Identity 3
Clichéd argument 36: If the Sikh Gurus were not Hindus, why they had the Hindu Gods’ names?
Reality: This again is similar to the ‘Hindu gods’ names’ in Guru Granth Sahib ji. Like they are wrong in terms of the translation of the Gurbani, similarly they are wrong about it. The names of Waheguru in Guru Granth Sahib ji have been mistranslated so many times in the books as well as on the Internet. Many of us might’ve seen that. And the repetition of the same arguments is very agitating. I have personally read this argument couple of times. So thought of including this in our series.
Following are the names of the Sikh Gurus.
1. Guru Nanak Dev ji
2. Guru Angad Dev ji
3. Guru Amar Das 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 Teg Bahadur ji
10. Guru Gobind Singh ji
11. Guru Granth Sahib ji
The names of the first two Gurus are out of question. Nanak is neither a Hindu name nor a Muslim name. The name of the second guru was given by the first guru. Majorly the focus of the ‘Hindu’ names of the gurus is because of the words Har, Gobind, Krishan, and Arjan. Har, Gobind, and Krishan come in Gurbani for Waheguru multiple times. It’s true to some extent that these names were already existing in the earlier tradition, but they were not used in a sense in which the people of 21st century do. What I mean is the association of the names has nothing to do with the Hindu Gods. If a Muslim says the name Allah is being taken from the Muslim scriptures, so the Guru was a Muslim is very laughable.
In everyday life, we come across numerous words from different tradition, cultures, and nations. We adopt that for our everyday conversation. Maybe if I’m going to Germany, I will speak the language that they understand. Similarly, for any other nation which’s its own languages and cultures. The name Allah is used by the Sikh Gurus multiple times in their verses, not for someone who’s not omnipresent, as the Muslims believe in, but the One who’s merged into this whole World; because their understanding of the One was wrong. The Guru used the word of their origin, but they didn’t use it in a way they were using it but the One who’s running the show. So, talking that the Allah here is for the one who’s sitting on some Throne in the Heavens but doesn’t exist in everything will go against the Sikh Values. But isn’t this what some Hindus do online with the names that they believe are their gods?
Ignoring the meanings of the words is what is causing this issue. Ask any Hindu who’s maligning the Sikh History or Gurbani with his translation, he will never tell the meaning of the word but the deity of that name.
Clichéd argument 37: Guru Nanak Dev ji did the shraddha of his father. It’s a ceremony in Hinduism. If the Guru was not a Hindu, he wouldn’t have performed the shraddha.
Reality: Shraddha of the father of the Guru has been written in numerous books, including the Janamsakhis. This, however, is not the actual incident that happened in the life of the Guru but an interpolation. This is proved numerous times by using both the Gurbani and historical scriptures.
The story goes that Mata Chauni asked the Guru through Sadharan to perform the shraddha of his father, which is on Assu Vadi 9. So, the Guru said he asked (Waheguru) to give him fifteen more days, so instead of having Joti Jot on Assu Sudi 10, the Joti Jot was on Assu Vadi 10. The reason being the shraddha is performed in the dark half-month. This, Dr Piar Singh, wrote intensively in the preface of Aad Saakhia. Dr Piar Singh was the opinion that the real date of Guru’s Joti Jot was Assu Sudi 10. Later, while making the copies of the script, the dates were changed by introducing the Guru performing the shraddha. The dates had to be changed to align with the interpolation of the story.
There are many incidents in the Sikh Historical Scriptures where the shunned acts in Gurbani are said to be done by the Sikh Gurus. This is directly against what the Sikh Gurus preached. The reason of them to be present in the historical scriptures is the effect of the Brahminical thoughts on the writers. Many times, a writer would be pleased to have the story written in a way which shows his beliefs. And using that he leaves an impact on the minds of readers, and the satisfaction of his religious glory while writing it, the importance of the old rituals.
Guru Nanak Dev ji enlightened his father with the wise words. There came a time for shraddha …
Then came the time of shraddha. Baba Kalyan Chand ji gathered all the materials for the performance of the shraddha. The food for the Brahmins was prepared. The house was fully packed with people. The pandit was called in to do the ritual. Guru Nanak Dev ji also came there to guide them. He asked his father what he’s doing and for what purpose. Baba Kalyan Chand ji told his son that they’d been doing the shraddha this day for so long. Performance of shraddha has been written in the Shrutis also.
Guru Nanak Dev ji now guided his father by saying that he should listen to the True Words. The Guru said, ‘You believe shraddha to be a great reward. But your elders (pitars) are in a place where there’s no hunger. They don’t wait for the shraddha. Those whose elders need the food should do it. In whose mind, there is no desire, why their children should perform the shraddha? Feed the Brahmins and let go of the thought of shraddha.’[1]
Baba Kalyan Chand ji then asked his son to make him see them and then he would believe. The Guru did that, Baba Kalyan Chand ji met his elders in the Divine World and came back.
There are some people out there who might misunderstand the words that some people can perform the shraddha; this was not Guru’s intent. Purpose was to suggest the shallow ritual had no significance. Let me tell you another story in the life of Guru Nanak Dev ji.
During his travellers, Guru Nanak Dev ji reached Gaya in the eastern India. The pandits there asked the Guru to do the pind, dia and other rituals to please the pitars. The Guru told the pandits he didn’t believe in this. Your ancestors created a way for a living. They wrote the rituals, where the Brahmins were involved, to have the praises of Brahmins, so that they could be given the materials for a living as they would be ignoring the rest and spend their lives in the holy ways. But you don’t do that. You leave your way and become worthless.[2]
The Guru uttered the shabad[3]:
ਆਸਾ ਮਹਲਾ ੧ ॥ ਦੀਵਾ ਮੇਰਾ ਏਕੁ ਨਾਮੁ ਦੁਖੁ ਵਿਚਿ ਪਾਇਆ ਤੇਲੁ ॥ ਉਨਿ ਚਾਨਣਿ ਓਹੁ ਸੋਖਿਆ ਚੂਕਾ ਜਮ ਸਿਉ ਮੇਲੁ ॥੧॥ ਲੋਕਾ ਮਤ ਕੋ ਫਕੜਿ ਪਾਇ ॥ ਲਖ ਮੜਿਆ ਕਰਿ ਏਕਠੇ ਏਕ ਰਤੀ ਲੇ ਭਾਹਿ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ ਪਿੰਡੁ ਪਤਲਿ ਮੇਰੀ ਕੇਸਉ ਕਿਰਿਆ ਸਚੁ ਨਾਮੁ ਕਰਤਾਰੁ ॥ ਐਥੈ ਓਥੈ ਆਗੈ ਪਾਛੈ ਏਹੁ ਮੇਰਾ ਆਧਾਰੁ ॥੨॥ ਗੰਗ ਬਨਾਰਸਿ ਸਿਫਤਿ ਤੁਮਾਰੀ ਨਾਵੈ ਆਤਮਰਾਉ ॥ ਸਚਾ ਨਾਵਣੁ ਤਾਂ ਥੀਐ ਜਾਂ ਅਹਿਨਿਸਿ ਲਾਗੈ ਭਾਉ ॥੩॥ ਇਕ ਲੋਕੀ ਹੋਰੁ ਛਮਿਛਰੀ ਬ੍ਰਾਹਮਣੁ ਵਟਿ ਪਿੰਡੁ ਖਾਇ ॥ ਨਾਨਕ ਪਿੰਡੁ ਬਖਸੀਸ ਕਾ ਕਬਹੂੰ ਨਿਖੂਟਸਿ ਨਾਹਿ ॥੪॥੨॥੩੨॥ - ਅੰਗ ੩੫੮
The last two lines are very significant in terms of what we are discussing. It means, people do the shraddha for their dead ones and give food to Brahmins. The Brahmins eat them; means the Brahmins eat them and the hunger strikes again, how could the elders be satisfied by this? The real pind is of the grace of Waheguru, that never ends.
Bhai Gurdas ji also writes that the world has been divulging in the delusions of shraddhas.
ਤੇਰਹ ਪਦ ਕਰਿ ਜਗ ਵਿਚਿ ਪਿਤਰ ਕਰਮ ਕਰਿ ਭਰਮਿ ਭੁਲਾਇਆ । - ਵਾਰ ੭, ਪਉੜੀ ੧੩
The tradition of Hindus related to the shraddhas should also be understood. You can’t fathom why these rituals were pushed into the Sikh literature unless you understand its importance in Hinduism. It will be very vague, in my honest opinion, that a worthless ritual, according to Hinduism, will be performed by the Sikh Gurus as written in the SHS if the writer had the effects of the Brahminical thoughts. It is of little importance to have a ritual analysed in a different way than we have already done by using the historical scriptures and Gurbani. However, I would like to end this cliché with the following notes to highlight the importance of shraddha in Hinduism.
267. The ancestors of men are satisfied for one month with sesamum grains, rice, barley, masha beans, water, roots, and fruits, which have been given according to the prescribed rule,
268. Two months with fish, three months with the meat of gazelles, four with mutton, and five indeed with the flesh of birds,
268. Two months with fish, three months with the meat of gazelles, four with mutton, and five indeed with the flesh of birds,
269. Six months with the flesh of kids, seven with that of spotted deer, eight with that of the black antelope, but nine with that of the (deer called) Ruru,
270. Ten months they are satisfied with the meat of boars and buffaloes, but eleven months indeed with that of hares and tortoises, - Mannu Smriti Adyai 3, Shloka 267-270
In Garurha Purana (39-41), it’s written that a person who feeds the poor and blind and does good things will be doomed unless the shraddha is performed. This is how the good deeds are put aside and everything’s put on the shraddha. And for this reason, the shraddha must be performed by the Sikh Gurus to validate the rituals of Hinduism.
Clichéd argument 38: Guru Gobind Singh ji’s last rites were performed according to the Hindu religion.
In his Ibrat Namah or the Swāneh, 1705-19 A. D., Mirza Muhammad Harisi had devoted some thirteen pages to the contemporary account of the Sikhs, with particular reference to Banda Singh He tells us that Guru Gobind Singh had travelled in the train of Emperor Bahadur Shah to the Deccan and was killed there in 1120 al-Hijjri, 1708 A. D., by an Afghan, an old enemy of his, and his body was cremated according to Hindu rites. (sic)
Reality: This is written by the same propagandist who doesn’t know the names Allah and Ram are same, and the Sikh Gurus shunned the worshipping of the Hindu deities.
One important pattern that I’ve started seeing lately is these people bringing the name of some great Sikh scholars and then meddling with their words to give it a colour of their choice. The above cited verse was written in Guru Gobind Singh’s Death at Nanded by Dr Ganda Singh. This small book was written by Dr Ganda Singh to debunk the succession theory of Naamdhari that the Guru gave the Gurtagaddi to a person instead of Guru Granth Sahib ji or the Khalsa Panth.
Dr Ganda Singh referred to so many scriptures to prove the point that the Guru didn’t pass the Gurtagaddi to one particular person. In one of the references that he made was of the work of Mirza Mohammad Harisi. Dr Ganda Singh quoted that the Guru was cremated according to the Hindu rites. It’s not incumbent upon Dr Ganda Singh that the work he’s referring to should be bounced back to put the words of the referenced material as his. The writer of Ibratnama didn’t specific mention what type of ‘Hindu rites’ were performed. Was it merely the cremation he referred as Hindu rites? Because if the Muslims are concerned, something different from their religion should be a Hindu-thing because majority of the two religions at that time were Hindus and Muslims.
To be very specific on the thoughts of Dr Ganda Singh, I would quote his annotation from Early European Accounts of the Sikhs:
According to the Sikhs, their religion does not 'bear that kind of relation to the Hindu religion which the Protestant does to the Romish'. The opinion of Miss Dorothy Field in her The Religion of the Sikhs on this point may be quoted here for the information of the readers.
"The word Hinduism is undoubtedly capable of a wide application, but it is questionable whether it should be held to include the Sikhs in view of the fact that the pure teachings of the Gurus assumed a critical attitude towards the three cardinal pillars of Hinduism, the priesthood, the caste system and the Vedas. A reading of the Granth strongly suggests that Sikhism should be regarded as a new and separate religion, rather than a reformed sect of the Hindus." (Page 10.) – Page 14
Not only the above made it clear that Dr Ganda Singh wasn’t of the opinion that the Sikhs are Hindus but also the rejection of Hinduizing the Sikhs. In the preface of Sachi Sakhi, Dr Ganda Singh wrote:
Actually, among the Hindus the Arya Samajis and their followers couldn’t just bear that the Sikhs keeping themselves to be independent of the Hindu religion, or politically they have different opinions, thoughts of freedom and desires. They do not want to make Sikhism more than just a sect of Hinduism, and they don’t want to see Sikhs more than just an army, so that, slowly, they become merged into Hinduism, and their independent existence ceases to exist. This is the thought of sinners, which becomes troublesome for sinners.
Do we need more proof of Dr Ganda Singh calling the Sikhs independent of Hindus or Hinduism?
So, if the cremation or lighting the pyre is said to be the Hindu rites, then people should have at least a better argument to make a point.
By chance in the Deccan in the year 1120 A.H. [1708-9 A.D.] he was killed in the imperial camp at the hands of an afghan who had entertained enmity towards him. His body was cremated according to the customs of the Hindus; and Ajit Singh, who was popularly known as his son, received the Emperor’s favours, and remained in the same manner in the suit of the King.[4]
We have seen couple of times by now that people are using same kind of stories during the last rites of the Sikh Gurus. We have talked about the fake stories circling around the shraddha by Guru Nanak Dev ji, last moments of Guru Amardas ji, and now Guru Gobind Singh ji. When Gurbani has explicitly mentioned these rituals are of no importance, then the Gurus performing them becomes a laughing stock.
Let’s see a historical scripture where the last rites of the Guru were mentioned. What the Sikhs did then? Did they read the Hindu scriptures or sing some mantras of Hindus, which presumably made our Punjabi Bahman think the ‘Hindu rites’ were performed?
In Gurbilas Patshahi Dasvi, Koer Singh mentioned the Guru gave so much information about the Code of Conduct to the Sikhs a day before the Joti Jot. In the morning, the Sikhs do Asa di Vaar.
ਯਾ ਬਿਧਿ ਰਹਤ ਕਹੀ ਗੁਰ ਜੀ ਤਬ, ਰਾਤ ਬਿਤੀਤ ਭਈ ਸਬ ਸਾਰੀ ।
ਤਾ ਸਮੈ ਆਨ ਪੜ੍ਹੀ ਗੁਰ ਸਿਖਨ, ਆਸਾ ਕੀ ਵਾਰ ਬਜੰਤ੍ਰ ਅਪਾਰੀ ।
ਵਾਰ ਸਮਪਤਿ ਪ੍ਰਾਤ ਭਯੋ, ਤਬ ਬੀਸ ਸਹੰਸ੍ਰ ਦਾਮ ਉਚਾਰੀ ।
ਕਨਮ ਸੁ ਭੂਖਨ ਬਾਂਟ ਦਏ ਪੁਨਿ, ਚਾਰ ਪਦਾਰਥ ਭਾਵਨ ਭਾਰੀ ॥੪੮॥ ।੧੧੧॥॥ – ਪੰਨਾ ੨੬੬
When the Sikhs were having bairaag, the Guru said the whole sangat is his own reflection/himself.
ਕਲਗੀ ਜਿਗਾ ਪਟ ਭੂਖਨੰ ਯੁਤ, ਸਯੰਕਾਲ ਬਿਹਾਵਹੀ ।
ਸਨੱਧ ਬੱਧਨ ਕਰਮ ਸਰ ਧਰ, ਮਾਰ ਜਾਇ ਬਿਤਾਵਹੀ ।
ਤਾ ਸਮੈ ਮਜਲਸ ਰਾਇ ਭੀ, ਕਰ ਜੋੜ ਸੰਗਤਿ ਸਹਿ ਭਏ ।
ਤਾ ਸਮੈ ਨੈਨ ਬਿਰਾਗ ਕੇ ਯਹਿ ਰੂਪ ਪੇਖਤ ਗੁਰ ਠਏ ।
ਯਾ ਭਾਂਤਿ ਸੰਗਤਿ ਕੋ ਬਿਆਕੁਲ, ਪੇਖ ਬੈਨ ਅਲਾਵਹੀ ।
"ਸਰਬ ਸੰਗਤਿ ਰੂਪ ਮੇਰੋ, ਜੋ ਆਬੈ ਨ ਕਮਾਵਹੀ ।
ਉਪਦੇਸ ਮੇਰੋ ਚਿਤ ਮੈ ਅਰੁ ਰਹਤ ਸਿੰਘਨ ਕੀ ਕਰੈ ।
ਮੈਂ ਅੰਗ ਸੰਗ ਸੁ ਤਾਹਿ ਕੇ, ਯਹਿ ਬਾਤ ਸਾਚੋ ਹੈ ਰਰੈ ॥੫੬॥ ।੧੨੫॥॥ – ਪੇਜ ੨੬੭
The Guru said not to have your trust in anyone but Guru Granth Sahib ji.
ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਗੁਰੂ ਮੈ ਨਿਹਚਾ ਧਾਰੇ । ਤਾ ਬਿਨ ਚਾਹ ਨ ਧਰੋ ਪਿਯਾਰੇ ।
ਤਾਕੀ ਵਾਂਛਾ ਸਭ ਗੁਰ ਪੂਰੈ । ਯਾ ਪਰ ਨਿਸਚਾ ਭ੍ਰਮ ਸਭ ਦੂਰੇ ॥ ।੧੩੬॥॥ – ਪੇਜ ੨੬੮
Guru Gobind Singh ji read the shabad from Guru Granth Sahib and when one and a half pehar of the night was past, the pyre was lit (the so-called Hindu rites?!)
ਸਵੈਯਾ।
ਇਹ ਭਾਂਤਿ ਉਚਾਰ ਸੁ ਬਾਂਟਤ ਹੈ ਅਤਿ, ਰੋਕ ਮੁਠੀ ਭਰ ਮੁਹਰ ਸੁ ਲੇਹੀ ।
ਸਵਾ ਜਾਮ ਸੁ ਰਾਤ ਗਈ ਬਿਧਿ ਯਾਹਿ ਸੁ, ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਮੁਖ ਜਾਪੁਚਰੇਹੀ ।
ਨਾਮ ਸੁਨੇ ਬਸ ਕੋ ਸਭ ਕਾਂਪਤ, ਸਿੰਘ ਭਏ ਅਤਿ ਆਤੁਰ ਤੇਹੀ ।
ਸਿੰਘ ਅਚਾਰਜ ਏਕ ਗੁਰੂ ਲਖ, ਤਾਹਿ ਕੋ ਅਗਨਿ ਲਗਾਵ ਕਹੇਹੀ ॥੬੪॥ ।੧੪੦॥॥ – ਪੇਜ ੨੬੯
In Twarikh Khalsa, Gurpartap Suraj Granth, Gur Sobha, Bansavlinama, and Mehma Parkash, none of them had the ‘Hindu scriptures or mantras.’ Even after having the Brahminical elements in these scriptures, they didn’t specifically mention even remotely of the Hindu mantras or other rituals. Bansavlinama talked about the water of Ganges, but it’s already stated in one of the answers that the Ganges has no significance in the Sikh religion; it sought the darshan of Guru Amardas ji. In Mehma Parkash, the viman/biban was said to be prepared, but in the Sadd bani the third guru mentioned not to have any viman after the Joti Jot. So, both the points are debunked.
So, where are the Hindu rites again?
Clichéd argument 39: Harmandir Sahib is a Vishnu Temple and there were idols present there before the Singh Sabha Movement.
Reality: The word ‘Har’ has been mistranslated so many times. I don’t think there would be another word as confusing to some anti-Sikh people as the word Har. The whole conception of Harmandir Sahib to be a Vishnu Temple comes from the idea of the word in the name – Har. The word in Hinduism is Hari, but majorly in Gurbani we see the word Har. Even though if because of the language both the words are same, it doesn’t mean they have the same meanings.
To popularize their way of interpreting, these people use the online sources with Sikh content to prove their point. On the Sikh Encyclopedia, the name Harimandar is translated as:
HARIMANDAR (lit. the House of God; hari = Visnu, or God; mandar = temple, house)
The word Hari is translated as Vishnu or God. This is the myth that’s been circling around the Internet. The next word God is ignored by them. Vishnu or Bisan is also the name of God which comes in Gurbani. But as the deity-worshipper don’t see beyond the Trinity of Gods, they assume Bisan or Vishnu to be one of the three deities, hence Harmandir Sahib is a Vishnu Temple. But the truth is totally opposite of it.
Why Harmandir Sahib was constructed? Was it to install the Vishnu Idols? Or to do the deity-worshipping? These fundamental questions must be answered because without having the answer one may create his own answers without any historical evidence. Secondly, during the construction of Harmandir Sahib, the words were even Vishnu couldn’t match the beauty of the place. Had the Gurudwara been constructed to do the praises of Vishnu, a deity, the said words wouldn’t have been uttered by the Sikhs.
'ਸਰ ਅੰਦਰ ਹਰਿਮੰਦਰ ਸੁੰਦਰ । ਸਿਰਜਹਿਂ ਸਮਤਾ ਲਹਿ ਨ ਪੁਰੰਦਰ' ॥੨॥੨
– ਅਧਿਆਇ ੫੩, ਰਾਸ ੨, ਸੂਰਜ ਪ੍ਰਕਾਸ਼
The fifth guru said to listen to the shabad in Harmandir Sahib to cleanse the sins of the earlier births. He didn’t mention to worship Vishnu or offer food to any sort of deity. Since the beginning of Harmandir Sahib, the sole purpose of the place was to get emancipated by chanting the Naam, listen to the Words of Guru, sing the praises of the One, and do the selfless service. Introduction of the deity in the Sikh psyche by the external forces, which are anti-Sikh in nature, was placed later in the 19th century when the Sikhism was engulfed by the Brahminical rituals.
ਹਰਿਮੰਦਿਰ ਮਹਿਂ ਸ਼ਬਦ ਜੁ ਸੁਨਿ ਹੈ । ਜਨਮ ਜਨਮ ਕੇ ਪਾਪਨਿ ਹਨਿਹੈ ॥੪॥
– ਅਧਿਆਇ ੫੫, ਰਾਸ ੨, ਸੂਰਜ ਪ੍ਰਕਾਸ਼
Also, when the Birh of Guru Granth Sahib ji was completed, Bhai Budha ji said with humility that the Granth should be placed inside Harmandir Sahib. Here, the talk of Granth is paramount to remove any kind of confusion of the deities placed inside Harmandir Sahib. Not only does it nullify the claim of some anti-Sikh propagandists but also a clear-cut indication of the Sikh Gurus focusing only on their writings, and, of course, which were similar to their preaching. The Guru didn’t install the Vedas in Harmandir Sahib. The Guru didn’t install any idol of deity in there. The superiority of the Vedas and Vishnu, or any other deity for that matter, becomes redundant here.
ਚੌਪਈ
ਤ੍ਯਾਰ ਭਯੋ ਜਬਿ ਜਿਲਤ ਬੰਧਾਈ । ਬੁੱਢੇ ਸੋਂ ਗੁਰ ਗਿਰਾ ਅਲਾਈ ।
'ਕਹੋ ਗ੍ਰਿੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਕਿਸ ਥਾਨਾ । ਨਿਤ ਸ਼ੋਭਹਿ ਜਹਿਂ ਮਹਿਦ ਮਹਾਨਾ' ॥੧੫॥
ਹਾਥ ਜੋਰਿ ਤਿਨ ਤਬਹਿ ਬਖਾਨੋ । 'ਸ਼੍ਰੀ ਗੁਰ ਤੁਮ ਤੇ ਕੌਨ ਸਿਆਨੋ ।
ਤਊ ਸੁਨਹੁ ਸਰ ਸੁਧਾ ਮਝਾਰਾ । ਹਰਿ ਮੰਦਿਰ ਸੁੰਦਰ ਦਰਬਾਰਾ ॥੧੬॥
ਸਦਾ ਸਥਾਪਨਿ ਗ੍ਰਿੰਥ ਸੁ ਲਾਇਕ । ਸ਼ੋਭਹਿਗੋ ਇਮ ਤਹਾਂ ਸੁਭਾਇਕ । …
'ਬੁੱਢਾ ਨਿਜ ਸਿਰ ਪਰ ਧਰਿ ਗ੍ਰਿੰਥ । ਆਗੇ ਚਲਹੁ ਸੁਧਾਸਰ ਪੰਥ' ।
ਮਾਨਿ ਬਾਕ ਲ ਭਯੋ ਅਗਾਰੇ । ਚਮਰ ਗੁਰੂ ਅਰਜਨ ਕਰ ਧਾਰੇ ॥੨੯॥
ਸੰਖ ਅਨਿਕ ਲਘੁ ਦੁੰਦਭਿ ਬਾਜੇ । ਜੈ ਜੈ ਕਾਰ ਊਚ ਸੁਰ ਗਾਜੇ ।
ਸੁੰਦਰ ਸ਼੍ਰੀ ਹਰਿ ਗੋਵਿੰਦ ਚੰਦ । ਸੰਗ ਚਲਤਿ ਹੁਇ ਸ਼ੋਭ ਬਿਲੰਦ ॥੩੦॥
ਹਰਿ ਮੰਦਿਰ ਮਹਿਂ ਜਾਇ ਪਹੂੰਚੇ । ਰਾਗੀ ਰਾਗ ਕਰਤਿ ਸੁਰ ਊਚੇ ।
ਮੰਜੀ ਸਹਤ ਗ੍ਰਿੰਥ ਤਹਿਂ ਥਾਪਿ । ਬੈਠੇ ਨਿਕਟ ਗੁਰੂ ਤਬਿ ਆਪਿ ॥੩੧॥
ਵਾਰ ਭੋਗ ਕੋ ਸੁਨਿ ਮਨ ਲਾਈ । ਸ਼੍ਰੀ ਅਰਜਨ ਪੁਨ ਗਿਰਾ ਅਲਾਈ ।
'ਬੁੱਢਾ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਖੋਲਹੁ ਗ੍ਰਿੰਥ । ਲੇਹੁ ਅਵਾਜ਼ ਸੁਨਹਿ ਸਭਿ ਪੰਥ' ॥੩੨॥
ਸੁਨਿ ਗੁਰ ਬਚਨ ਰੁਚਿਰ ਮਨ ਲਾਯਕ । ਸੱਤ ਬਾਕ ਮੁਖ ਜਲਜ ਅਲਾਇਕ ।
ਅਦਬ ਸੰਗ ਤਬਿ ਗ੍ਰਿੰਥ ਸੁ ਖੋਲਾ । ਲੇ ਅਵਾਜ਼ ਬੁੱਢਾ ਮੁਖ ਬੋਲਾ ॥੩੩॥
- ਅਧਿਆਇ ੫੦, ਰਾਸ ੩, ਸੂਰਜ ਪ੍ਰਕਾਸ਼
The very first Hukamnama after the first Parkash of Guru Granth Sahib ji was:
ਸੂਹੀ ਮਹਲਾ ੫ ॥
ਸੰਤਾ ਕੇ ਕਾਰਜਿ ਆਪਿ ਖਲੋਇਆ ਹਰਿ ਕੰਮੁ ਕਰਾਵਣਿ ਆਇਆ ਰਾਮ॥
ਧਰਤਿ ਸੁਹਾਵੀ ਤਾਲੁ ਸੁਹਾਵਾ ਵਿਚਿ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਜਲੁ ਛਾਇਆ ਰਾਮ ॥
ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਜਲੁ ਛਾਇਆ ਪੂਰਨ ਸਾਜੁ ਕਰਾਇਆ ਸਗਲ ਮਨੋਰਥ ਪੂਰੇ ॥
ਜੈ ਜੈ ਕਾਰੁ ਭਇਆ ਜਗ ਅੰਤਰਿ ਲਾਥੇ ਸਗਲ ਵਿਸੂਰੇ ॥
ਪੂਰਨ ਪੁਰਖ ਅਚੁਤ ਅਬਿਨਾਸੀ ਜਸੁ ਵੇਦ ਪੁਰਾਣੀ ਗਾਇਆ ॥
ਅਪਨਾ ਬਿਰਦੁ ਰਖਿਆ ਪਰਮੇਸਰਿ ਨਾਨਕ ਨਾਮੁ ਧਿਆਇਆ ॥੧॥
- ਅੰਗ ੭੮੩
No idols at the beginning of Harmandir Sahib. No Vishnu or deity worshipping also.
So, when were the idols actually placed in Darbar Sahib and why?
Mehma Parkash Kav (1776 A.D.) and Bansavlinama (1769 A.D.) were written way before the beginning of the Khalsa Raj. In their work, you can’t find the installation of idols by the fifth guru in Harmandir Sahib. Although their work has the effect of the Brahminical thoughts because of the times the Sikhs were passing through. And most of the times, they stuck to the Sikh beliefs but they took the liberty wherever was possible to write the stories to have their families or the brahmins at the top that how much they were respected. It happens when you are highly proud of your family or your caste, if one wishes to believe it.
There is one important work that I would like to highlight – Sketch of the Sikhs by John Malcolm.
When the chiefs and principal leaders are seated, the Adi-Grant'h and Dasama Padshah ka Grant'h are placed before them. They all bend their heads before these scriptures, and exclaim, Wa ! Guruji ka Khalsa ! Wa ! Guruji hi Fateh ! – page 120
John Malcolm mentioned clearly that the Granths were placed before the Sikhs during the gurmata. This incident was placed in Amritsar. If the idols were placed there, then why Malcolm didn’t mention of them being present and the Sikhs bowing to them? Can we conclude the idols of the Hindu deities were placed after 1812 A.D. – the year Sketch of the Sikhs was published? We can think of the other alternative also i.e. the idols were present before 1812 A.D., hypothetically, of course, but still the Sikhs were not bowing down to the idols? We can go a little back because Malcolm mentioned the last gurmata was called in 1805. Still, no idols in place.
The work of Bhai Santokh Singh is already discussed where he wrote the Granth being parkashed by Baba Budha ji. He completed his work Suraj Parkash in 1843 A.D., few years before the annexation of Punjab. I haven’t heard or read so far where he mentioned some brahmins had installed the idols in Darbar Sahib. Bhai Santokh Singh was a devoted Sikh. He had roamed around many places to collect the materials to write his work. He had gone to Amritsar also. But he didn’t mention of any idols! At some places he wrote he had seen some things with his own eyes. So, this information when the idols were placed in Darbar Sahib, such a blasphemy, he couldn’t have just ignored and forgotten to write about it.
Or during his journey to Amritsar it was not present? And, perhaps, later they were installed? There is no solid book I have read so far where a person wrote he saw the idols placed in Darbar Sahib or the installation of idols happened in front of his eyes, or something similar. Maybe it’s after the annexation of Punjab when the mahants were on the payroll of the British?
Bhai Vir Singh mentioned[5] at the time of Bhai Santokh Singh ji the power of the Dogras and the fake Sikhs were increasing and they were painting the Sikh Religion with the Brahminical thoughts. At that time, the Brahmins started sitting around the precincts of sarovar.
I want to emphasize one more point here. The idols which were present in Darbar Sahib were not in Harmandir Sahib, where the parkash of Guru Granth Sahib ji was. The idols were around the precincts of sarovar. Some people want to imagine the idols to be present in Harmandir Sahib, the place in the sarovar. But this is a wrong assumption.
Wrong translation of temple/mandir
The word temple in Golden Temple or mandir in Harmandir Sahib has been taken as a ‘Hindu temple’ by some miscreants. The word mandir doesn’t imply the Hindu Place of Worship. Mandir has many meanings. One of them is house too. Usually, it’s translated as a place of worship, and depending upon which name you put in front of it, it changes its definition. If it’s a Hindu Temple, then there are going to be idols and other sort of things the Hindus believe in. If we say Sikh Temple, then you’re going to see Guru Granth Sahib ji. It’s just a word in vocabulary, nothing more than that.
Bhai Santokh Singh used Mandir in one of the sentences as a town.
ਮੰਦਿਰ ਜਹਿਂ ਸੁੰਦਰ ਛਬਿ ਪਾਈ । - ਗੁਰ ਨਾਨਕ ਪ੍ਰਕਾਸ਼, ਅਧਿਆਇ ਤੀਜਾ
The actual name is Harmandir Sahib, the whole Gurdwara Sahib is called Darbar Sahib. The name Golden Temple is of the British origin, it’s not its original name. I would like people not to use this name and have the name as it’s used by the Sikhs. Even the Svaran Mandir is a wrong name. Although, in Amritsar the boards can be seen where both the names are mentioned, mainly because of non-Sikhs who know the place by other names.
So, Har and Mandir, both the words have nothing to do with Vishnu and Temple (Hindu temple, I mean.) Like I said, the word Temple in the Golden Temple or Mandir in Harmandir Sahib doesn’t represent it to be some Hindu Temple. In general, in some western countries, the Gurudwara is usually called as a Sikh Temple. Perhaps because of the limited vocabulary of people about Sikhism.
And it doesn’t just stop on the term Sikh Temple.
You will be amazed to know some people call it as Sikh Church, the reason being they are associated with the Christian faith. So, according to them, a church is a place of worship. So when they say Sikh Church, they mean the Sikh Place of Worship. C. H. Loehlin wrote a book The Sikhs and their Scriptures in 1958. He used the term Sikh Church or a Church for a Gurudwara.
The third Guru Amar Das thoroughly organized the Sikh Church, and Guru Ram Das founded the religious capital of Sikhism at Amritsar.
He substituted death and marriage ceremonies with a new Punjabi ritual for the Hindu ones, and Sikh religious festivals in place of Hindu festivals in the spring and fall. The sect was becoming a church.
The fourth guru, Ram Das, was born in a Sodhi family in Lahore in 1584. He became the son-in-law of Guru Amar Das, and from now on the guruship became hereditary. His main contribution was the procuring of a piece of land from Emperor Akbar and founding the Holy City of Ramdaspur, later known as Amritsar. This is still the religious capital of the Sikhs, and serves as a Mother Church to Sikhs scattered all over the world.
Calling the Sikh Place of Worship a Vishnu Temple just because it’s the word Mandir in it is like saying Sikhs believing in Jesus Christ because someone call it a church. Pretty lame.
Clichéd argument 40: Guru Gobind Singh ji mentioned ‘Hindu Dharma will prevail.’ He emphasised the Hindu Dharam suggests he’s a Hindu.
Reality: This verse has been extensively used by many Hindus when it comes to disapprove the distinct and unique identity of Sikhs. The said verses are from Ugardanti.
There are different opinions among the scholars about Ugardanti. Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha believed this to be written by Bhai Sukha Singh of Patna Sahib. But the Singhs suggest it to be of Guru Gobind Singh ji. The story that I heard was the bani was of Guru Gobind Singh ji but it was revealed to Bhai Sukha Singh of Patna Sahib and so he wrote it. I won’t go much into the detail about its authenticity but would like to say the Puratan Sampardavaas believe it to be of Guru Gobind Singh ji, however it might’ve been penned down.
This cliché will clear many doubts. Ready?
In Ugardanti, it’s written the corruption in Hinduism and Islam has become too much, so now is the time for the third panth. Some Hindus who do not know the Dharam and Panth to be the same would say the Sikhi or Khalsa to be the Panth, not Dharam. So, according to them, Dharam is some big tree and panths are some smaller sects. Hinduism is Dharam, and other religions, like Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism, are its sects, according to them. But, here, in the Ugardanti, the word panth[6] is used for both Islam and Hinduism.
ਦੁਹੂੰ ਪੰਥ ਮੈਂ ਕਪਟ ਵਿੱਦਯਾ ਚਲਾਨੀ ॥ ਬਹੁੜ ਤੀਸਰਾ ਪੰਥ ਕੀਜੈ ਪਰਧਾਨੀ ॥
A clever Punjabi brahmin, who thought he could fool me, said the Guru always called Hinduism as a Dharma. So here the two panths which are mentioned are Islam and Christianity. 😐 He was using an online translation and posting the screenshots, like these people usually do. I showed him the same translation mentioning the Hinduism and Islam as panths, not Islam and Christianity.
One question that might have struck you is how the Khalsa Panth be the third panth when there are other religions like Christianity and Judaism. Shouldn’t it be fourth or fifth panth? No, the reason of calling it the third panth is because only these two religions were the major religions. Hence, the Khalsa Panth becomes the third panth.
Before the ‘prevail of Hinduism’ verse, it’s written in the whole world the Khalsa Panth will roar.
ਸਕਲ ਜਗਤ ਮੋ ਖਾਲਸਾ ਪੰਥ ਗਾਜੈ ॥ ਜਗੈ ਧਰਮ ਹਿੰਦੁਕ ਤੁਰਕ ਦੁੰਦ ਭਾਜੈ ॥
The meaning of dund has the following meanings in Mahan Kosh: 1) combination of two, 2) people, 3) two opposite things, 4) quarrel, 5) riots.
On one side, the verses are calling the corruptness in Hinduism and Islam, calling for a third religion, letting it roar in the world, but then the Hinduism will prevail!? If Hinduism is corrupt, why its prevailing is mentioned? And then the below verses are calling there shouldn’t be any Vedas, Shastras, Puranas, Quran, etc. How will Hinduism prevail if all the knowledge of its scriptures is removed?
ਮਿਟਹਿ ਬੇਦ ਸਾਸਤ੍ਰ ਅਠਾਰਹਿ ਪੁਰਾਨਾ ॥ ਮਿਟੈ ਬਾਂਗ ਸਲਵਾਤ ਸੁੰਨਤ ਕੁਰਾਨਾਂ ॥
The same Punjabi bahman said the above verses state people have forgotten the Vedas and Quran. It is not implying the eradication of the Vedas and Puranas. If we go with that notion, then how come people have forgotten the Quran and Azan? Thousands of people were either killed or converted. Muslims were practising what they thought was Islamic in nature. In Gurbani, it’s stated the Hindus were following the path of Islam. Moreover, the word mitte is not a past-participant but future or present.
Then the removal of the temples and mosques. Why is that? Hindu Dharma will prevail with this? Some agents of Hindutva might have been having a pleasurable time because the Turks, or Muslims in their words, are said to be removed. Why the temples to be removed? That’s why Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha mentioned in Hum Hindu Nahi, while discussing this, that there will only be Khalsa in the world, nothing else.
ਮੜੀ ਗੋਰ ਦੇਵਲ ਮਸੀਤਾਂ ਗਿਰਾਯੰ ॥
The line ਜਗੈ ਧਰਮ ਹਿੰਦੁਕ ਤੁਰਕ ਦੁੰਦ ਭਾਜੈ ॥ translated differently by some people. Some say it means the Dharma in Hindustan will prevail, and other will be gone/fled. Some say the comma is after Dharam and then Hinduk, means the Dharma will prevail but Hinduism and Islam will be gone (because of the corruptness.) With this translation, Khalsa Panth gaajje makes sense. We can overlook these translations and go with this one: The Hindu religion will prevail, and Turks will flee/go away. The prevail of the Hindu religion here doesn’t need to be the Guru saying the Sikhs are Hindus. We have already proved it the Khalsa to be the third panth different from the Hindus and Muslims. The line might’ve been to conclude that Aurangzeb had been killing thousands of Hindus, but the Guru was saying he would protect the religion of Hindus.
Even though the Guru was not following their tradition, but still he wanted to protect the poor and helpless. Guru Teg Bahadur ji said the same words.
ਹਿੰਦੂ ਧਰਮ ਰਖਹਿਂ ਜਗ ਮਾਂਹੀ । ਤੁਮਰੇ ਕਰੇ ਬਿਨਸ ਹੈ ਨਾਂਹੀ' ॥੪੨॥
– ਅਧਿਆਇ ੬੪, ਰਾਸ ੧੨, ਸੂਰਜ ਪ੍ਰਕਾਸ਼
So, the conception of prevailing has been misunderstood by some people as the Guru saying the Khalsa or Sikhs to be Hindus.
Clichéd argument 41: In the Mughal memoirs the Sikhs are mentioned as Hindus.
Reality: We have talked enough to prove the Sikhs are not Hindus. But who is a Hindu? There is no definite definition has been given so far.
Some people say the origin of the word Hindu is from the word Sindhu. Persians couldn’t pronounce the letter S, so instead of calling Sindhu, they started calling Hindus. One thing is very certain that the word Hindu is not of the Indian origin and the word doesn’t exist in the Vedas or other old Hindu holy scriptures. However, there are some Hindus who quote from the Vishnu Purana and Brihaspati Samhita that a land between the Himalayas and Indian Ocean is called Hindustan and people the Hindus. They will quote the verses but won’t give the exact location, chapter and verse number. Perhaps, it’s the figment of their imagination to cling to the word even if the word didn’t exist in their scriptures?
Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha mentioned in his Hum Hindu Nahi, quoting Bhartaindu Babu Harish Chandra, that if you want to prove something based on the Shastras, just give money to the pandits. Then an example was given that how the words Christians and Muslims were of the Hindu origin and a long story was written. I think this is what is happening. Sane Hindus should pay heed to these notions when people are just changing or conjuring the things up that don’t exist in reality. But instead of that, they just love when these ‘pandits’ bring the verses without giving the location and other details to prove their points.
Not only this, I have quoted this earlier also, in the Ling Purana, if you read the vaartak part, you will see it’s written some people look at the Shivalinga with a bad name and taste. The translator didn’t talk about Kotrudrahansita Chapter 12 in detail. You can read the whole chapter here. It’s not a new thing when some people try to misguide you; this is the perfect example. For this reason, I really do not rely on the latest translations of the Hindu scriptures by some writers as they skip the parts that they don’t like. Maybe, one day, they will talk the same about the Manu Smriti that how it’s not of Hindu origin or it’s changed.
Anyway, so the Hindu-Sindhu theory has been talked about. Some suggest the people around the Sindhu river (Indus river) were called Hindus. Some said people lived beyond the Sindhu river were called Hindus. But from where to where? Beyond the Indus river we have China also. So Chinese were also called Hindus?
If it’s a geographical reference throughout the history, why the Mughals didn’t call themselves Hindus? Maybe at a certain point of time it was a geographical term. (Which one? Around Sindhu or beyond Sindhu? I do not know as of now.) But later it’s associated with the religion. In the writing of Bhagat Namdev ji, the word Hindu as a religion comes. He was born in the 13th century. So at that time, the Hindu as a religion had been established. It’s not a geographical location then.
Anyway, let’s see what Jahangir wrote in his Tuzuk-I Jahangiri:
In Gobindwäl, which is on the river Beäs, a Hindu named Arjan used to live in the garb of a spiritual master and mystic guide. under the influence of which he had induced a large number of simple-minded Hindus and even some ignorant and silly Muslims, to become attached to his ways and customs. He had the drum of his spiritual leadership and sainthood loudly beaten. They called him Gurü. From all sides and directions ignorant ones and dervish-garb worshippers inclined towards him and reposed full faith in him. For three or four generations they [he and his precursors] had kept this business brisk. For a long time the thought kept coming to me of either putting an end to this shop of falsehood or to bring him into the fold of the people Of Islam.
Here, he mentioned the Guru as a Hindu. This is what BHs and SSs talk about. The thing is he didn’t even validate if he’s a Hindu or not. He was just hearing the things.
Although the BHs and SSs can see the word ‘Hindu’ written in there but miss the other details.
1. Hindus as well as Muslims were coming to the Guru, and they were attached to ‘his ways and customs.’
2. They say the first Sikh Guru didn’t start anything, but in here, we see Jahangir mentioning the predecessors of Guru Arjan Dev ji. So it does mean something new was started by Guru Nanak Dev ji. If it’s something that’s started by the Guru, why Jahangir wrote him as a Hindu?
The similar type of mistake was made in Akbarnama.
On 13 Äzar [4 November 1598] His Majesty crossed the river Beas on an elephant near Gobindwäl, while the troops crossed over by a [boat] bridge. On thig day, the house of Arjan Guru [spelt ‘Gor’] received fresh lustre through His Majesty alighting there. He is a leader of the Brahmanical faith, the position descending from one generation to another. And he has great store of [spiritual] love. Since his hope [for a visit from His Majesty) arose out of [sincere] devotion, His Majesty accepted his invitation.
While doing the translation of Akbarnama, Shireen Moosvi writes:
Abu'l Fazl's slip in describing Gurü Arjan as leader of a ‘Brahmancial’ sect may be explained by his own absence from the Imperial Camp at this time, which meant that he was describing the meeting second-hand, presumably on the basis of a news-report.
Both the books mentioned the Sikh Gurus starting something but mistaking them as a Hindu or a leader of a Brahminical faith. Jahangir’s memoir’s incident mentioning is of 1606 and Akbarnama’s date of the other event in 1598. Let’s compare it with other work.
Dabistan-i-Mazahib talks about the Sikhs also. It’s a variety of religious people and their beliefs. The writer’s name is debated. Some call it to be the work of Mohsin Fani. The year he collected the information about the Sikhs is mentioned as 1645-1646 by Irfan Habib, who translated the work as mentioned in Sikh History from Persian Sources. Irfan Habib just wrote his poetic name – Mobad.
To be brief, Nanak's followers scorn images. Their belief is that all Gurüs are Nanak, as has been said above. They do not recite the mantras of the Hindus and do not pay respect to their idol-temples. They do not count the avatärs for anything. They do not have any attachment to Sanskrit, which the Hindus call the language of angels.
Now, where is the Brahminical sect or a Hindu without avatars and their mantras?
Around 40 years of difference between Jahangir’s memoir and Dabistan-i-Mazahib. So everything changed? Sikhs were not Hindus anymore? Sikhs were not worshipping avatars anymore?
So, for this reason, you have to compare the books to come to a conclusion. Just picking a verse or two from a book to prove your point, especially when it’s against the Sikh Beliefs and Values, is just plain stupidity.
At last, if a scripture mentioned the Sikh Guru or Sikhs as Hindus, it doesn’t mean they are. They would be proven wrong. Enough has been written to prove Sikhs are not Hindus, both from Gurbani as well as History’s perspective. Even in the historical scriptures written by the Sikhs, there are some abhorrent incident. Sikhs don’t even totally rely on their own scriptures, and people bring the Mughal memoirs!
Clichéd argument 42: There are always Devi Devatas after the Joti Jot of the Sikh Gurus. If they were not Hindus, why were there Devi Devatas?
Reality: Who are these Devi Devatas? Are they Hindus? Or they are worshipped by the Hindus?
On many things, some Hindus are trying to have their copyright. On Quora, I read some Hindu saying the 4Ks out of 5K were taken from the Hindu religion. Almost everything that the Sikhs stand for is said to be taken from the Hindus. Even if a smallest thing is said to be in common between Islam and Sikhism, some Hindus don’t like it.
So these Devi Devatas, or deities, are nothing but the servant of the One. During the Parkash of the Sikh Gurus, or Joti Jot for that matter, you will find them very elated, firstly, because they were on Earth to enlighten the people, secondly, after Joti Jot they got back after doing some great works. I mentioned the closeness of the deities to the Sikh Gurus in the Sikhs and the Hindu gods.
If you read Gur Nanak Parkash, you will see the deities going along with the Guru after his Joti Jot. But because of their not all-powerful nature, they couldn’t go as far as the Guru went. When they knew they couldn’t go beyond a certain point, they bowed down to Guru Nanak Dev ji, and went back. It’s only the Guru who went into Sachkhand.
Waheguru Himself came on Earth as Guru Nanak Dev ji. How could the deities just stand and do nothing? They yearn for the darshan of the One. Now when He’s on Earth, travelling in different directions, how could they just ignore Him? For thousands or perhaps millions of years they must have waited to take a glimpse of the One. And when they got the chance, they shouldn’t care? Come on.
The presence of the deities around the Sikh Gurus at different events doesn’t conclude the Sikh Gurus to be Hindus but the respect and the love that the deities had for the Sikh Gurus.
[1] Gur Nanak Parkash, Utrarth, Adyai 6
[2] Twarikh Khalsa
[3] There are three uthankas of this shabad. First is it’s uttered in Gaya, second story says it’s said at the time of the death of Guru’s father, and the third story is it’s said during the last day of Guru’s life. Whatever the uthanka is, what it highlights is that the pind, shraddha and other rituals shouldn’t be performed. This shabad also helps to understand the last moment of the third guru because people say in the Sadd the Guru asked to pour his ashes into the Ganges or do some other rituals according to the Hindu tradition. If the first guru didn’t believe in these rituals, there is no way the third guru, or any Sikh Guru, would do that.
[4] Sikh History from Persian Sources, edited by J.S. Grewal & Irfan Habib, Page 133
[5] Sri Gur Partap Suraj, Page 2025
[6] Some people argue that there’s a difference between panth and Panth – with a capital P. We use both of them with the same meaning – Dharam/Religion.
