A counter-balance to the nauseating, flogged-to-death misrepresentations
about the past of humankind. We look forward to the new book! Only a few
dare to even attempt to contain the ocean of deceit.
5
It has been stated as rationale for the Nanakshahi...
It has been stated as rationale for the Nanakshahi calendar that in the
traditional Bikrami calendar, dates were moving out of their seasonal
associations; also that it is "easier" to have our festivals be
consistently fixed in relation to the Gregorian calendar.
These seem to me as poor reasons for instituting this particular
calendar. The problem of seasonal drift is easily solved without removing
the God-given lunar month. Just because the Western Gregorian calendar is
utterly divorced from natural lunar and solar rhythms does not mean we
ought to be.
The problems arise when it is not recognized that the year is
Solar (reckoned by the Equinoxes and Solstices), but the month is Lunar
(reckoned by the New Moon). The year should begin with the first New Moon
after the Spring Equinox, it is that simple. Some years there will be 12
months, other years will include a thirteenth; this does not affect dates
or seasons, in fact it keeps them in place. This is the natural rhythm of
sun and moon. All dates are calculated not by an artificial date bearing
no relation to the natural world, but by the annually repeating position
of sun and moon, as they were when the event originally occurred. This is the
true natural time keeping. For too long human beings have been drifting
further and further away from natural rhythms of life, much to our
detriment.
As for it being easier to have fixed Gregorian dates, this is not an adequate
reason to just "assimilate" ourselves into the dominant paradigm. We are
Sikhs, we are meant to be the bearers of God's standard, not conformers.
Besides, since it is easy in modern times to calculate the dates of
Equinoxes and New Moons well into the future, it is just as easy to
calculate festival dates and plan them on one's calendar far ahead of
time. This is not difficult or burdensome at all; those who think so might
want to re-evaluate their priorities.
In closing, I find the new calendar to be lacking in many areas and far
too alienated from the natural rhythms provided by God. It feels wrong to
our family to even consider using this calendar.
- Ngaire Kaur
P.S. It also seems odd to calculate the years from the birth of Guru
Nanak. A more appropriate event seems to me to be his initial revelation
30 years later. That is when the Sikh faith was truly founded -- not with
the birth of a man, but with the communion of man and God. But we can
still accept this beginning point; it is the rest of the calendar that is
so unpalatable.
5
It is refreshing to see different views on this topic...
It is refreshing to see different views on this topic. The author
Inderpal Singh's analysis looks at the issue from different angles. Barbara
Crosette's article is also an objective look. For a different perspective
I would like to recommend: The Rise of an Illiberal Democracy in India - A
Case-Study of the Crisis in Punjab which is available at:
Click
Regards,
- Inderpreet Singh
5
I am not sure what GB Singh talks about Vivekananda...
Sikhism is an original, revealed, and monotheistic religion distinct from Hinduism and rejects Hindu rituals and its theology. However, if you are interested in informing our readers why you think that Sikhs are Hindus we can publish your views on SikhSpectrum if you could send it to us in the form of an article. Meanwhile we would like to point you to some articles published on SikhSpectrum that might interest you.
Please click on the title to go to the requested page.
I am not sure what GB Singh talks about Vivekananda is right. I am not
sure why he has undertaken to pull sentences out of context and opined
thereof with imputed ideas. Vivkenanda was not god and so no attempts must
be made to Godise him. Sikh must not talk bad about Hindus, for ultimately
they are Hindus.
- Karamvir Singh Dahiya
5
Colonel GB Singh did not talk bad about Hindus or Swami...
Colonel GB Singh did not talk bad about Hindus or Swami Vivekananda, he only discussed the Swami's ideology based on the Swami's own writings. I urge Mr. Dahiya to read the article again and provide constructive criticism.
Dahiya has written: "Sikhs must not talk bad about Hindus, for ultimately they are Hindus".
The word "Sikh" means "learner" and occurs again and again in Aad Guru Granth Sahib. I would like Mr. Dahiya to show me the word "Hindu" in any Hindu scripture and also explain its meaning! Furthermore, I would like him to reflect on the meaning of "Hindu Kush", the mountain range that separates the Indian subcontinent from Afghansitan and central Asia. Only after Mr. Dahiya's answers my questions, will I consider whether I am ultimately a "Hindu" as claimed by him.
Let me express my appreciation for Reverend Zekveld for agreeing to get “A Comparison Between the Two Credos: Christian and Sikh” published. My understanding is that this article (or paper) was originally meant for Christian readers within the evangelical order. I have read so much of the Christian literature on other religions and it is my contention that much of their literature is flawed including the one here.
Let me elaborate on a few points today.
1. His mention of the symbol few times as representing “Ek Onkar (1u)” is inaccurate. It should be Ek Ongkar and this representation has nothing to do with “AUM or OM.” I will skip over the details.
2. No less than at ten places, Rev. Zekveld has quoted verses from Guru Granth. However, only at one place he referenced one verse from “Adi Granth 1190.” At another reference from “Granth Sahib” he labeled it “Padshahi 20.” All other verses are without references. My feeling is that Rev. Zekveld is not well versed with the contents of Guru Granth. In all likelihood, he copied the verses from another Christian handout or booklet. In one of his earlier correspondences with me, Rev. Zekveld corrected that the verse of “Padshahi 20” is from what is called Dasam Granth.
3. From reading his paper a few times what is clear is that according to Rev. Zekveld’s analysis, God as presented in the Sikh theology is “inaccessible,” and “unknowable,” and therefore “such a god does not exist.” I don’t think this is an accurate representation of the Sikh theology. I will again skip over the details here while hoping someone else will take this matter to further in-depth analysis.
4. In my next letter I plan on dwelling on “Mool Mantra,” illogical statements, and whether the Sikh description of God is “essentially Hindu” as stated by Rev. Zekveld.
The Reverend has referred to patshahi 20.... which patshahi would that be?
While appreciating the fact, that an attempt has been made to understand
the scripture of another, the imposition of extra-curricular writings,
that too under the misnomer '20'th patshahi, is rather bizarre. Obviously
the One and only shabad-guru of the Sikhs (not to be confused with poetry,
and literatures of interest) has been misquoted and misrepresented.
When one goes on to erroneously educate ones own co-religionists, no
greater disservice can be rendered.
God is not a commodity according to Sikhism that can be commanded and
contained by anyone - let alone any man who walked this earth. If anyone
has a problem with that then that person needs to concentrate on his own
spirituality instead of deliberately or erroneously misleading people by
speaking as an authority.
The world is full of people who have blurred spirituality with the need to
control the masses. Sikhs fear doing bad as any other - and it is only the
Grace of God that can prove a savior. God can create and rule anything in
the whole spectrum of goodness to badness - the attributes of the
material/created world. That is why the Sikhs seeks the naam-dhan - the
lifeline of naam - to get out of this quandary of devils and demons and
gods and goddesses and god men - nothing is outside of his realm nor
power.
A person who has not understood the 'nirvair'ness of God (as God is not
constrained by any of his creative efforts/attributes) is obviously in the
throes of the material manifestation to even begin to understand the
enormity of the truth behind the mool mantar. Perhaps Jesus understood
that, but the clergy is too busy "converting" and ruling to actually
benefit from religion in general - let alone religion of another.
"..There is some discussion about the identity of "the Guru." "
The reverend has put the cart before the horse. How do you discover the
Ultimate enlightening power - God himself? Guru is literally dispeller of
darkness. There are human masters, but the ultimate master is neither
constrained by human traits nor linguistic somersaults. He is known by
His own Grace through an enlightened teacher - who has been blessed (the
merged one within HIM) and is conduit - the mouthpiece. Once Jesus is
understood in that context the need to dismantle anything will recede
and get replaced by an urge to build the capacity of humans to help each
other. The satans would have been laid to rest and the godliness
resurrected - and Jesus recognized as a Gurmukh!!
Let me proceed ahead with my comments on “A Comparison Between the Two Credos: Christian and Sikh.”
Reverend Zekveld has put forth the Mool Mantra as follows:
Ek Onkar- There is one God
Sat Nam- Eternal Truth is His name
Karta Purakh- Creator of all things and the all-pervading spirit
Nirbhau- Fearless
Nirvair - Without enmity
Akal Murat- Timeless and formless
Ajuni- Beyond birth and death
Saibhang- Self-enlightened
Gur Prasad- By the grace of the Guru, he is known.
I have read his descriptions of each of the above attributes of God and nowhere does he remotely suggest that they are “Hindu” in context. Rather he clearly delineates the above attributes as “opposed” to that of Hinduism. After taking this route, he takes a U-turn and concludes, “The Sikh view of God is essentially Hindu” and “Sikhism is a reform movement within Hinduism.” Frankly I am lost at his propensity to jump from one end to another while at the same time never mentioning what God is according to Hinduism. It would have been commendable of him had he pointed out that the Sikh view of God is radically different from that of the Bible, both Jewish as well as Christian. My paper on the Biblical God (already posted on the Sikhspectrum.com) should suffice the point I am making here.
At another point Reverend Zekveld quotes John 14:6, "I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through Me," and that according to him should challenge the “very core of [Sikh] world view.” Frankly speaking, John 14:6 doesn’t challenge at all. Rather it throws us off thinking why Christians haven’t picked up the deception inherent in John 14:6. Here is a challenging question to Reverent Zekveld: Why would anyone want to go to Biblical God (by following Jesus Christ) once you know the details of the Biblical God? as stated in the Bible. I have pointed out a few of these details in my already posted article.
Reverend Zekveld has devoted a considerable amount of space talking about “name of God.” I couldn’t figure out why? I would urge him to read Our Naming of God: Problems and Prospects of God-Talk Today edited by Carl E. Braaten (Fortress Press, 1989). The problem and the confusion with regards to naming of God squarely lie in the Bible and not in the Guru Granth.
At another place he quotes a verse from Adi Granth (p.1190) saying, “The Guru’s servants are pleasing to God who forgives them and they no longer fear death’s courier. God dispels the doubt of devotees, enjoying union with them. Free from fear, limitless and infinite, the Creator is pleased with truth.” This is followed by:
This begs the question, of course, "If God is without fear and enmity," then why is it that the Sikh fears doing bad? How do they account for their own deep spiritual unrest?
I am lost at the question and what connection it has to the above verse. Moreover, I do not agree that Sikhs are experiencing “deep spiritual unrest.” Sikhs are experiencing tremendous upheavals largely because of political unrest—a process started in 1849 when colonial Christianity invaded and annexed Punjab kingdom. From thereon the Sikhs have never recovered from the onslaughts that the colonials brought to Punjab. These onslaughts are still continuing in various disguises. One of them is called Modern Hinduism. Some of Reverend Zekveld’s correctly stated views attributed to the Sikhs, regarding and explaining God, are actually the result of Modern Hinduism. For example, take a look at this paragraph:
In light of what Yuktanand writes, a Sikh may well agree with the Christian who proclaims that Jesus is the only way. The Sikh may even encourage the Christian to remain true to his path because, after all, this is what "God approves" for the Christian. Only do not say that "Jesus is the only way for all men." To challenge the Sikh with the claims of Christ in John 14:6, "I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through Me," challenges the very core of his world view.
What follows from the world view of the Sikh is that a Sikh is born a Sikh and this by the will of God. Who are we to go against His will? Therefore, the response of the Sikh to the claims of Christ is that he must remain true to his path. This is what God approves for him, as for the Muslim, the Hindu, the Buddhist and the Christian.
I have myself come across many educated Sikhs talking in a similar language or even more fantastic in their efforts to outdo the Hindus of today. This is directly due to the result of Modern Hinduism, which is a fairly complicated topic, that is discussed briefly in my book Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity.
Again I thank Reverend Zekveld for taking his precious time to express his views openly, and in the process he has sought out a frank dialogue on his positions regarding the Sikh religion.
Based on facts, the article logically traces the 'subtleties of Sikh
separatism' to the yet unfulfilled promise to them of 'a glow of freedom
in North India'.
The author has rightly concluded that the hurt Sikh psyche can be healed
by assuring them a sense of belonging through practice of equality and
fairness.
Regarding the nature of Sikh ceremonies, the author clearly states: “Unlike the Hindu rituals, the Sikh ceremonies are essentially of the nature of sacraments in the nomizational role of Sikhism.”
In another article, previously published on SikhSpectrum:
Click, while writing about the five kakkars the author was of the opinion:
“Baptismal amrit is not a ritual in that its five symbols - Kakkars - are not supposed to possess any magical potency latent in the form. On the other hand, baptismal initiation is of the nature of a sacrament whereby the recipient of amrit undergoes an inner change in holy communion with the Divine; his regeneration symbolizes the resurrection of the first Five Beloved ones who took amrit after offering their heads to the Guru. The five kakkars are the insignia of this communion which is indicated by the expression; "Waheguru ji ka khalsa". As such, through the amrit an inner force - spirit - was instilled into man, into society, to internally and autonomously resolve the ever-going contradiction between the good and the evil.”
Editors SikhSpectrum.com
_._._._._
Dear Editor,
In the article the author states:
"Accepting the historicity of various religious beliefs, rituals and
practices, Sikh religion stresses their out datedness in changed
circumstances, without repudiating their aboriginal significance and
validity; emphasis is on making a person himself realize the irrelevance
of the old, outdated beliefs and rituals without forcing religious
conversion on him."
I have some reservations regarding the above statement. The author should be more
specific, regarding the nature of the "outdated" aspects of different
religions.
For example, since the Sikh religion does not deny the possibility of
future revelations and prophets to mankind, then is it possible that a
future "genuine" religious/spiritual prophet will say that the 5Ks of the
Sikhs religion are outdated and that Sikhs in the future will 'realize the
outdatedness of the 5ks' and give them up?
I think we should be clear on the nature of the things that the Guru
stresses as outdated in different religions, or even if it is a matter of
outdatedness or something else.
From my understanding it is not outdatedness of certain beliefs/rituals
different religions that the Guru stresses but the veracity and/or value
of the beliefs and ritutals towards genuine God orientation.
I read your article and it appears original and sentimental. It is good to see that there are people who take
notice of these things. I am glad to know that you had a chance to see Giani jee
and share some thoughts with him; he was truly, as you mentioned, a great
personality and his death is a loss to the Sikh world.
There is a correction. You mentioned that Bhallas were
from Guru Angad; they were from Guru Amardas jee. It may have been a misprint.
Is there any chance of finding any of the maharaja's children. I believe with the Guru's grace some of them may still be alive.
- Sher Singh
5
My heart goes out to those who faced the...
-Nishikant Waghmare, India
Dear Editor,
My heart goes out to those who faced the wrath of hurricane Katrina in Mississippi, Albama, Lousiana and New Orleans .
America is seething in shame and indignation as anarchy and mayhem sweep over post-hurricane Katrina New Orleans amid a complete leadership failure. People were dying in shelters, rapes, beatings, lootings and violence that unimaginable in the 21st century America. America is once more plunged into a snake pit of anarchy, death, looting, raping, marauding thugs, suffering innocents, a shattered infrastructure, a gutted police force, insufficient troop levels and negligent government planners.
New Orleans population is a city of 4,77000 people, and 68% are Black and very poor where 95000 have a High School education. This is a racial aspect of disaster. Hurricane has revealed the American attitude toward race and class (in India it is Caste not the Race or class). Poor people in the world die suffering and humiliated without freedom and justice. There is no choice?
The poor in the U.S. have too long been ignored and demonized. Simply put, those people we saw suffering in New Orleans are there because they are dirt poor and had no means to leave and nowhere to go. Who are we if we can't take care of our own? Representative Elijah Cummings, a Democrat from Maryland, criticized the Federal Government’s response at a news briefing held by the Congressional Black Caucus Friday morning.
"We have long heard claims of compassionate conservatism among our nation’s leaders,” Cummings said. " We now want the compassion. This is the time for those with wealth and resources to step up to the plate. As a Citizen of a third-world country, I ' ve been amazed at the reports from New Orleans seen on CNN, NBC, ABC, BBC World and Press Media The New York Times, USA Today, Daily News NYC, Daily Express, UK, International Herald Tribune and Indian Press Media, particularly at how inadequate the relief effort has been. In particular I salute the team of reporters CNN, NBC, ABC, BBC world, and Presss Media of America and India.
Mumbai, India, had heavy rainfall on July 26, 2005; the relief and rescue teams were mobilized so fast that city of Mumbai was normal in 48 hours.
It's not just a lack of preparedness. I think the easy answer in to say that these are poor people and the government was insensitive to their needs. Believe it or not, these people are human, yet they crowed like animals in the superdome in New Orleans.
President Bush said: what's not working right, we're going to make it right.
I think that hurricane disaster has makes it questionable whether U.S. is a super power. The U.S. can react quickly on Iraq, but when it came to it's own people their reaction was different.
The Sikh response to these natural disasters is nothing except the
practical test of what they are taught in the Guru's classroom. And most of the times Sikhs have passed these by the Guru's grace.
Regarding BollyWood Betrayal (No.8, January 2003), by Savinder
Singh, the author should be happy to know that Annual Spinning Wheel Film
Festival will be held on Sept. 23-25. It is not to be taken lightly and
should be great news for Sikhs. Lets give Bollywood its run for the
money!! I hope to see a worldwide audience watching a movie about Banda
Singh Bahadur, Maharaja Ranjit Singh, Yogi Bhajan, non-fictional Sikh
artists, lawyers, bankers, farmers, soldiers, and scientists very soon. As
yogiji said, Time is now, now is time! Individually and
collectively we can accomplish a lot. Look at great Sikhs of modern times Manmohan Singh,
Yogi Bhajan, and other great Sikhs of the past like Banda Singh Bahadur,
besides our Gurus.
Regarding thes article Marcos jewelry on auction block. You may view the Bulgari bracelet talked about in
the article at this website:
http://djl.net/jewels. I have the exclusive rights to these photos given to me by PCGG in 1988.
5
In his eulogy of Indian Prime Minster Manmohan Singh...
In his eulogy of Indian Prime Minster Manmohan Singh, K. P. Singh has used many adjectives to describe the “Gentle Sikh Statesman from the East”. However, there is another side of Manmohan Singh about which not many people including Sikhs know which is known to “human rights” watchers. Mamohan Singh has been a very important member of the Congress Party since 1985 and he has held important positions in the Congress government at the center. Since 1980 Congress governments led by Indira Gandhi and her successors have carried out large-scale murder of Sikhs and subjected them to unspeakable tortures and humiliation throughout the country (Jaijee, I. S. Politics of Genocide: Punjab 1984-1998, Ajanta Publications, 1998). Manmohan Singh did not utter a single word of protest against what was happening to the Sikhs.
Dr. Singh had no qualms leading an Indian delegation to the United Nations World Human Rights Conference held in Vienna in 1993 to defend India’s abysmal human rights record where he asserted that India is an open book and there are no human rights violations in India. His blatant lies did not go unnoticed by human rights organizations. (Jaijee, I. S. Politics of Genocide: Punjab 1984-1998. Ajanta Publications, 1998, p 222). His recent statement in the Indian Parliament: “Our party and our great leaders were not involved in the massacre of Sikhs in 1984” very clearly shows that he is not a “gentle statesman” as promoted by some writers.
Depravity is not limited only to Marxists; capitalists also thrive in it. Manmohan Singh may be a very talented economist, however, he was not inducted into the Indian cabinet for his expertise in economics but for his lack of integrity. He can tell lies at international forums without blinking an eye to please the Congress party leadership. At the United Nations World Human Rights Conference held in Vienna in 1993, the Indian government sent its turbaned finance minister Manmohan Singh to hoodwink the world about India’s abysmal human rights record. This is what the economist turned human rights expert declared at that conference:
“ There are no ethnic people in India. My government recognizes no such category. India has only backward sections. India is an open book, there are no violations of human rights in India.”
We appreciate your feedback and hope Sikhs will rejoice in the knowledge that you have great respect for Sikh Gurus. However, your assertion that Sikhs are Hindus and that Sikhism is not a distinct religion is without merit since there are fundamental differences between Sikh and Hindu beliefs. Following Guru Nanak’s rejection of the janaeu, for over two hundred years his successors preached a distinct path with a distinct identity. We would however invite you to share with us your reasons why you consider Sikhism as a sect of Hinduism. Please send us a detailed article for publication. We will be happy to publish it.
While you are correct in saying that a Sikh who does not follow the teachings of Sikh Gurus is not a Sikh you conclusion that he becomes a Hindu is wrong. A person who is not a Sikh can choose to be either Hindu, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or an atheist. A person does not become a Hindu by not being a Sikh. In the meantime you may be interested in reading the following articles (click on the title). Please note that it is a historic fact that after partition Punjabi Hindus disowned Punjabi as their mother tongue. One feels saddened at the insistence of Punjabi Hindus to disregard Punjabi as their mother tongue in favor of Hindi. If you would like to comment on this you can send us a detailed article for publication.
I just want to comment that I am Punjabi Hindu and feel
very proud to proclaim Punjabi as my mother language and all my
family member near and extended accept Punjabi as our mother language.
Please don’t propagate this false notion that Punjabi Hindus never
contributed to the success of Punjab. If you look at the statistics,
Punjabi Hindus have contributed at par with our elder
brothers to which you say they are separate , no they are also Hindus.
It is like Aryasamaji says that he is not Hindu, like ISKCON
say they are not Hindus. Any Hindu who has been following the principles
of 10 gurus is a Sikh and to be a Sikh it is a privilege. One
who is totally busy in enjoying earthly pleasure cannot follow these
principles, so he has no right to be a called a Sikh, despite his
forefathers having followed a guru way of life, since he no more
follows those principles and thus he is no more a Sikh which means that he is a Hindu.
Sikhism is like a pious sect within Hinduism and not a separate religion.
Kudos to Dr. Jasbir Singh Ahluwalia for his enlightening and insightful article, The Quintessence of Sikhism: The Doctrinal Sovereignty. He points out very clearly, forcefully, and convincingly the doctrinal sovereignty and uniqueness of Nanakian philosophy. This article puts to rest the claims made ignorantly or intentionally that Sikhs are Hindus or that Sikhism is an offshoot of Hinduism or that Nanakian philosophy is based on Vedanta or is an extension of the Bhakti movement or the so-called “sant tradition”, a term coined by W. H. McLeod.
However, I do not agree with the following statements:
The processes of becoming — origination and development, enduring and disintegration— are seen as inherent in matter. Says Guru Nanak:
Phenomenal reality mysteriously conceived three sons (Deities): One produces, the second sustains, and the third destroys.
This is not Guru Nanak’s idea; rather this is his comment on the Hindu belief regarding the working of the world. This verse must be interpreted in conjunction with two other verses for proper understanding of this verse:
(According to Hindu belief), the phenomenal reality (Maya) by some mysterious technique conceived three sons: One creates, the second sustains and the third destroys. But in reality, Guru Nanak says that it is the Creator who runs the world according to Its ordained Hukam (Universal Law).
It is pertinent to point out here that Guru Gobind Singh has rejected Ramanand's mission in an unmistakable way:
And then Ramanand was ordained by the Lord,
Who carved out his own Vairagi path,
Wearing a necklace of wood beads,
Little did he realize the Divine Logos.
This stanza is not the work of Guru Gobind Singh. The analysis of Bachittar Natak by Harinder Singh Mehboob, Gurbakhash Singh Kala Afghana and Baldev Singh demonstrates without any shadow of doubt that it is authored by someone else, not by Guru Gobind Singh as it repudiates the core of Nanakian philosophy. I would like to direct your readers to a detailed analysis of this issue previously published on SikhSpectrum.
Bachittar Natak: A Strange Drama
http://www.sikhspectrum.com/022005/bachittar.htm
Understanding W. H. McLeod and his work on Sikhism
http://www.sikhspectrum.com/082005/mcleod/intro.htm
- Baldev Singh
5
These are my chapter wise comments on the article...
These are my chapter wise comments on the article Understanding W.H. McLeod and His Work on Sikhism
.
Introduction
As I was reading the introduction I understood that
McLeod's credentials were being questioned, however, I
did not understand the examples toward the end of the
paper other than them being examples for the purpose
of providing illustration of McLeod's favoritism of
Christianity in his view of Sikhism. It was unclear
to me if Sikhism, as seen by McLeod, represented a
substantial perspective of Christianity or not. If
his personal view of Sikhism is clouded or not by
Christianity was not addressed by the author. Does McLeod see
Sikhism as a religion that Christianity in the modern
world is evolving toward?
Chapter One
I don't question the validity of the fact that Nanak
traveled to Baghdad as the technology at the time
allows this, however, the contentions you raised draw
the following comments in order of their statement:
1) I think this is correct, however, you fail to
mention that it is from a perspective of common
thinking where you say he concocted an alibi as the
argument is not based on academic evidence. However,
this is not a major point.
2) The idea that Sikh soldiers are illiterate is
misinformation. Firstly, Sikh soldiers in Baghdad
could have doctored it as their military prowess is
the result of technology. Secondly, if
the first point is false then is it not more likely
that an expert could not decipher the inscription?
3) I didn't understand this remark.
4) This is probably true, however, isn't it possible
there is a work that provides the inscription that is
not commonly known or is possibly know to the soldiers
and not academia?
Do you think this is a result of his favoritism of
Christianity even though as you say he is a
non-believer?
Chapter Three
I thought your comments on the caste system were most
insightful!
Chapter Four
a) Excellent point! If McLeod is suggesting the
Granth is not the guru then that is enough to
discredit him from mainstream Sikhism.
b) Again McLeod seems confused ... you could possibly
add that Jats were actually the protectors of the
Gurus from the start.
c) This could actually be another paper in itself. Is
it possible McLeod is using his credentials to usurp
Sikhism in favor of supporting past injustices against
Sikhs including the attacks and riots against Sikhs in
the American Northwest at the start of the 20th
century where often the rhetoric of the time claimed
Sikhs were Hindus? Is there mention of Sikhs as
Hindus before this--in fact?
d) Your mention of this is extraordinary. It seems
like McLeod is suggesting Nanak is a common Yogi.
Possibly McLeod is also looking at Sikhism as a third
class religion pinning Nanak as a Christ? A cruel
injustice indeed.
Chapter Five
This is an interesting point as you illustrate the
reality of the situation. How unacademic of McLeod to
not address his critics. It seems like throughout he
is going from one position to another, however, really
his position to begin with is developed to give his
hand in interpretation the greatest power rather than
his critics who he fails to acknowledge regardless.
Chapter Six
I thought this was the strongest chapter and you did a
wonderful job of showing McLeod's bias.
Chapter Seven
The quote from John Malcolm was interesting:
"There is no evidence that Dasam Granth was found in
Punjab or Delhi in the eighteenth century. There is
also no evidence that in the eighteenth century Aad
Guru Granth Sahib was not given exclusive preference
over the bani (composition) of Guru Gobind Singh.
Prior to Malcolm’s mention of Dasam Granth, there is
no reference to it either in Sikh or non-Sikh sources
(Muslim and European).164"
And your description of where and how these were used
is also interesting and why McLeod is insensitive to
the needs of Sikhs insofar as gaining the truth is
concerned they appear to be subverted by the
insidiousness of McLeod insofar as his portrayal of
the Granth insofar as his lack of understanding of the
AGGS by basing his understanding on false sources.
Conclusion
Agreed.
5
I appreciate the comments of Sardar Baldev Singh on...
-K.P. Singh, USA
Dear Editor,
I appreciate the comments of Sardar Baldev Singh on my article
Gentle Sikh Statesman from the East published
in Sikhspectrum, August 2005 issue.
Like countless million, I too am still grieving and reflecting on
the nightmare of 1984 for tens of thousands of Sikh families
directly effected by the organized pogroms and unprovoked violence.
The entire Sikh community, people of goodwill of many faith
traditions and international human rights organizations are
shocked over the fateful events of 1984. The anguish that surrounds
that dark chapter of independent India must end with thoughtful
assurances and long overdue healing that can only come from justice
for the victims, punishing the guilty, and taking concrete steps
towards the prevention of such future tragedies against any citizen
of India.
Dr. Manmohan Singh has a great opportunity and responsibility
to set the course to right this grievous wrong to the Sikh victims
and the entire Sikh community. May Sutguru guide his wisdom and
spirit as he deals with this agonizing challenge for the nation.
The scars are deep, the tragedy has been ignored for so long, and
the healing of victims at any time soon is not possible. Yet,
Dr. Singh, the party he represents, and the country he leads have a
collective responsibility to put people and justice ahead of politics.
Abdullah Mehsud says he is fighting for Islam but he clearly is utilizing
anti-Islamic, terroristic methods to do that. On one hand blaming killing
of innocent Chinese on Pak Army and then saying "all is fair in love and
war!" shows people like him are completely oblivious to their own
contradictions, messed-up interpretation of Islamic creed.
I am very thrilled to see this website. I had my primary education at Khalas AV High School in Burma. I remember the
stone-plate, Dr. Randhir Singh and the Gurdwara. My father, Dr. Trilok Singh
was a medical graduate of Rangoon University. I used to correspond with
Mr. Aujaley, who was translating Guru Granth Sahib in Burmese. We came to India over
Tongup-Pass.
Guru Fateh.
- Sardool Singh
5
Your website has helped me find my ancestors...
-H.S. Thind, India
from H.S. Thind
Place: India
Dear Editor,
Your website has helped me find my ancestors. It would be very
kind if you could let me know more about my grandfather Lance Daffadar Santa
Singh,2773, 36th Jacobs Horse. We have in our possession a bronze medal of about 5 inches in diameter and a scroll from Buckingham Palace. Could
you kindly advice what they mean and also send us pictures of the
battle, cemeteries and the associated literature. Your website is really
invigorating and morale boosting. God bless you for the good job.
The article states: "As per tradition in Sikh books, the blood on the Guru's sword was that of a goat, slaughtered inside the enclosure."
It has not been verified if that was the case. Guru Gobind Singhji was indeed very powerful, and for him to revive the 5 Sikhs would not have been impossible. I find it difficult to comprehend that it involved the death/sacrifice of a goat. His teachings have been about compassion for all. So it may be a good Idea to refrain from this topic all-together!
The following quote is inaccurate: “from local farmers to survive.” Lieutenant Onoda maintained his rifle in good working order and even maintained caches of ammunition, all well cared for.
It is good to not only create history but also leave it in print. It encourages our next generation to do similar great feats. WW II may be over but life gives us other challenges. Space sounds like a nice frontier for Sikh youth to conquer.
5
I would like to share my views on the following...
I would like to share my views on the following observation: "As per tradition in Sikh books, the blood on the Guru’s sword was that of
a goat, slaughtered inside the enclosure"
The sacrifice of Sikhs for the Guru was not an unheard concept among the Sikh
masses as it was the period of Mughal religious oppression during which
mayters like Bhai Matidass jee , Bhai Satidass jee and Bhai Dyaala jee
had laid their life after bearing inhuman tortures.So there were already burning
examples of supreme sacrifices among Sikhs.
Given the above scenario there are few conclusions one can make regarding
the "goat theory":
1. The Sikh masses were brought up to a level by the Gurus where they were
ready to do utmost sacrifice for the sanctity of the faith Guru Nanak
Patshah had initiated, in God's Will.
2. Secondly it would have looked unworthy of the Guru of being not true in
word and deeds(if we stick to the goat theory)
3. If one still had to depend on the poor goats for becoming "Jeevan
Mukt", the whole philosophy of cleansing the inner-self comes to a
grinding halt.
Since the five beloved had stepped ahead on their own (unforced by any
means), they would have considered it a breach of trust (which they had in
Guru).
Now what happened inside the tent was meant only for participants of the
process. Commenting loosely on this not only belittle's the Personality of the Sri
Guru Gobind Singh but also shows a lack of trust among us.
I feel that its a creation of a clever mind. The intentions could have
been basically two-fold:
1. Indirectly maligning the Guru of not being true to his word.
2. To induce the poison of failthlessness among the initiators.
With regard to your comments on my article,
in the SikhSpectrum,I would like to reiterate that
as stated in the article, it is as per tradition in Sikh books.
Some reputed writers have said that Guruji killed five goats--
for which, in my opinion, there was no need.
However, there was no eyewitness account, and Guru Gobind Singh ji
did not disclose/explain what was the scene within the camp.
Cordially,
- Harbans Singh Noor
5
The comments on Harbans Singh Noor's article...
-Baldev Singh, USA
from Baldev Singh
Place: USA
Dear Editor,
The comments on Harbans Singh Noor's article by Prithipal Singh and Tejpal Singh and the authors response to Prithipal prompted me add my views to the discussion.
Sikh scholars/writers keep bemoaning and telling us again and again that Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat) and Sikh history have been distorted by Bipars. But when they write themselves about Sikhism, they repeat what Bipars have written. In his response to Prithiplal Singh, Noor says that that he has quoted what the tradition says. Why would a learned scholar present a view that does not appeal to common sense and is totally contrary to Gurmat. I humbly request Sikh writers to exercise care while writing.
- Baldev Singh
5
I described the story that appealed to...
-Harbans Singh Noor, USA
from Harbans Singh
Place: USA
Respected Sardar Baldev Singh ji:
I respect your comments/views.
I described the story that appealed to my common sense. I rejected those that did not.
I would be glad to read another version which is true or accurate or logical or per Gurmat.
Guru Gobind Singh ji did not tell/disclose, what was the source of that blood on the sword, one has to analyse only the available documents.
A person/historian who was not an eye witness or a party to the occurences, has the only option to use logic to analyse available documents.
Since miracles are not sanctioned by Sikhism, any story
bringing in a karamat would have been contrary to the Gurmat -- especially, when it is not told by a Sikh Guru himself. That is my humble opinion.
Cordially,
- Harbans Singh Noor
5
With due respect to your views as per...
-Tejpal Singh, India
from Tejpal Singh
Place: India
Respected Sardar Harbans Singh ji,
With due respect to your views as per the current thread of discussion, I
would share few more thoughts on the subject, without any offence:
Any body (Sikhs in particular) would be glad to read the true version of
the Baisakhi of 1699, which although changed the fate of the people (atleast in the Indian subcontinent) was not documented by the Panj Piara's either and was not disclosed by them to anybody else throughout their lives. I have not come across any book which mentions that the Panj Piara's shared the secret of the event of 1699. Till today it remains a secret.
What we have from history is more like a perception rather than actual
observation of the event. And perceptions can be different based on one's personality.
As all of us know very well there exists a problem when we start looking
for authentic sources in history especially in the case of Sikh history. However,
if we think logically, there are a few points to think about:
1. The first logic which comes to my mind is that as per Gurmat, the true
Guru doesn’t lie.
2. Second, if goat's were slaughtered inside, then at some point of
time their bodies should have been removed by someone. Nobody has
been able to throw any light on that.
3. Third, the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb, who was alarmed at the political
consequences of the Sikh movement particularly after the martyrdom of Sri
Guru Tegh Bahadur Sahib had an eye on all events happening in the
Guru's court. The congregation of Anandpur, being a publicly declared event, must have
been thoroughly observed and reported.
Had there been a slightest hint of truth available regarding the goat
theory, the Mughal's would have definitely tried to malign the
Guru (considering it a chance to tarnish his growing reputation).
4. Now having said that as per Point 1 above, I feel if we cannot
substantiate the goat-theory citing various reasons including not being
present there, we should refrain ourselves from commenting otherwise.
5. If Sikhs get initiated by the Amrit ceremony, they do so because for them its a path towards becoming "Jeevan-Mukt." If this is ok, there was no requirement for the Guru to take the Amrit from the five beloved one's, because as per Gurmat True Guru is complete (e.g as used in the verse gur poorae meri rakh laie and in many
other verses).
With all the above observations, I feel that if we still stick to the
theory as per tradition started by some reputed authors, we are in a way accepting this theory, which actually is detrimental to our faith.
Finally I conclude that if we could understand all what Guru had
done and how, our understanding would have exceeded the Guru's deeds.
With Regards
- Tejpal Singh
5
There is no definite answer to the question...
-Harbans Singh Noor, USA
from Harbans Singh Noor
Place: USA
Dear Sardar Tejpal Singh ji:
I agree with what you have said.
There is no definite answer to the question, what happened
behind the curtain, It was not disclosed/told either by Guru Gobind Singh ji, or by any of the Panj Piyaras.
When it is said,as per tradition in Sikh books, in other words it means 'as the story is told' -- nothing more.
If I believed in the statement, or agreed with it, I would not have said, as per tradition in Sikh books, and would have made a definite statement.
A writer/historian can quote/interpret only what he/she has
read/heard about the event. I rejected the theory of five goats outright, because I do not believe it would have happened so. Any fictional theory of Karamat of bringing persons back to life, would be contrary to gurmat.
A breath of fresh air!...