu or Muslim, again the guru gave a different answer to him.

 ਹਾਜੀਆਂ ਕਹਿਆ ਤੂੰ ਆਦਮੀ ਹੈਂ ਕੇ ਫਰੇਸਤਾ ਹੈਂ ਅਰ ਹਿੰਦੂ ਹੈਂ ਕਿ ਮੁਸਲਮਾਨ ਹੈਂ ਤਾਂ ਬਾਬਾ ਜੀ ਨੇ ਸਲੋਕ ਆਖਿਆ:-
ਮ; ੧ ॥ ਜਾ ਹਉ ਨਾਹੀ ਤਾ ਕਿਆ ਆਖਾ ਕਿਹੁ ਨਾਹੀ ਕਿਆ ਹੋਵਾ ॥ ਕੀਤਾ ਕਰਣਾ ਕਹਿਆ ਕਥਨਾ ਭਰਿਆ ਭਰਿ ਭਰਿ ਧੋਵਾਂ ॥ ਆਪਿ ਨ ਬੁਝਾ ਲੋਕ ਬੁਝਾਈ ਐਸਾ ਆਗੂ ਹੋਵਾਂ ॥ – ਗਿਆਨ ਰਤਨਾਵਲੀ (ਭਾਈ ਮਨੀ ਸਿੰਘ ਵਾਲੀ ਜਨਮਸਾਖੀ), ਭਾਈ ਮਨੀ ਸਿੰਘ ਜੀ

In his journeys, the guru met a Shaikh too, who asked the same question to the guru if he’s a Hindu or Muslim. In here, the guru said he is neither Hindu nor Muslim, he hasn’t read the Vedas, neither the Quran. Some BHs are out there living in the caves who unanimously say that the guru was a follower of the Vedas. Not only this, but they claim all the gurus were the followers of the Vedas. The reason is simple; the Vedas hold a very high position in Hinduism, there’re other religious books too like Puranas and Smritis, but they’re not as venerated as the Vedas. So this love for the Vedas that they had they want to paint a picture to show the same love was there among the Sikh Gurus too. It’s not limited to only the Vedas but janeu and any other religious rites of the Hindus or the rules.

ਤਾਂ ਸੇਖ ਗੁਸਾ ਖਾਇ ਕਰਿ ਬੋਲਿਆ, ਕਹੁ ਤਪਾ ਜੀ ਤੂੰ ਹਿੰਦੂ ਹੈਂ ਕੇ ਮੁਸਲਮਾਨ ।

ਤਾਂ ਗੁਰੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਬੋਲਿਆ:-
ਨਾ ਹਮ ਹਿੰਦੂ ਨ ਮੁਸਲਮਾਨ । ਨ ਬੇਦ ਪੜਿਆ ਨ ਪੜੇ ਕੁਰਾਨ । - ਜਨਮਸਾਖੀ ਭਾਈ ਬਾਲਾ, ੩੪੪, ਜਨਮਸਾਖੀ ਪਰੰਪਰਾ

The same thought was mentioned by the fifth guru. (You will see the pea-sized brain and argument of the BHs in the 8^th cliché.)

Now let me use this verse, which’s according to Gurbani, to say the gurus were neither Hindus nor Muslims. The only verse the BHs has is the one mentioned in Suraj Parkash to prove the gurus were Hindus. But here the first guru said he’s neither Hindu nor Muslim. Well, let them cherry-pick the verse from Suraj Parkash because this’s what they’re capable of doing.

Clichéd argument 8: The below verses are not of the fifth guru but Bhagat Kabir ji.

ਨਾ ਹਮ ਹਿੰਦੂ ਨ ਮੁਸਲਮਾਨ ॥ ਅਲਹ ਰਾਮ ਕੇ ਪਿੰਡੁ ਪਰਾਨ ॥੪॥

Reality: Destituteness is the only reason that I can think of when people have to interpret the verses so badly to totally change the meaning, not for the sake of the truth or to counterattack, but mainly for a living by writing blatant lies.

On a Facebook post, dated back to 31^st Oct, 2012, (is it a coincidence that it’s written on 31^st Oct?) someone wrote that it’s the ‘separatist Sikhs’ who are using the verses ‘na hum Hindu na Musalman’ to declare themselves neither a Hindu, nor a Muslim. I really admire the guts of these people who will label every Sikh a separatist if he doesn’t go with the definition of Sikhi according to what these fringe Hindu groups believe in. I will write more on the ‘separatism’ or Khalistan Movement in a different argument of this same post because it’s become the habit of some online debaters to bring the martyrs of 1980s and 90s for their rescue, especially when they run out of arguments.

Before I move on with this, let’s see what this person wrote on the post.

Kabir mentions a ritual or a tradition that Hindus and Muslims practice respectively, just as different gangs practice different dress codes, handshakes and traditions. Then he says that he doesn't practice any of those rituals and traditions, and mentions the one God that is God of both!’

And then,

The Sikhs of today claim that they are separate from the Hindus, and that their God is different from the God of Hindus, and they go to extremes to prove this.

If both the points are read carefully, it’ll be seen that they are totally opposite of each other. If we believe it’s the bani of Bhagat Kabir ji, will talk more on that later, then the translation or the moral of the couplet is written that Bhagat Kabir ji doesn’t believe in the practices of both Hinduism and Islam. The very basic definition of religion is to follow something: rules or beliefs or someone’s teachings. If Bhagat Kabir ji doesn’t follow them, then how he’s a Hindu? Second question, if the first part is saying following the traditions/rituals is associated with a religion, then how the Sikhs are called Hindus when they do not follow what the religious scriptures of Hindus talk about (although there’re some similarities there’s no doubt in that)?

We Sikhs do not have an issue with someone emblazoning the religious symbols of their religions on their T-shirts or cars or houses. But we definitely do not agree with the bent meanings or the misinterpretations of some people, who are trying to mix Sikhi with their religion. It’s not out of hate that we’re stating that we are not Hindu or Muslim or Christian or they are bad and all, no; it’s because we are just different. Simple. It’s not acceptable if a woman is called a man, a lion is called a cat, a car is called an aeroplane, and vice-versa. Things are different. They should remain different.

However even if we go with the notion that the shabad is written by Bhagat Kabir ji, it doesn’t imply that we do not believe in that. It isn’t something like this that if the verses are of Guru Sahib, then we believe, if not, then we don’t. No. The whole bani Sikhs believe in. For us Sikhs, there’s no Hindu’s writing or Muslim’s writing in Guru Granth Sahib, means we do not make differentiations on the basis of religion when we read Gurbani. We do not skip the Gurbani of Bhagats when we read it. We read everything. If the verses are believed to be by Bhagat Kabir ji, even then it’s for us Sikhs. We can’t deny the verses and go astray saying that they are for Hindus or they were applicable only for Bhagat Kabir ji. Sikhi doesn’t work in that way.

Now let’s discuss the whole shabad and where it’s verbalized.

ਭੈਰਉ ਮਹਲਾ ੫ ॥

ਵਰਤ ਨ ਰਹਉ ਨ ਮਹ ਰਮਦਾਨਾ ॥ ਤਿਸੁ ਸੇਵੀ ਜੋ ਰਖੈ ਨਿਦਾਨਾ ॥੧॥

ਏਕੁ ਗੁਸਾਈ ਅਲਹੁ ਮੇਰਾ ॥ ਹਿੰਦੂ ਤੁਰਕ ਦੁਹਾਂ ਨੇਬੇਰਾ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥

ਹਜ ਕਾਬੈ ਜਾਉ ਨ ਤੀਰਥ ਪੂਜਾ ॥ ਏਕੋ ਸੇਵੀ ਅਵਰੁ ਨ ਦੂਜਾ ॥੨॥

ਪੂਜਾ ਕਰਉ ਨ ਨਿਵਾਜ ਗੁਜਾਰਉ ॥ ਏਕ ਨਿਰੰਕਾਰ ਲੇ ਰਿਦੈ ਨਮਸਕਾਰਉ ॥੩॥

ਨਾ ਹਮ ਹਿੰਦੂ ਨ ਮੁਸਲਮਾਨ ॥ਅਲਹ ਰਾਮ ਕੇ ਪਿੰਡੁ ਪਰਾਨ ॥੪॥

ਕਹੁ ਕਬੀਰ ਇਹੁ ਕੀਆ ਵਖਾਨਾ ॥ ਗੁਰ ਪੀਰ ਮਿਲਿ ਖੁਦਿ ਖਸਮੁ ਪਛਾਨਾ ॥੫॥੩॥

The very first question that I’ll have is, if I am reading it the first time, if it’s written by Bhagat Kabir ji, then why ‘Bhairo Mahalla Panjva’ is written in the beginning of the shabad? Shouldn’t it be ‘Bhagat Kabir ji’? To have the answers of these types of questions, you have to go to a puratan samparda to learn the basics of Gurbani, and then listen the katha carefully.

Guru Arjan Dev ji wrote this shabad, not Bhagat Kabir ji. One day some pandits and Qazi came to Guru Sahib and told to do what they were following. Hindu told to do the fasting and all. Muslims told to do the fasting on Ramadan and all. To tell them, he uttered this shabad. If it’s written by Guru Arjan Dev ji, then why there’s no Nanak word but Kabir? This is what is known as saropa dena. To tell that there’s no difference between the bani of Guru Sahib and the Bhagats. Not only here, you can see some other shabads too where this’s done.

ਮਹਲਾ ੫ ॥ ਗੋਬਿੰਦ ਗੋਬਿੰਦ ਗੋਬਿੰਦ ਸੰਗਿ ਨਾਮਦੇਉ ਮਨੁ ਲੀਣਾ ॥ ਆਢ ਦਾਮ ਕੋ ਛੀਪਰੋ ਹੋਇਓ ਲਾਖੀਣਾ ॥੧॥

ਸਾਰੰਗ ਮਹਲਾ ੫ ਸੂਰਦਾਸ ॥ ੴਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ ॥
ਹਰਿ ਕੇ ਸੰਗ ਬਸੇ ਹਰਿ ਲੋਕ ॥ ਤਨੁ ਮਨੁ ਅਰਪਿ ਸਰਬਸੁ ਸਭੁ ਅਰਪਿਓ ਅਨਦ ਸਹਜ ਧੁਨਿ ਝੋਕ ॥੧॥

ਸਲੋਕੁ ਮਰਦਾਨਾ ੧ ॥ ਕਲਿ ਕਲਵਾਲੀ ਕਾਮੁ ਮਦੁ ਮਨੂਆ ਪੀਵਣਹਾਰੁ ॥ ਕ੍ਰੋਧ ਕਟੋਰੀ ਮੋਹਿ ਭਰੀ ਪੀਲਾਵਾ ਅਹੰਕਾਰੁ ॥

I think these three examples will be enough.

Let’s just say it’s written by Bhagat Kabir ji and it circles around the bhagat, then why the guru would write very specifically that he’s not Hindu, nor Muslim? Some SSs and BHs suggest that the guru didn’t start a new religion but removed the unnecessary rituals and preached about the rest. Somehow if it’s true then the earlier verses before the couplets should be enough. There’s no reason to say explicitly that he’s not a Hindu or Muslim. Many superstitions are shunned by the gurus in their writings, then why this couplet was necessary to write?

Because of the online propaganda if we believe the terms are for Bhagat Kabir ji, even then, as mentioned above too, the Gurbani is not written for the bhagats but for all. The message of Gurbani is for all. And by going through the bani, we see the lives changing and then the people adopting Sikhi.

In one of the clichés the lines used by the BHs from Suraj Parkash tell that Guru Teg Bahadur ji was a Hindu. Why the fifth guru didn’t say the same? Why he wrote the verses completely different from what the BHs and SSs are implying the guru to be? If being a Hindu was a very proud thing for them, the verse wouldn’t have been included. And with the passage of time, you will see the clowns suggesting that it’s added later by Sikhs to make themselves distinct and different from the Hindus.

This shabad also clears the picture that no Sikh Guru followed the tradition of Hinduism. AV mentions in his article about the worshipping of idols by the Sikh Gurus. Well, he didn’t read Gurbani, otherwise these conjectured stories wouldn’t have come forward.

ਬੁਤ ਪੂਜਿ ਪੂਜਿ ਹਿੰਦੂ ਮੂਏ ਤੁਰਕ ਮੂਏ ਸਿਰੁ ਨਾਈ ॥ ਓਇ ਲੇ ਜਾਰੇ ਓਇ ਲੇ ਗਾਡੇ ਤੇਰੀ ਗਤਿ ਦੁਹੂ ਨ ਪਾਈ ॥੧॥

Clichéd argument 9: Sikhism as a separate religion was promoted by the Khalistanis. Master Tara Singh said, ‘They are not two separate communities.’

Reality:  I still need to search about Master Tara Singh’s speech which people say was delivered around 1960s. I do not know much about it yet. But somehow if his speech has to be considered that he’s calling himself a Hindu, it doesn’t conclude that Sikhs are Hindus. It might be his perception about it, like many people have on the Internet these days, but it doesn’t affirm it as a fact just because a stalwart Akali leader said so.

This is a very sensitive issue. I mean talking about the martyrs and bringing them into the discussion lest losing the debate. You will see only those people bring the ‘Khalistani’ word who deny the separate and distinct identity of Sikhs.

The problem is that this movement back in the 1980s and 90s have been painted to show that the people who were fighting against injustice were terrorists. It’s left a deep mark on the minds of some people. Those who are not living in Punjab have no chance whatsoever to know about the reality, especially if they’re listening to the politicians and journalists doing the propaganda of the Indian State. Others, who do not know the truth, in Punjab are living in the Stone Age.

Any revolution, can be with the pens or guns, has to be stopped by the ruling party otherwise the power that they’d would be shifted to other hands. In India, the atrocities of the people sitting in the power have been so glooming that in many states some people have picked the weapons to fight. I believe the government should not give any reason to the public to pick the weapons. But it just happens. It’s all vote bank. For power. They do it. Can be Congress or BJP or other political parties who are/were in power or seeking to come into power. The bad decisions made by them started a rage in the public, and then they do what has been done by many people around the world time after time. Pick the weapons. Kill and get killed. The situation becomes freedom vs death. No middle option.

Back in the 1960s the Sikhs were demanding a different state based on the language. When it’s declared that the Punjab will be having that much of boundary back in 1966, some peace restored. But some leaders had the agitation because the Punjab didn’t have some other cities where Punjabi speakers were living. Then in the late 70s Sikhs fought against the tyrannist rule of Indra Gandhi. Emergency. Getting arrested while going on the marches. Sant Jarnail Singh ji Bhindrawale said it in his speeches too. And then on the day of 13^th April 1978, the 13 Sikhs were martyred by the police when they went to protest against the Narakdhari. That was the vital day in the history of the Sikhs as well as in Punjab, which’s going to change everything.

The Dharam Yudh Morcha started in 1982, when most of the speeches were delivered by Sant Jarnail Singh ji Bhindrawale. In his speeches, he can be seen talking about the Sikhs different and separate from Hindus. It might be the only reason that some people have to claim the movement in Punjab was responsible for sowing the seeds of separatism of the religion in the minds of Sikhs. So far there’re many points/Reality written about the different and distinct identity of Sikhs, which confirm Sikhs to be different from Hindus, before Dharam Yudh Morcha started. So what this whole gibberish of ‘separatist Sikhs’ declared Sikhs different is all about?

It’s same as what we are going to discuss in the next part. To blame someone for no reason. The media has painted a picture for the viewers, and in that picture Sikhs who picked the weapons are showed as terrorists. Keeping that point in mind, means there’re ‘terrorists’ back in the 1980s, the masses manipulated the whole struggle of Sikhs differently. From that struggle many views came out against Sikhism. Not only the different and distinct identity of Sikhs were showed as separatism by Sikhs, also the news of killings of Hindus were served to the viewers with the sausage of terrorism. Latest video of Pinky confirms that how the police had the people to kill the Hindus from the buses and then label those incidents on the ‘terrorists.’

Whenever a violent situation comes up, that is always used to justify almost everything. Our organisation’s discussions with the readers on the social media show their reprehensible view of Sikhs back in 80s and 90s. I do not blame them for that. It’s the media and the Indian State which painted a picture for them to envisage. And the wrong information shared on the different websites is the source of the assumed truth that the masses hold of the Sikh struggle in the late 20^th century.

If the murdered people belong to a specific community, then the other communities will not show much of the grief on that. Some of the people can, of course, but not all. Instead of the Hindus, if the Muslims were killed in Punjab, I don’t think many Hindus might have protested or showed angered or shared the wrong information while debating. It always is about the community that you belong to. The group. The religion.

Like the riots of 2002. I am yet to find a Hindu who will not try to justify the killing of Muslims. I am not saying all the Hindus do that, of course some intelligent Hindus are out there who will curse those who kill innocents, irrespective of what religion they belong to. But you get the gist what I am trying to say here.

Those who are ignorant of the history are just the jokes of the 21^st century. If the affirmation that the Khalistanis did the propaganda of Sikhs to be different is right, then why the Sikhs protested about the 25-2b of the Constitution of India back in the 1950s?

All in all, the fringe Hindu forces are just running behind everyone to shame themselves and the knowledge that they have of Sikhism.

The same mass who accused the Sikhs to kill innocent Hindus in Punjab doesn’t agree that the Hindus killed Sikhs in 1984. They say it’s the Congress party and their workers who were involved in that. When the Sikhs say the same political party and their agenda and the forces were responsible for the killing of Hindus in Punjab, they do not agree. In this or that way, they just want to blame Sikhs. Simple.

Clichéd argument 10: Writers like Malcolm, Cunningham and Macauliffe wrote in their books about Sikhs to be different from Hindus. Before the colonialism there’s no piece of evidence which suggests the two faiths to be different.

Reality: We will be going into much detail when we talk about them in a series to debunk the claims of AV.

These apologist Hindus never stayed on one point (mind you, throughout the whole blog of ‘Sikhs and Sikhi’ and its other platforms, only the fringe elements of the Hindus we are talking about, not all.) They will talk about the Khalistan Movement, Britishers, Singh Sabha Movements, etc., to powerup their allegations. But the truth is not many of these people have read any of the books that the foreigners wrote, and neither they know about the Sikh movements, can be of the Singh Sabha or Khalistan. They are just paid fellows or brainwashed youngsters.

I am copying from the Quora, where we talked about the British historians (or people working under the British Empire, because not all the three’s origin is of England.) I will alter/add some more points to get into more clarity.

I will talk about those scholars who wrote about Sikhi in detail or a brief view, and these people are always discussed whenever this topic arises.

1.      Sketch of the Sikhs, A Singular Nation, who Inhabit the Provinces of the Penjab, Situated Between the Rivers Jumna and Indus, by John Malcolm

2.      History of the Sikhs by Joseph Davey Cunningham

3.      The Sikh Religion, Its Gurus, Sacred Writings and Authors by Max Arthur Macauliffe

Sketch of the Sikhs: Malcolm is said to be the first person who might have written about the Sikhs in brief. It’s the year 1812 when the Sikh Kingdom was still standing on its legs. The book’s main focus was on the spirit of Sikhs to fight and fearlessness. It’s a long portion about the life of Guru Gobind Singh ji and the creation of Khalsa Panth and Banda Singh Bahadur and the time after his death. His book is the evidence which will be used to say that Dasam Guru Granth Sahib ji was among Sikhs at that time. Even in the earlier periods, books written by Sikhs talk about that. He said that he visited Amritsar and found the Sikhs bowing to both Guru Granth Sahib ji and Dasam Guru Granth Sahib ji. Those who do not believe in the bani of Guru Gobind Singh ji claimed that that was created by the British with the help of some Hindus. I really love the claims of all these geniuses. So the British created the granths and created the Sikh religion too, huh? Cool.

So if we are talking about his book to be a piece of evidence, does it mean that we should believe everything what is written in his book? No. Then why we Sikhs talk about the incident of his visit to Amritsar? Here is the thing. There are two things. One is concluding something on the basis of what you have read/heard from books/others, second is to witness something. Say, you see a person getting the punishment for his crimes. You can think whatever he might have done, or talked to people and conclude something, that may or may not be true. But the person getting the punishment is the truth. Same is true for his visit. He witnessed the Sikhs bowing to both the granths. He didn’t conclude anything in that.

We derailed from the original topic. Sorry. So his book mainly focused on the fighting spirit of Sikhs, because the Sikh Kingdom was the one which was what they needed to conquer later with the help of the other people of India. With the treaties signed between Maharaja Ranjit Singh and the British, some boundaries were decided. But still the British were reconnoitring the next land on their minds. William Hodson wrote a letter dated back on 2nd Dec 1845 at Ambala:

First were the English Horse Artillery; then the dashing dragoons of the 3d Queen's, most splendidly mounted and appointed; then came the stern, determined-looking British footmen, side by side with their tall and swarthy brethren from the Ganges and Jumna,—the Hindoo, the Mussulman, and the white man, all obeying the same word, and acknowledging the same common tie; next to these a large brigade of guns, with a mixture of all colours and creeds; then more regiments of foot, the whole closed up by the regiments of native cavalry: the quiet-looking and English-dressed Hindoo troopers strangely contrasted with the wild Irregulars in all the fanciful uniformity of their native costume; yet these last are the men I fancy for service. Altogether, it was a most interesting sight, either to the historian or soldier, especially as one remembered that these were no men of parade, but assembled here to be poured across the Sutlej at a word.

Ajit Vadakyil took the picture of William Hodson and wrote ‘Slave minded Sikhs praising the messiah Hodson.’ He not only didn’t understand that Sikhs didn’t join the forces against British, but also manipulated the image. And his followers just clapped as if they have won a marathon. We have put many of the contradictions about his article in the video.

The book of Malcolm seems to be to get the details of the Sikhs, so that it would be easy to conquer them. Many of the details they had already gathered, now they only needed to have the men in the circle who could be used when needed.

At the same period Napoleon was rising. And according to Dr Ganda Singh, one of the prominent Sikh historians, the British thought of having a friendly relationship with the Sikhs, so that if any problem arises, they could handle it at their land; they would be safe. At this time Mysore wars were done. Maratha had fought with the British with their two great Maratha-Anglo wars. Gorkha and Sikhs were the two forces that the British had yet to face.

In his letter on 1771, General Barkar wrote to Jhanda Singh, ‘It’s a fact that until the Khalsa Army is standing, nobody could invade Hindustan.’ Ahmed Shah Durani’s son Taimur Shah tried to invade Punjab, but the Singhs fought with him very well.

Malcolm talked about the people that he’s getting help from, especially the saroops of the Sikh Scriptures. He might have read the book of James Browne too; he said that Browne was confused because he said that the Sikhs first took the arms at the time of the 10th guru, not the 6th. Malcolm gave the pauri of Bhai Gurdas ji’s vaar as evidence to prove him wrong. I do not know if there’s some guy who might have written before James Browne about the Sikhs. Although I have yet to get my hands on the book written by James Browne, but I am sure it’s not as detailed as Malcolm wrote.

All in all, what I am trying to say here is that the accounts of the lives of Sikh Gurus and Sikhs were taken from the Sikhs of that time and sometimes Malcolm concluded something on the basis of what he’d heard or sometimes the common stories of that period.

History of Sikhs: Cunningham wrote this book in 1849. I am still reading this book and it’s not been completed yet. Someone even did A2A on this subject, about the importance of his writing about the Sikhs. I would be able to answer that once I finished. But I can tell you what I have read so far in this book.

History of Sikhs is a very different kind of book that I ever read in English. It not only has some notes at the footer but also on the margins. And at the last, it’s a very detailed appendix of many incidents and words that Sikhs use. Like the meaning of ‘Waheguru ji ka Khalsa, Waheguru ji ki Fateh’, pahul, etc.

By reading the book it can definitely be said that the author really had read many books before writing this. Not only he gave some references of Gurbani, but also about the books written by James Browne, John Malcolm, Murray, Mohsin Fani, Elphinstone, etc. He also compared the other religions and their kings and disciples originated in Persia and Europe. He also concluded many things on the basis of what he’d heard from the people, which can’t be taken as a source of truth. There are many contradictions too in his writing. And he didn’t try to say which one could be true. For example, he said that Guru Gobind Singh ji wrote in his bani that Vedas are of no use but His name, on the other hand he said Guru Sahib consulted the Vedas. He also said that at the time of martyrdom of Guru Teg Bahadur ji, Guru Gobind Singh ji was of age 14/15, which is wrong. The same was mentioned by Malcolm and he wrote that it’s said by some respected Sikh. Cunningham might have copied that from Malcolm. On the other hand, when Malcolm wrote his book, he sometimes mentioned which part could be true based on what he’d heard.

Cunningham's book started with India and where it’s and the caste/families and their origin and then the briefed account of the Sikh Gurus. Much part of his book was related to his own time, about the Anglo-Sikh wars and how few people like Gulab Singh Dogra, Lal Singh and Tej Singh were bought and were used as moles in the Sikh Kingdom. In 1846, Henry wrote that if a painter has to paint the picture of an Asian who’s very sly, he would paint the face of Gulab Singh.

His book not only talked about the Sikhs but also the Sikh Kingdom and the people who betrayed it. It is the reason behind many people’s claims who say that Britishers started Sikhism because they couldn’t handle what people like Gulab Singh had done to destroy the Sikh Raaj. Ajit Vadakayil couldn’t even get this, so he said that this book was written to please Sikhs and blame Hindus. Well, he can run around the bush, but can’t change the history.

The Sikh religion: Macauliffe was, I think, the one who wrote about Sikhism in so much detail. He wrote six books on that, the first talking about the life of Guru Nanak Dev ji and the translation of Gurbani at the end of the book. The other authors also stated the distinction between the Sikhs and Hindus. Same was done by Macauliffe. It’s said that it took him more than 10 years to do his research and then write about Sikhism.

Many people disgust Macauliffe because he used the words so sharp to deny those people’s claims who try to prove Sikhs as Hindus.

A movement to declare the Sikhs Hindus, in direct opposition to the teaching of the Gurus, is widespread and of long duration. I have only quite recently met in Lahore young men claiming to be descendants of the Gurus, who told me that they were Hindus, and that they could not read the characters in which the sacred books of the Sikhs were written. Whether the object of their tutors and advisers was or was not to make them disloyal, such youths are ignorant of the Sikh religion.

Not only this, he also said:

Panjabi is the mother tongue of all natives of the Panjab, be they Sikhs, Hindus, or Muhammadans.

Many people were objecting it at the time of Punjabi Sooba. The propaganda was at so much peak that it’s said that Punjabi was the language of Sikhs, not Hindus. Even a Muslim was interviewed few days back when he said that Urdu is their national language, but Punjabi is his mother tongue. He also said that he’s getting bitterness from the fellow Muslims because he’s adopting the language of Sikhs. Had we read what has been written, then nobody would have believed the propaganda of the language to be of a specific community. Few years back I saw a Hindu couple approaching me and talking to me in Punjabi, outside of Punjab. I really felt good because it doesn’t matter how foolish the people are, they can’t change the minds of all the Hindus or Muslims living in Punjab to believe that Punjabi is not their mother tongue.

In the beginning of his book he wrote:

I have often been asked by educated persons in countries which I have visited, and even in India itself, what the Sikh religion was, and whether the Sikhs were Hindus, idolaters or Muhammadans. This ignorance is the result of the difficulty of the Indian dialects in which their sacred writings are contained.

I feel this is somewhat same like saying Ram is for Ramchandra.

Before stating the life of Guru Nanak Dev ji, Macauliffe went on a long discussion about the existence of Bhai Baala ji, I have answered few of the arguments that people have here. One thing that Macauliffe might have done without thinking much is that on one hand he denied the existence of Bhai Baala ji, on the other hand he put a picture of Guru Nanak Dev ji, Bhai Baala ji and Bhai Mardana ji in his book.

There are two stories that I read so far in his first book that have not been written by anyone. One is related to how the date of birth of Guru Nanak Dev ji was changed, that I have mentioned in the above link. Second is the prophecy about the arrival of the British in India and how they would be with the Khalsa to rule. I didn’t get any other source but his book. And on one of the Sikh sites I found a very interesting answer to this, which was if it’s really a prophecy then why it’s not stated that the Sikh Raaj would come at the time of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, but went ahead by more than 50 years and said that the British would be ruling. And this prophecy was associated to Guru Teg Bahadur ji. I checked the records in Suraj Parkash, and I didn’t find it mention there. And nowhere Macauliffe mentioned the source of this story, which he usually did of many things.

At last, I will say that these three books give the detailed account of many things; and many incidents mentioned in these books can’t be taken as truth if they’re not according to the Sikh history or Gurbani. These people wrote what they’d heard and observed and sometimes concluded the things. They didn’t create Sikhism. They just gave the account of the religion.

And those who are still in slumber and thinking that British created a different faith have not read any of the books mentioned above. I can bet on that. They have just read the few paragraphs on some blogs and started preaching about it.

Even if we want to believe that they somehow created the religion distinct from Hinduism, then what about the following verses of Gurbani?

ਚੌਪਈ ॥

ਤਿਨ ਇਹ ਕਲ ਮੋ ਧਰਮੁ ਚਲਾਯੋ ॥ ਸਭ ਸਾਧਨ ਕੋ ਰਾਹੁ ਬਤਾਯੋ ॥

ਜੋ ਤਾਂ ਕੇ ਮਾਰਗਿ ਮਹਿ ਆਏ ॥ ਤੇ ਕਬਹੂੰ ਨਹੀ ਪਾਪ ਸੰਤਾਏ ॥

I really want to request to all the young Sikhs out there to read the Sikh history and Gurbani as much as possible. Otherwise you will be brainwashed before you even know it.

Wherever the Hindu fringe groups see the different identity of Sikhs, they will raise their fingers to point out it started from there. We discussed about the 1980s too, and now the people who wrote about Sikhs. People like AV use the lamest argument like they are not the authentic people, they were there just to divide and rule, they were the rulers who killed the patriotic people (this cliché will always be there), only the servants were given awards and the rebels were given bullets or hanged (they justify the rebelliousness here, not in 1980s, why? Because here they are talking about the whole country, if only the Sikhs were suffered, then it’s okay for them), and the lamest of all the lame arguments is that they were not Indians so shouldn’t be trusted with their writing.

The same mass, when questioned, doesn’t hesitate to talk about Ernest Trumpp and W. H. McLeod. So they become the experts now? Why is that? The reason is simple: both these scholars didn’t understand Sikhism and had their opinion which’s not liked by the Sikhs. Whatever is repugnant to Sikhs, is like a sweet smell to these groups. We will talk in more detail about Trumpp and McLeod in some other post by taking the help of the book written by Dr Tirlochan Singh.

Clichéd arguments 11: Singh Sabha Movement created Sikhism different from Hinduism.

Reality: The thing that hurt me most was that a Sikh was talking to me and confirming that the Singh Sabha Movement was just a plan of the British. He completely ignored the Sikhs who were killed while trying to free the gurudwaras from the mahants, who had started doing the ill-practices in the gurudwaras. This is the extent to which some of the Sikhs are brainwashed.

It started back in the second half of the 19th century when Sikhs started paying attention to the environment in which they were living and the influence of some of the Hindus and Muslims on Sikhs and how they were successful to change the mind of some Sikhs to become like them or accumulate some part of the Sikh population to believe in their rituals.

This’s a harsh truth which led to the start of the Singh Sabha Movement. And the Sikh scholars of that time were successful to bring the Sikhs to the right path, the ones who have started following the Brahmanical rituals.

There’s a good book to read Guga gaporra te sultan puarha by Giani Ditt Singh. He’d many books on his name regarding how the Sikhs were following the wrong direction and how a Sikh tries to bring them to the right path. In his books, you can see a Sikh with gurmat and a Sikh (and Hindu) with manmat participating in a discussion about many things. Durga Parbodh is another book on his name.

Another scholar who emerged from this movement was Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha. His book Hum Hindu Nahi makes him a bad person in the eyes of the Hindu fringe groups, and the reason behind that is simple. Whoever is saying that Sikhs are not Hindus are either Khalistanis or anti-Indians, this is how their brains are constructed. The power to think has been taken away from them. The agenda on the Internet and the people that they read and listen to is the only reason behind the ignorance of the work of the scholars who spent so much of their time to talk and write about the Sikh history.

I’ve seen a couple of bloggers writing about Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha because of his book Hum Hindu Nahi. This is another book in which there’s a discussion of a Hindu and a Sikh, in which the Hindu brings the wrong translations of Gurbani or history to prove his point and the Sikh does the right translation, like in this century many people bring the verses of Gurbani that they’ve no idea of and then show why they are not intellectually smart enough to understand the meaning. The funny thing that I found while reading AV’s article on Sikhism is that he’s saying Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha was a stooge of the British and he wrote the book because the Britisher said so, on the other hand he’s pointing to his work i.e. Mahan Kosh to validate his point. Irony, no?

These online-strugglers are nothing but cockroaches who are born in the filth.

Two major points picked from the Singh Sabha Movement were about Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha’s Hum Hindu Nahi, which should be read by every Sikh so that they don’t get influenced by the online propaganda, this book has almost every clichéd and lame argument of a Hindu fringe group which’s used by them while debating online, and the second one is the idols present in the precinct of Harmandir Sahib.

If I’ve to go with the narrative that’s popular on the Internet even then it makes sense that why the Sikhs might have removed the idols at the precinct of the gurudwara. In Sikhi, there’s no idol worshipping. If you are doing it inside the gurudwara, it’s wrong. Yesterday, I saw an online video where an idol is placed along with Guru Granth Sahib ji. I think it’s in Kanpur and the idol was of Baba Shri Chand ji, son of Guru Nanak Dev ji. Even that is not according to Sikhi, and you think bringing the idols of some deity around the gurudwara is fine, huh? No. Maybe in future Sikhs will take an action against the committee of the gurudwara in Kanpur.

There’re so many verses in Gurbani to prove that idol worshipping is not in Sikhi, but the devotion of either a Sikh or Hindu to the deity blinds them from the truth of Gurbani, and to prove their alleged gurmat-view they talk again of Gurbani and do the wrong translation. There’s no end of stupidity.

In Giani Sohan Singh Seetal’s first book of the series Sikh itehaas de somme he talked about Kesar Singh Chibber’s Bansavlinama, an account of the lives of Sikh Gurus, that how he’d so much influence of the Brahmans and many of the incidents are not according to gurmat. Now think a person brings some stories from his work and says this is true gurmat. Actually, it’s stated in some arguments by a Hindu in Hum Hindu Nahi, and Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha said the same thing that if something is against Gurbani, it’s wrong. There’s a pandit named Sukhlal who wrote a book to prove that Sikhs are Hindus and in that he used all the anti-gurmat stories and mistranslations of Gurbani to prove his point, seems to be the father of the current Hindu fringe groups.

In her writing, Sheena Pall wrote:

The earliest known leader of the Sanatan Dharm movement in the Punjab, Pandit Shardha Ram Phillauri (1837-1881), did not show much concern with Hindu-Sikh identity in his Sikhan de Raj di Vithya (The Story of Sikh Rule) published in 1865. The Bharat Dharm Mahamandal did not show any interest in the issue of the identity of the Sikhs in its first report of 1889. In 1897, however, in a large public meeting at Lahore the Sanatanist Hindus passed a resolution that the Sikhs were a part of the Hindu community.

After their long arguments to prove their points, Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha wrote his book Hum Hindu Nahi. Those small-brained people who claim Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha to be the one who started saying Sikhs are not Hindus are plainly wrong. Had they had some good books to read and study, they wouldn’t have this much of ignorance while talking about history. Hum Hindu Nahi was in response to what the Sanatanist Hindus were saying, and it can be seen in his book too when he used the correct verses than the one which was used by the Hindus then.

People were so afraid of the truth of the book, and they still are, that they sent a fake letter to the king stating:

Hum Hindu Nahi book is to start riots between Sikhs and Hindus, and the government chose me to find about this, the government is taking it seriously, and once the writer is caught will be punished. I have travelled the whole Punjab and found the name of the person who wrote this, and I will reveal his name too; the person who wrote this book is Kahn Singh. It will be better if the punishment is decided by the riyaasat before my report is sent to the government.

A bunch of cowards.

Clichéd argument 12: Sikh means a learner, it’s not a religion.

Reality: I really laugh at the ignorance and blindness of these people.

This argument can be debunked in one statement which’s that Ram means omnipresent (there can be other meanings too), then why Ramchandra’s name was Ram even when he is not present everywhere?

Lazy people’s lazy arguments.

One very good question was asked on our YouTube channel that how a person can identify which Ram is for Ramchandra and which for Waheguru. The same we can have here; which sikh means a learner, which means a religious person belonging to Sikhi. The very answer that was given then I’m going to give here, which is that listen to katha.

The young Sikhs are going far from the history and as well Gurbani and they are picked by the anti-Sikh forces to brainwash. Use history and Gurbani as weapons to destroy the ignorance of these people.

There are many verses in Gurbani to say who is a Sikh. We can read the following verses of Guru Ramdas ji.

ਮ; ੪ ॥

ਗੁਰ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਕਾ ਜੋ ਸਿਖੁ ਅਖਾਏ ਸੁ ਭਲਕੇ ਉਠਿ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਧਿਆਵੈ ॥

ਉਦਮੁ ਕਰੇ ਭਲਕੇ ਪਰਭਾਤੀ ਇਸਨਾਨੁ ਕਰੇ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤਸਰਿ ਨਾਵੈ ॥

ਉਪਦੇਸਿ ਗੁਰੂ ਹਰਿ ਜਪੁ ਜਾਪੈ ਸਭਿ ਕਿਲਵਿਖ ਪਾਪ ਦੋਖ ਲਹਿ ਜਾਵੈ ॥

ਫਿਰਿ ਚੜੈ ਦਿਵਸੁ ਗੁਰਬਾਣੀ ਗਾਵੈ ਬਹਦਿਆ ਉਠਦਿਆ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਧਿਆਵੈ ॥

ਜੋ ਸਾਸਿ ਗਿਰਾਸਿ ਧਿਆਏ ਮੇਰਾ ਹਰਿ ਸੋ ਗੁਰਸਿਖੁ ਗੁਰੂ ਮਨਿ ਭਾਵੈ ॥

ਜਿਸਨੋ ਦਇਆਲੁ ਹੋਵੈ ਮੇਰਾ ਸੁਆਮੀ ਤਿਸੁ ਗੁਰਸਿਖ ਗੁਰੂ ਉਪਦੇਸੁ ਸੁਣਾਵੈ ॥

ਜਨੁ ਨਾਨਕੁ ਧੂੜਿ ਮੰਗੈ ਤਿਸੁ ਗੁਰਸਿਖ ਕੀ ਜੋ ਆਪਿ ਜਪੈ ਅਵਰਹ ਨਾਮੁ ਜਪਾਵੈ ॥੨॥ - ਅੰਗ ੩੦੫

Sikh as mentioned in the above verses is the person who wakes up early in the morning, bathe, read Gurbani, etc. Gurbani is the key factor here to drive the narration that the above verses are for not someone who’s merely a learner or follower of some guru or Prophet but a person who believes in the Sikh Gurus and live his life according to their preaching. Gurbani word comes only for the writing of the guru in their writings. Vedas and Quran, or other religious scriptures, are not mentioned as Gurbani by the Sikh Gurus.

Sirdar Kapur Singh wrote an article about the meaning of Sikh, and disapprove that it means just a follower. We’ve uploaded that in an audio on our YouTube channel.

There’re three major words which’re used in Gurbani: Sikh, Gurmukh and Gursikh. All the three words are used by the Sikhs these days. One distinction that I found (so far) is that Gursikh word is not used for any other person from other religion but Sikhs. Gurmukh is someone whose face is towards the guru, who listens to the guru, pays attention to the guru. The Sikh is someone who follows a guru. These two words are applicable for the Sikhs as well. But for the word Gursikh, I think this word is reserved for the followers of the Sikh Gurus, a distinction between the Sikhs and others. Gursikh is someone who follows the teachings of the Sikh Gurus. The above shabad has it everything.

I think only a folly will deny the Khalsa Panth not different than the Hindus. There’s a pile of evidence available to prove that. I will write that in the next part – cliché 13. But is there anything that proves the Sikhism different than the Hindus before the creation of the Khalsa? Yes, there’re references. We’ve seen them in cliché 7 and 8. Because of the interpolation of some fringe elements this’s still not enough for them, especially when the gurus have said, first by Guru Nanak Dev ji and then Guru Arjan Dev ji, that they’re neither Hindu nor Muslim.

Bhai Gurdas ji makes a distinction between the Gursikhs and Hindus/Muslims. In the 38^th vaar, he writes the characteristics of a Gursikh. Throughout the vaar, apart from the 20^th pauri, Bhai Gurdas ji compares the Gursikh with other religions and the people of different kinds and the people with vices, and then conclude that the Gursikhs are above all of them, the others couldn’t even reach the stage where the Gursikhs are. Even the famous names like Duryodhana, Ravana, Parasuraman, Narsingh, Gorakh, Lakshman, Hanuman, Bhairo, Hari Chand, Raja Bal, Karan, etc., he mentioned, and then put the Gursikhs above all of them. Not only just the Hindus but the great avatars in the Hindu religion and the kings lacked the things that the Gursikhs have. Isn’t it amazing how great the Gursikhs are? I’m not saying I’m one of them or I do everything that the guru’s said. I’m just showing who the Gursikhs are and how great they’re compared to the Hindus and all.

Bhai Gurdas ji compared the Gursikhs to Muslims, Christians, people of Armenia, etc., and said why the Gursikhs are great.

ਮੁਸਲਮਾਣਾਂ ਹਿੰਦੂਆਂ ਦੁਇ ਰਾਹ ਚਲਾਏ ।
ਮਜਹਬ ਵਰਨ ਵਣਾਇਂਦੇ ਗੁਰੁ ਪੀਰੁ ਸਦਾਏ ।
ਸਿਖ ਮੁਰੀਦ ਪਖੰਡ ਕਰਿ ਉਪਦੇਸ ਦ੍ਰਿੜਾਏ ।
ਰਾਮ ਰਹੀਮ ਧਿਅਇਂਦੇ ਹਉਮੈ ਗਰਬਾਏ ।
ਮੱਕਾ ਗੰਗ ਬਨਾਰਸੀ ਪੂਜ ਜਾਰਤ ਆਏ ।
ਰੋਜੇ ਵਰਤ ਨਮਾਜ਼ ਕਰਿ ਦੰਡਉਤ ਕਰਾਏ ।
ਗੁਰ ਸਿਖ ਰੋਮ ਨ ਪੁਜਨੀ ਜੋ ਆਪ ਗਵਾਏ ॥੯॥

ਬਹੁ ਸੁੰਨੀ ਸ਼ੀਆ ਰਾਫਜ਼ੀ ਮਜ਼ਹਬ ਮਨ ਭਾਣੇ ।
ਮੁਲਹਿਦ ਹੋਇ ਮਨਾਫ਼ਕਾ ਸਭ ਭਰਮ ਭੁਲਾਣੇ ।
ਈਸਾਈ ਮੂਸਾਈਆਂ ਹਊਮੈ ਹੈਰਾਣੇ ।
ਹੋਇ ਫਿਰੰਗੀ ਅਰਮਨੀ ਰੂਮੀ ਗਰਬਾਣੇ ।
ਕਾਲੀ ਪੋਸ ਕਲੰਦਰਾ ਦਰਵੇਸ ਦੁਗਾਣੇ ।
ਗੁਰੁ ਸਿਖ ਰੋਮ ਨ ਪੁਜਨੀ ਗੁਰ ਹਟਿ ਵਿਕਾਣੇ ॥੧੧॥ – ਵਾਰ ੩੮

During one of my discussions, a BH brought a lame argument that here only the people with vices are compared with the Gursikhs, and in that case they’re definitely better than the others. A clear distinction which’s made by Bhai Gurdas ji, they didn’t see it, which is that the Gursikhs are mentioned beyond the Hindus and Muslims. If the Sikhs were Hindus, then Bhai Gurdas ji would have mentioned one set of Hindus are better than the other set, but this is not the case.

You don’t compare the same set of things. Comparison is always between two different set of things to have the differentiation in the traits or values between them, or to find the similarities. Like many of you might’ve seen the BHs shouting the similarities between the two religions and how they’re same or come under the same circle. Why that comparison was done is to smear the line off that makes the two religions separate, that’s the second part that we mentioned above. In the first part, we’ve the differentiation of the qualities and traits of two sets; this’s done by Bhai Gurdas ji. In any way, if the comparison is made that’s because there are two sets, not one.

In the Gurbani, the gurus used the word Vedas to define the Hinduism to some extent, but not as clearly as they did of religions like Sikhism or Islam, or the other people like Yogis, Pandits, Brahmins, etc. The reason is very simple. You can’t have the definition of Hinduism as a religion because of the varieties of the thoughts accumulated due to the different religious books and rites. That ambiguity is the core reason why the people are bringing the lame reasoning to cloak all the religions in Hinduism.

Bhai Gurdas ji didn’t compare the Yogis with Pandits or Brahmins with Pandits or other two sets. Isn’t it very obvious why he compared the Gursikhs?

In her book The Hindus an alternative history, Wendy Doniger, who’s a critic of the Hindu religion in the eyes of some Hindus, but they don’t counterattack her claims and writing, which she chose from their scriptures, with their arguments but just denial, writes about how among the Hindus the definition or distinction of the Hindu religion is not necessary until there’re other religions:

Hindus did not develop a strong sense of themselves as members of a distinct religion until there were other religions against which they needed to define themselves, like the invisible man in the Hollywood film who could be seen only when he was wearing clothing that was not a part of him.

The same way some Hindus are doing with the Sikhs. You will see in the cliché 14 that I encounter that how everything’s put in the circle to define the Hindu religion because there’s a need now to label the Sikhs as Hindus. Actually, there’s no definition of Hindus or Hinduism in terms of the religion. So the Sikhs, who’ve their different and distinct identity in terms of the scriptures, rules and living, should be put into a box whose definition doesn’t exist at all!

A very simple question: Who’s a Hindu in terms of the Hindu religion?

Bhai Dhesi and Jodh came to Guru Arjan Dev ji and requested that the people that they’re living around didn’t respect them now because they do not go to the Ganges or Kashi and don’t participate in the rituals during the time of birth and death according to the Brahmins. This here amplifies the assertion that the Sikhs were not following the religion of the Hindus. In the cliché 23, you will find the BH telling the guru ordered to do the Brahminical rituals after his Joti Jot; it will be thoroughly discussed in that point. But, here, the Sikhs are saying the Brahmins are distancing themselves from them because they’ve abandoned the life as Hindus.

ਗੰਗਾ ਤੇ ਕਾਂਸੀ ਆਦਿ ਤੀਰਥ ਜੋ ਸਿਵ ਪੁਰੀ ਤੇ ਬਿਸਨ ਪੁਰੀ ਹੈਂ ਓਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਦਾ ਸੇਵਨ ਛਡਿ ਕੇ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤਸਰ ਕ੍ਰਿਤਮੀ ਤੀਰਥ ਸੇਂਵਦੇ ਹੋ, ਤੇ ਵੇਦਾਂ ਦੀ ਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਬਾਣੀ ਤਿਆਗ ਕੇ ਤੁਸੀਂ ਭਾਖਾ ਬਾਣੀ ਗੁਰੁ ਸ਼ਬਦ ਗਾਂਵਦੇ ਹੋ, ਤੇ ਜਨਮ ਅਸਟਮੀ ਤੇ ਸ਼ਿਵਰਾਤ ਤੇ ਇਕਾਦਸੀ ਬ੍ਰਤ ਤਿਆਗ ਕੈ ਸਿਖਾਂ ਦਾ ਉਚਿਸ਼ਟ ਅਮਨ ਭੋਜਨ ਕਰਦੇ ਹੋ, ਤੇ ਗਾਇਤ੍ਰੀ ਤਰਪਣ ਸੰਧਿਆ ਪਿੰਡ ਪਤਲ ਜਨਮ ਮਰਨ ਦੀ ਕ੍ਰਿਆ ਤਿਆਗਿ ਕੈ ਅਰਦਾਸਾਂ ਤੇ ਕੜਾਹ ਮ੍ਰਿਤਕ ਤੇ ਖਾਵਦੇ ਹੋ । - ਭਗਤ ਰਤਨਾਵਲੀ, ਭਾਈ ਮਨੀ ਸਿੰਘ, ੯੦

Clichéd Argument – Part III