|
|
|
|
|
||
Sehjdhari Sikhs And Vaisakhi of 1699
The
objective of this article is to explain the meaning of “Sehjdhari Sikh” and to determine their role and place under the
leadership of Guru Gobind Singh and afterwards. The major flaw of this article
is that Lal does not support his views/arguments on the basis of AGGS. Instead,
he relies on Bipran literature3 that
subverts Sikhism. Bipran literature
paints Sikhism on Vedantic canvas with Brahmanical colors and it is responsible
for destroying the cordial relations that existed between Sikhs and the Muslim
populace from the time of Guru Nanak to Guru Gobind Singh by creating hatred
between the two communities. Additionally, this article is full of erroneous
statements, self-contradictions and distortions as the following discussion
demonstrates:
1. The first sentence of the
Abstract states that the distinction between Sehjdhari Sikhs and Amritdhari
Sikhs owes its historical origin to the day of historic Vaisakhi of 1699 CE. A
statement in the introductory paragraph emphasizes this point by saying that a distinction
between Sehjdhari and Amritdhari began during the time of the
tenth Guru when many Sikhs elected to become Amritdhari while the others remained Sehajdhari. Then in the third paragraph (pp. 37-38), Lal claims
that Sikhs who participated in the battle of Bhangani, Guru Gobind Singh’s Darbari Ratan (court jewels) like Bhai
Nanad Lal, and many other devout Sikhs like Bhai Kanayia, were Sehjdhari Sikhs. He further states that
among the 52 poets whose names are recorded by Bhai Kahan Singh, only less than
one third used “Singh” as their surname suggesting that most of the poets in
Guru’s court were Sehjdhari Sikhs.
First, there is no mention of the
term “Sehjdhari Sikh” in the AGGS,
and there is no evidence that this term was used for Sikhs before the creation
of the Khalsa Order in 1699 CE. It is then reasonable to believe that after
1699 CE, Sikhs who took “Khandae Dee Pauhl” were called Amritdhari Sikhs and the label “Sehjdhari” was applied to those Sikhs who didn’t take “Khandae Dee Pauhl”. Lal himself says in
the Abstract of this article that the distinction between Sehjdhari and Amritdhari
Sikhs owes its historical origin to the day of historic Vaisakhi of 1699.
Therefore, it is wrong and misleading to describe Sikhs who participated in the
battle of Bhangani as Sehjdhari Sikhs
because this battle was fought in 1688 CE, eleven years before the creation of
the Khalsa.4
Now
let us examine his other claim that Bhai Nanad Lal, Bhai Kanyia and many other
Sikhs who were without “Singh” as their surname were not Amritdhari Sikhs. It is true that Guru Gobind Singh did not force
anyone to take Khandae Dee Pahul
(initiation ceremony for the Khalsa), as it was strictly voluntary. Sikhs who
still believed in the caste system refused to take Khandae Dee Pahul and turned hostile toward the Guru and became his
bitter foes. It might be possible that Bhai Nand Lal, Bhai Kanyia and many
other Sikhs without “Singh” as surname failed to take Khandae Dee Pahul. It is also inconceivable that Bhai Nand Lal,
Bhai Kanyia and many other devout Sikhs, who were in tune with Guru Gobind
Singh spiritually and understood his mission, did not emulate the Guru when he
himself requested the Panj Piare
(Five Beloved Ones) to administer him
Khandae Dee Pahul. Moreover, it does
not necessarily prove that Bhai Nand Lal, Bhai Kanyia and others without the
“Singh” surname, were not Amritdharis.
For example, in our village there were two old Amritdhari Sikhs, Sher Singh and Harnam Singh who participated in
the Gurudwara reform movement. People in the village addressed them by their
nicknames of Sheru and Hami, respectively. Therefore it is conceivable that
Sikhs like Bhai Nand Lal, Bhai Kanyia and others, who were well known in the
community before the creation of the Khalsa Order were continuously addressed
by their original names without the suffix “Singh.”
2. In the second paragraph (p.
37) Lal says, “In 1699, Guru Gobind Singh initiated (baptized) the Sikhs by Khandae dee Pahul and brought to an end
the custom of Charan Pahul. Guru also
terminated the authority of Masands
to administer the initiation rites and asked the Sikhs to restrain from the
congregation still led by the Masands.”
Here
Lal cites no reference that Gurus once practiced Charan Pahul (initiation by the holy water prepared by the touch
of Guru’s feet) as initiating
ceremony for Sikhs. However, there
are references to it in spurious (Bipran)
literature. Guru Nanak rejected all the essentials of Hinduism and the customs
and ceremonies associated with them.5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Charan Pahul is a Hindu custom, so why
would Guru Nanak accept Charan Pahul
when he unequivocally rejected the sacred thread (janeu)?
Besides,
according to Nanakian philosophy,
Guru is Sabad (Word, Bani, Truth),
therefore ritualistic or ceremonial initiation of followers is contrary to
Gurmat. The Gurus advised their followers to imbibe the teachings by leading
truthful lives. There are numerous references to gurcharan (Guru’s feet) in AGGS and it means Guru’s teachings or
attributes. Sometimes it is a metaphor for humility (to be at someone’s feet).
3. Later, on page 38, Lal
contradicts himself when he says, Dr.
Maan Singh Nirankari cited Ratanmala claimed
by some to contain narration of many conversations of Guru Gobind Singh as below:
“The
Guru described his having three categories of Sikhs: Sehajdhari, Charandhari
meaning those initiated by the touch of the holy water by the Guru’s feet, and Khandae de Amritdhari.”
First,
who is the author of Ratanmala? Where
is the evidence that it contains the authentic conversations of Guru Gobind
Singh? Is not the Ratanmala, cited by
Lal, the work of anti-Sikh elements like the Bano
Bir, also known as Khari Bir
(brackish manuscript, meaning interpolated manuscript), which also contains a
hymn about hatha-yoga under the title
Ratanmala?10
Second,
knowing what Dr. Maan Singh Nirankari has said in public about spurious
literature like Dasam Granth, it is unlikely that he would endorse the views
attributed to him by Lal!
Third,
in an earlier statement Lal states, “In 1699, Guru Gobind Singh initiated
(baptised) the Sikhs by Khandae dee Pahul
and brought to an end the custom of Charan
Pahul. He also terminated the authority of Masands to administer the initiation rites and asked the Sikhs to
restrain from congregations still led by Masands.”
If Guru Gobind Singh abolished the Masand
system and ended the custom of Charan
Pahul in 1699 CE then who was administering Charan Pahul to the so-called Charandhari
Sikhs? Where are the Charandhari Sikhs
today, and who administers them Charan
Pahul?
4. Again, on page 38 Lal
asserts:
Guru
Gobind Singh’s trust in Sehjdhari
Sikhs is further evident from the role given to Sehjdhari Sikhs in propagating the Guru’s religion and in the
management of Gurdwaras during that period. Guru Gobind Singh sent some Sikhs
to the holy city of Kashi to learn Sanskrit and to establish a Sikh University
in Punjab for the purpose of training scholars on Gurmat. This group of Sikhs in turn trained many scholars of Sikh
theology, who are well recognized in the Sikh history. Among those were included some great Amritdhari Sikhs such as Gyani Gian
Singh and Bhai Santokh Singh.
An important question to ask is: How did Guru
Gobind Singh’s predecessors manage to preach Gurmat without having “Sikhs educated in Sanskrit at Kashi?”
I am amazed by Sikh scholars who never fail
to proclaim that Sikh Gurus enlightened the people with their liberating
philosophy in the language of the masses while still insisting that Sanskrit
education is necessary to understand this philosophy. Lal’s statement flies in
the face of overwhelming evidence in the AGGS that the Sikh Gurus rejected the
moral authority of Hindu scriptures and all the essentials of Hinduism like
incarnation of God, caste system, transmigration, karma, hell, heaven,
gods, goddesses, and idol worship.5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Guru Nanak also
rejected the Semitic and Indian concept of salvation. In addition, he rejected
Sanskrit as well as its script, as a medium for the propagation of his
philosophy. Given these truths I ask Lal why would any Guru send Sikhs to
Kashi/Benaras and for what purpose?
Further, Lal should know that during the time
of the Gurus, Benaras (Kashi) was not known as center of learning; rather it
was a center of thugs (AGGS, p. 476). Moreover, what were the names of the
Sikhs who were sent by Guru Gobind Singh to the holy city of Kashi? Where in
Punjab did they set up the “Sikh University”? What is the evidence that Bhai
Santokh Singh and Giani Gian Singh were trained at that purported university?
The writings of Giani Gian Singh and Bhai Santokh Singh are based on Bipran literature -- replete with
chimerical and fantastic stories, and statements and interpretations that
contradict the very teachings of AGGS.
Probably,
the opponents of Sikhism fabricated this absurd story after the death of Guru
Gobind Singh. I have heard from semi-literate and ignorant preachers that Guru
Gobind Singh sent five Sikhs in disguise to Kashi to learn Sanskrit from
Brahmans. On returning to Punjab they founded the Nirmala Akhara (center).11 Frankly, I never expected a
highly decorated man like Dr. Lal to spread this malicious propaganda against
Guru Gobind Singh in an international Sikh publication! He repeats this story
often at every opportunity as discussed later in this article.
Is
it not possible that Brahmans with no moral compunctions made up this story and
furthermore, is it not reasonable to believe that Brahmans started this
organization disguised as Sikhs. The story of Nirmalas is full of holes. There is no evidence that Guru Gobind
Singh’s predecessors sent Sikhs anywhere to learn Sanskrit. Then what was the
need for Sikhs to learn Sanskrit during the time of Guru Gobind Singh? I have
also heard the argument from the likes of Lal that Guru Gobind Singh wanted
Sikhs to learn Sanskrit to study ancient Indian literature. Why?
According
to Lal, Guru Gobind Singh had the company of many scholars and poets with him
at Anandpur. Couldn’t he use the services of a few Sanskrit teachers? Were the
scholars, who translated Sanskrit texts into Braj Bhasa, not competent enough to teach Sanskrit to Sikhs?
Further, if we believe that Guru Gobind Singh did send some Sikhs to Kashi to
learn Sanskrit shouldn’t we know their names and their identity? Is there any
biographical information available about them? In addition, once the knowledge
of Sanskrit had been acquired, what did they do with it? Would Dr. Lal like to
answer these questions?
It
is not surprising that the Nirmala12 organization was set up in 1918 under
the patronage of feudal lords -- the Rajas of Patiala, Nabha and Jind.13 Throughout history rulers have used religion and
clergy to keep their subjects ignorant to exploit them without any resistance
and public outcry. Brahmans used to elevate their rulers to the status of god,
for example, Sri Ram Chander Ji and Sri Krishan Ji were rulers. Brahmans even
regarded Muslim rulers as God incarnate, Eeshwaro
va Dillishwaro va (The emperor of Delhi is as great as God).14 Christian clergy used to confer divine rights on
their kings and the Muslim ruler (khalifa or caliph) was regarded as the
representative of Prophet Mohammad. The Sikh feudal lords used the Nirmalas to keep their people ignorant
for easy exploitation. No wonder the Sikhs under the British were more educated
and more well off than their counterparts under the rule of Sikh rajas.
Nirmalas and Mahants used to frighten people not only with their curses but also had the
legal power to impose fine on Sikhs for refusing to comply with the request of
the Mahant (clause 17 of the
charter).15
5. On page 39 Lal says:
Hukmnamae
(letter, an epistle, decree or edict) issued by Guru Gobind Singh to his
individual followers or the Sikh congregations. They have been published and
authenticated. These Hukamnamae contain Guru’s instructions
to follow his path of Gurmat and
perform the specific chores to fulfill the needs of the Guru’s house and
congregations. These Hukamnamae can
be cited to show that Guru Gobind Singh bestowed full recognition to Sehajdhari Sikhs even after the date of
the initiation of Amritdhari Sikhs.
The Guru’s heirs issued some of the Hukamnamae
after the Guru had left this earth for heavenly abode.
It
is true that Ganda Singh and others collected the so-called Gurus’ Hukamnamae, but they didn’t vouch for
their veracity. Who authenticated these Hukamnamae
and by what method? As a trained scientist, Lal should know that it is unethical
to make false assertions! Mehboob has
argued convincingly that the corrupt Masands
and unscrupulous Sikhs issued most of these Hukamname for personal benefit.16
6. Further down on page 39, Lal
says, “There exists a Rehit Nama
written and signed by Guru Gobind Singh specifically addressed to Sehjdhari Sikhs.” In reference 10 on
page 41, he claims that Bhai Nand Lal wrote two Rehit Namae, one in 1695 -- four years before the Vaisakhi of 1699 -- known as Reht Nama, and the other in 1699 known
as Tankhah Nama. Nand Lal was asked
by the Guru to compile Guru’s injunctions for the guidance of the Sikh
community after the Guru left his human body for the heavenly abode. Guru
Gobind Singh made himself available for his conversation with Bhai Nand Lal to
guide him to compose his writings.
I
would recommend that Lal read what Piara Singh Padam said about Rehitnamae17 in 1991: “Extensive
research is needed to determine who wrote the Rehitnamae, and when? One thing is clear that no Rehitnama was written by Guru Gobind
Singh, otherwise it would have been included in Dasam Granth. It seems that Rehitnamae were written in the 18th
century by Sikh writers, who assigned them to close associates of Guru Gobind
Singh like Bhai Nanad Lal, Bhai Daya Singh, Bhai Chaupa Singh and others to
enhance their value and acceptance by the Sikhs. It is possible that Bhai Nand
Lal and others might have written some parts of these compositions. However, a closer look at the contents, details
and style of the language reveals that probably they were written after 1720.
One can say with certainty that only Desa Singh’s Rehitnama is his own work. Some of the contents of some Rehitnamae are not consistent with
Gurmat. For example, Brahman authors have excessively praised Brahmans, used
abusive language against Muslims and advocated against the learning of Farsi and
Arabic, and Desa Singh has advocated the use of opium, marijuana and alcohol.”
Moreover,
aren’t the teachings of AGGS sufficient to guide the Sikhs? Lal should know
that AGGS is the Eternal Guru of the Sikhs. Didn’t Guru Gobind Singh confer
spiritual Guru-ship on AGGS? When AGGS categorically rejects the concept of
hell and heaven then is Dr. Lal’s use of the phrase “heavenly abode” justified?
7. On page 39, Lal claims,
“Guru Gobind Singh and his successors issued several Hukamnamae exclusively to Sehjdhari
Sikhs as indicated by them not using “Singh” surname. He also sent Hukamnamae to congregations that were
led by Sehjdhari Sikhs.”
Who
were Guru Gobind Singh’s successors? Didn’t Guru Gobind Singh confer Guru-ship
jointly on AGGS and the corporate body of the Khalsa (entire Sikh community)?
8. In reference 1 on page 40,
Lal says that Kesar Singh Chibar the author of Bansawli Nama was related to Bhai Dharm Chand, one of the Panj Piarae (Five Beloved Ones).
The
original name of that Panj Piara (Beloved
One) was Bhai Dharm Das, not Bhai Dharm Chand. Bhai Dharm Das belonged to a Jat
family from Hastnapur (UP) whereas Kesar Singh Chibar, belonged to a Brahman
family of Punjab. Chibar was related to Bhai Dharam Chand, who was a devout Sikh
of Guru Gobind Singh.
9. On page 40, Lal has quoted
Bhai Gurdas in support of his views about
Sehjdhari Sikhs.
There is no mention of Sehjdhari Sikhs in the couplet cited above. Lal has taken the
liberty to distort the verse.
Conclusion
Sikh
scholars should never forget that one of the objectives of Sikh philosophy is
to unite everyone under “One and Only God” -- irrespective of their caste,
color, creed, gender, ethnicity and language.
The least a Sikh scholar can do is bring all
the Sikhs together instead of dividing them further into different categories.
It is unconscionable for a Sikh scholar to divide the Panth (Sikh community)
into different categories. Moreover, does it make sense for people to claim themselves
as Sehjdhari Sikhs three hundred
years after the Vaisakhi of 1699.
The term “Sehjdhari
Sikh” was applied to those Sikhs, who during the time of Guru Gobind Singh and
the first half of the eighteenth century did not take Khande De Pahul. However, their children and grandchildren filled
the ranks of the Khalsa Order when the Khalsa was engaged in a life and death
struggle against the tyranny of the Mughals, the defenders of caste ideology
and foreign invaders. The current use of the term “Sehjdhari Sikh” is not only a
distortion of Sikh history but also disrespectful to the memory of “real Sehjdhari Sikhs” who suffered extreme
hardships and sacrificed their flesh and blood for the glory of the Sikh Panth during the first half of the
eighteenth century.
We are Sikhs of the AGGS. Those who add
adjectives like Sehajdhari, Jat,
Ramgarhia and Namdhari etc. are ignorant of the teachings of AGGS. The AGGS
very clearly defines the meaning of Sikh, but there is no mention of Sehjdhari Sikh.
It
should be noted that Lal has relied on Bipran
literature to build his thesis on Sehajdhari
Sikhs. In all the 23 references cited by him there is none from AGGS.
References
1.
D.S. Chahal. “Second IUS Seminar 2002 in Canada: Shabad Guru, Conscience and
Consciousness.” The Sikh Review, November 2002, pp. 66-68.
2
H.
Lal. “Sehjdhari Sikhs and Vaisakhi of 1699.” Understanding Sikhism Res. J. 1999, 1 (1), pp. 37-41.
3. Bipran literature is that literature that subverts Sikhism like: Janamsakhis, Bansavlinamas, Dasam Granth,
Gurbilass Patshi 6, Mehma Parkash, Bhagat Ratnavli, Ratan Mala, Sau Sakhi,
Panth Parkash, Sarabloh Granth, Premsumarg, Rehitname and Hukamname. This plethora of literature contains some
useful historical information but from a theological point of view it is
contrary to Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat).
4. Sangat Singh. The Sikhs In
History. New Delhi: Uncommon Books, 4th ed., 2001, p. 68.
5.Ibid.,
p. 19.
6.
J.S.
Grewal. The Sikhs Of the Punjab. New
Delhi: Cambridge University Press, 1994, p. 31.
7.Jagjit
Singh. The Sikh Revolution: A Perspective View. New Delhi: Bahri
Publications, 4th reprint 1998, p. 105.
8. B. Singh. “Misinterpretation of Gurbani by W.H. McLeod, Part I.” Abstracts of Sikh Studies, 2003, V (2),
p 72-80.
9. B. Singh. “Misinterpretation of Gurbani by W.H. McLeod, Part II.” Abstracts of Sikh Studies, 2003, V (3),
pp. 66-78.
10. Kahan Singh Nabha. Mahan Kosh
(Encyclopaedia of Sikh Literature)
[Punjabi]. Delhi: National Book Shop, reprint, 1996, p. 1021.
11.
G.S. Kala Afghana. Bipran Ki Reet Ton
Sach Da Marg, Part 5, (Punjabi), 1999, p. 44.
12.
Ibid., pp. 32-60.
13.
Ibid., pp. 37-39.
14. G.C. Narang. Transformation
Of Sikhism. New Delhi: New Book Society of India, 5th ed. 1960, p. 98.
15.
G.S. Kala Afghana. Bipran Ki Reet Ton
Sach Da Marg, Part 5, (Punjabi), 1999, p. 38.
16.
H.S. Mehboob. Sehjae Rachio Khalsa (Punjabi). Amritsar: Singh
Brothers, 2nd ed., 2000, pp. 723-746.
17.
P.S. Padam. Rehatnamae (Punjabi).
Amritsar: Chattar Singh Jiwan Singh, 5th ed., 1991, pp. 43-44.
Previous | Table of Contents | Next
Copyright© Baldev Singh. About the author
Print this Article
Email this Article
Comment on this Article