Gurus Did An Italian Surgeon Attend Guru Gobind Singh In 1708? (from Portuguese Sources)

An European Surgeon Who Attended Satguru Gobind Singh in 1708.

At the footnote of martyrdom of Guru Arjun ,in "The Panjab-Past And Present" Dr. Gurbachan Singh Nayyar, editor, had given a incomplete but very important information. He wrote--"An European Surgeon,an Englishman, is said to have attended Guru Gobind Singh during his last days at Nander in the Deccan.When Emperor Bahadur Shah,then(September- October, 1708) encamped at Nander, heard the Guru having been Stabbed by a Pathan, he sent a surgeon to attend to his wound.Dhian singh in his( manuscript)" Daswan Patshah Ka Antam Kautak" tells us that(Das Mohran Roz Sahib Dewain Jarahdar Kau, kal Usih Da nam, Angrez Si). He was an Englishman,Call by name, and that the Guiru Paid him ten Mohars a day.But to the best of our knowledge, no recod of him has so far been discovered------"

From a Purtugese book, written by the same surgeon, led me the exact information.Mr. William Irvine has translated the book in English.The name of the original book is"Storia Do Mogor or Mogul India"(1653-1708) written by Niccolao Manucci.He was the official Surgeon of Bahadur Shah.Earlier, he was the surgeon of Dara Shikoh.The brief,but the original story will lead you many new informations.

Less exiciting was the career of Dr. Nicholas Manucci.But he was generally called by the short name of Dr. Call(1639-1717).He left Venice for East Indies at an early age of fourteen to visit the world,he himself told in the first volume of the book. Overall, he has written four volumes and gives the eye-witness account of six years of Shahjahan reign, full reign of Aurangzeb and some years of Bahadur Shah.As told you in the begining, he left his native country.The captain of the ship and other staff members of the crew thought that he was the son of some trader on board, so they did not inquire about him.Almighty God has scattered his food in the distant lands of the east.He took the service with an English traveller, Lord Bellamont in what capacity is not recorded.After staying in Persia and other countries,Manucci came to Delhi from Surat in 1656.He was seventeen year old when in1656, he worked as the Mughal Emperor Shahjahan's son, Dara Shikoh's artillery man at a salary of 80 rupees.After Dara's murder in 1659, he adopted medicine as a profession, apparentally without any training,at Agra.During 1664-1665,he served as a captain of artillary in the Deccan, under Mirza Raja Jai Singh(An acestor of Raja Ram Singh).

During 1671-1678,Dr. Niccolao Manucci practiced medicine in Lahore,where earlier, he served under Dara Shikoh.In last of 1658, he received a special medicine from the Dawakhana of Satguru Har Rai Sahib. Satguru told him that "Aukdh Aye Ras -----" holy page No. 1363 of Sri Guru Granth Sahib.That the medicine works only if God helps the Doctor.He received some personal medicine for Peppers(Kohris). Because, he was the favourite of Dara Shikoh,he accompanied Dara to thanks- giving ceremony of Dara Shikoh at the Bank of Beas when Satguru Har Rai Sahib alongwith 2200 horsemen helped Dara and his men go to Multan.Second time ,he visited Fakir( That is Satguru Har Rai Sahib).But due to the rivalary between Dara Shikoh and Aurangzeb,Dr. Call avoided further details about Sikhs.We have to dig out the contemporary informations.He was very popular in Lahore.From 1672-82, he was the physician of Bahadur Shah.He arrived in Madras in 1686 remained there with his wife.His wife died in 1706.

Bahadur Shah was in Bidar and Nander since June 1708,(reference IV volume of his own book, pp379).He came to meet him from Madras, when this stabbing incidence took place.Bahadur Shah send Dr. Coll(that is Dr. Niccolao Manucci) to attend Satguru Gobind Singh in oct.1708.Earlier he was the first Physician of Shah Alum alias Bahadur Shah.For his photo and other proofs, your worthy can click on"Photo" on my site.



Bibliography--

(1)--Storia Do Mogor or Mughal India Vol I to IV , by Niccolao Manucci, published and translated by William Irvine,printed by Edition Indian, Calcutta,1967.Its first edition was published in 1907.

(2)--A History of the Medical Service, by Lt. col. D.G.Crawford, Vol- I, published by W. Thacker & Co.,Calcutta & Simla,1914.

(3)--The Panjab-Past And Present, VolXXV-I, April 1991, S No. 49, published by, Department of Punjab Historical Studies,Punjabi University, Patiala, 1991.

http://satguru.weebly.com/european-surgeon-who-attended-satguru-gobind-singh-in-1708.html

Daswan Patshah Ka Antam Kautak" tells us that(Das Mohran Roz Sahib Dewain Jarahdar Kau, kal Usih Da nam, Angrez Si). He was an Englishman,Call by name, and that the Guiru Paid him ten Mohars a day.But to the best of our knowledge, no recod of him has so far been discovered------"


I believe this may be true, as some years back, when I was in Porto, Portugal and visiting a Cathedral Library, I was haltd by a priest, who could only speak in Potuguese to be told about Guru Gobind Singh.I could make out some of the words--- something about India and Madras and a Doctor.Unfortunately, we could not find any fluent English speaker, who could translate.The man seemed to understand about Sikhs and Turbans.He then led me to a shelve which seemed to house many large volumes of old books, and took one out and kept referring to Guru Gobind Singh, Seeka , and turbans but being quite unaware and because of language problems, I did not pursue that issue, and quite forgot it.I hope someone fluent in Portuguese would explore that further.IN this case, I think there are some articles that could be extracted from the french and the Spanish and Tibetan sources as well from yester years.

The authorship of this article and other artiles on the http://satguru.weebly.com site are by Gyani Lall Singh Sangrur, a now deceased Gyani from Sangrur in Punjab. He was a contemporary of the grandfather of our long-time SPN member and mentor, Gyani Jarnail Singh Dhillon "Arshi." I am told by Gyani ji that Gyani Lall wrote many books which were forgotten, and now unearthed.

I believe that Gyani ji plans to say more later on.

What I do not understand is why Dr. Manucci, who traveled from Venice to Punjab, is referred to as an Englishman, Dr. Call. That part puzzles me.

Your account Chaan ji is also fascinating to me and worth a follow-up as you say by one who is fluent in Portuguese. Why Portugal? Yet again there is another eerie connection. The martyrdom of Guru Arjan Dev was witnessed by a Vatican representative and the record is a Portuguese source. Could this be the result of a larger Portuguese presence in India (e.g., Goa), that coincides with the lives of the Gurus? Why would these primary sources be found in Portugal?

I think I have found it, the Portuguese connection. The sources you mention may have been based on records of the Portuguese East India Company, and the history of Portuguese presence in India during the Guru's times is greater than I suspected.

First for a time-line to give context for the Portuguese presence.

Medieval India (600-1526 AD)
http://www.new-diaspora.com/INDIA/History/Indian history timeline (600-1818).htm

* 1469: Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism is born
* 1485: Saluva Narasimha Deva Raya drives out Praudha Raya ending the Sangama Dynasty
* 1486: Sher Shah Suri (original name Farid Khan) born in Sasaram
* 1490, Ahmadnagar declares independence, followed by Bijapur and Berar in the same year thus breaking up the Bahmani Sultanate.
* 1497–1499: Vasco da Gama's first voyage from Europe to India and back
* 1503: Kingdom of Kochi is taken over by the Portuguese creating the first European settlement in India..
* 1508: The Christian-Islamic power struggle, in Europe and the Middle East,spills over into the Indian Ocean as Battle of Chaul during the Portuguese-Mamluk War
* 1509: Battle of Diu marks the beginning of the dominance of the Europeans in the Asian naval theater.
* 1522: Portuguese land on the Coromandal coast

And there is a Portuguese connection to Guru Gobind Singh in addition to Dr. Marucci. A note in an article: Rewriting Sikh History Delhi University Style by Gurtej Singh

4. It is also known that the Portuguese East India Company headquartered at Agra struck a special coin to commemorate the Guru’s [ref. Guru Gobind Singh] visit to Agra.

At this link http://www.sikhspectrum.com/022008/du.htm

The Portuguese documentation must be very valuable.

And a fascinating side-note: It appears that through the period of Aurangzeb the British East India Company and the Portuguese East India company were fighting a shadow war of sorts, the British siding with Aurangzeb, and the Portuguese did not. As far back as 1604, with Akbar's persecution of Christians in Agra, the Portuguese had a long-standing animosity toward the Mughals.

I have read about Giani Lal Singh JI of Sangrur, but the writings about Guru Nanak Sahib's travels, who put them on the net.How authentic are they.Are These notes from him.They simply do not prove, without other evidence that Guru nanak Ji went as far as Montreol and Brazil.

Some years ago, there was a trend in Malaysia to associate names of towns in Malaysia with Sikhs, without any historical evidence.This was floated by a reknowned Sikh historian.For Example, Mersing was associated to a Mehar Singh;Jasing to Jai Singh, Sik , a small town in Kedah state to Sikh;While Kerpan another town nearby was associated with Kirpan and I am sure there were a few others found in such circumstances.

Kangar, the capital of the small Perlis state was said to originate from kanga, as one of the big names of the town and property in the state was owned by a Dr Jagat Singh, who the raja of Perlis was in debt to as well.

However, clearly there was no historical evidence that these towns were indeed associated with any or one Sikh.

Likewise, I had read numerous times that Nanking was associated with Guru Nanak,but the real evidence tells that the name happens to be only a distant coincidence and sounds similar to Nanak; but has no link to the Nanak we talk of.In fact the town appears to be in existence almost 1000 years before Guru Nanak Ji's times.

The Sikh history as written is very much questionable as it was based on simple muslim and hindu views.No doubt a large part of factual history still lies in the Portuguese, Dutch, Tibetan, Sikkimi and Iranian sources that has not been fully explored.

What concerns me is the free availability of so called history that has no factual base or evidence.Some current authors who are revered by some, are also seriously questioned for misrepresenting and making holes in the acceptable Sikh history quietly under the banner of liberated and rewriting new Sikh history.But these same chaps are seriously opposed by reputable Sikhs and organisations currently.

May, I also point out that such similar web sites and information is also available from Nidhan Singh Alam who pursues the Nirankari view that Guru Gobind Singh Ji survived as Baba Balak Singh beyond the years generally accepted and in the regin of Guru Granth sahib.

I am not claiming to be well read but I do read widely, even I was jolted when I first read that website and recall clearly not sleeping for almost two nights thinking and discussing these so called "revealation about Guru Gobind Singh Ji" in their very convincing site, with my wife.I was very troubled for a few days, thinking about it, even though and forgive my intolerance of loudly irrelevant opinions, I have seen most.

Chaan ji

At some point Gyani Jarnail Singh will shed more light on the web site, and Gyani Lall Singh too..

This particular article doesn't seem to gravitate toward fiction. The primary sources are neither Muslim nor Hindu. Don't you agree it should be judged on its own merits?

I have been finding nuggets that are linking Guru Gobind Singh to a much broader political backdrop than is typically portrayed on the Internet. Usually we read only of Sikhs and Mughals as actors at war. But now something else is opening up. European interests it appears had a hand in dealing some of the cards Guru Gobind Singh had to play. There was a Portuguese connection, as Guru Gobind Singh was in Agra in July of 1707, and apparently the Portuguese were aware of his importance in the balance of power to the north. They struck a coin in his honor.

The article raises many questions about the politics of succession in northern India and the extent to which Guru Gobind Singh, and the Sikhs for that matter, were to be considered either an important and dangerous enemy or potentially an ally, in relation to Portuguese economic interests, in relation to the political stability of Bahadur Shah, and possibly some other players in and about India at that time.

SPN Ji, I am not at all in disagreement with your opinion, about the european element in Sikh history.I have always said it was never fully explored and even Western writers were contend to seeking evidence about the Sikhs from within only the Indian subcontinent,and to a lesser extent the perisan records, when writing about Sikhs.There is a lot more as I have believed for long time that needs to be unearthed from the western writings that went away with those who were in india at that time back to their homelands.

There is no doubt about that.

But let us not repeat the same mistakes that we made within moghul records and the muslims and hindus who wrote what suited them about Sikh history, and we gullibly took it all lock barrel and key and today find, we are at logger heads with our own history, in various ways.In that we have also moved away frrom the true teachings of Gurus and find ourselves battling from all angles and at all sides....for the most petty of things.

Chaan Pardesi ji

I could not agree more to the point that we are at logger heads with our own history.

There are a couple of confusing things in the original article and they seem incorrect.

From a Purtugese book, written by the same surgeon, led me the exact information.Mr. William Irvine has translated the book in English.The name of the original book is"Storia Do Mogor or Mogul India"(1653-170written by Niccolao Manucci.He was the official Surgeon of Bahadur Shah.Earlier, he was the surgeon of Dara Shikoh.The brief,but the original story will lead you many new informations.


Less exiciting was the career of Dr. Nicholas Manucci.But he was generally called by the short name of Dr. Call(1639-1717).He left Venice for East Indies at an early age of fourteen to visit the world,he himself told in the first volume of the book. Overall, he has written four volumes and gives the eye-witness account of six years of Shahjahan reign, full reign of Aurangzeb and some years of Bahadur Shah.As told you in the begining, he left his native country.

Click to expand...

First of all, if the book is written in Portuguese then there is no word called "STORIA" in it but "HISTORIA".

Secondly, Venice is in Italy not in Portugal.

Lastly, as Goa is on the west coast where Vasco da Gama landed and started his Portuguese colony under the reign of King of Portugal at that time then the name should be "Portuguese West India Company" not East.

The British East India Company was originally established in Calcutta,Bengal by the Brits as they came in the guise of merchants from the east coast of India.

Can someone clarify this confusion/discrepancy please?

Thanks

Tejwant Singh

Tejwant Singh said:

There are a couple of confusing things in the original article and they seem incorrect.



First of all if the book is written in Portuguese then there is no word called "STORIA" in it but "HISTORIA".

Secondly Venice is in Italy not in Portugal.

Lastly as Goa is in the West where Vasco da Gama landed and started his Portuguese colony under the reign of King of Portugal at that time then how the name should be Portuguese West India Company not East?

The East India Company was originally established in Calcutta,Bengal by the Brits as they came in the guise of merchants on the east side of India.

Can someone clarify this confusion/discrepancy please?

Thanks

Tejwant Singh

Click to expand...

The author was confused about some things, including whether Dr. Manucci was English.

I hope this helps somewhat to decode the discrepancies.

Goa is in the west of India. However, the West India Company was a British operation in the Caribbean. Or Western hemisphere. The Eastern companies were in the Eastern hemisphere, both Portuguese and British.

The East India Company in question (the one I referred to) is the Portuguese East India Company, not the British East India Company).

In my mind the Portuguese East India Company is the key to how mention of a book titled "Storia..." which is Italian, by Dr. Manucci who is Italian not English, and who left Venice which is in Italy not Portugal, all ends up in Portuguese archives.

I would like to make a correction here. Dr. Manucci, writing in the 17th/18th Century would have been writing in the Venetian not Italian language which explains some of the spelling differences with modern Italian.

That may have escaped Gyani Lall. I can't be sure.

The Portuguese had a serious economic interest in India, and may have sent copious records back to Lisbon. Italy had no significant political status during that era as it was wholly owned by France, Austria and the Vatican. Italy in fact did not exist. The Portuguese had been vying with the British for economic control. It was the habit of those trading companies to send notes back home to sponsors because they were also playing an important role as spies for foreign governments who had invested heavily.

BTW I have found Internet archives in Portuguese regarding Portuguese activity in India during that era. But cannot read Portuguese. You can and maybe you can help.

Full text of the Storia do Mogor

http://www.archive.org/stream/storiadomogororm01manuuoft#page/n7/mode/2up

We may have hit paydirt.

Well there are more questions. If anyone is interested in controversy surrounding Storia Do Mogor, there is plenty.

Controversy

Manucci spent almost his entire life in India. He would then send home the manuscript for "Storia do Mogor" which was lent to the French historian François Catrou in 1707. Catrou wrote another version as Histoire générale de l’empire du Mogul in 1715. The original then emerged in Berlin in 1915 and was written in three different languages. This version was translated and then published. Among those who have doubted Manucci's authenticity are the famous British historian Stanley Lane-Poole and Ali Sadiq.

There are some popular events that are so misinterpreted that it is very hard to believe in the veracity of this authors work especially his work "Storia do Mogor". Some major examples are: 1) On page 120 on this book, Manucci writes that Akbar (3rd mughal ruler) was born in Persia. It is a very well known fact that has been confirmed by many independent authors that Akbar was born in Sindh (in modern day Pakistan) and not Persia.

2) On page 122 Manucci writes about the confrontation between Chand Bibi (regent of Bijapur) and Akbar. It is mentioned by Manucci that Akbar forces defeated Chand Bibi's forces and Akbar fell in love with her and moved her to his own palace. This event is again wrongly portrayed by Manucci, Akbar forces were able to defeat Chand Bibi's forces (they lost once) but Chand Bibi was in fact killed by her own troops and never by Akbar (almost all historians agree on this).

3) Again on page 123 comes a completely flawed story about Akbar. Manucci mentioned that Akbar forces attacked Chittor fort and by deceit Akbar took 'Jaimal' a prisoner and asked his wife 'Rani Padmini' to marry Akbar and join his harem or else he will kill Jaimal. Then Manucci expounds in great detail about how Rani Padmini played a trick on Akbar and assured the release of his husband Jaimal (Jai Mall) from Akbars fort. While this event is true but it completely out of time. This event happened in early 1300 AD, almost 250 years before Akbar was born or 350 years before Manucci was born. It was Alauddin khilji, sultan (king) of Delhi at that time who attacked chittor and not Akbar. Rana Rattan Singh was husband of Padmini while Manucci writes Padmini's husband as Jaimal, it should be noted here that Jaimal was commander of Chittor forces in 1567 battle. This incident is widely recorded in Indian history through many paintings and writings and there is not even an iota of doubt that Manucci's work here is not representing history correctly.

There are numerous other incidents in this book which are completely flawed, this raises very big concerns about the veracity of Manucci's work, especially his writings about initial mughal rules Humayun, Babar and Akbar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccolao_Manucci

spnadmin said:

The author was confused about some things, including whether Dr. Manucci was English.

I hope this helps somewhat to decode the discrepancies.

Goa is in the west of India. However, the West India Company was a British operation in the Caribbean. Or Western hemisphere. The Eastern companies were in the Eastern hemisphere, both Portuguese and British.

The East India Company in question (the one I referred to) is the Portuguese East India Company, not the British East India Company).

In my mind the Portuguese East India Company is the key to how mention of a book titled "Storia..." which is Italian, by Dr. Manucci who is Italian not English, and who left Venice which is in Italy not Portugal, all ends up in Portuguese archives.

That may have escaped Gyani Lall. I can't be sure.

The Portuguese had a serious economic interest in India, and may have sent copious records back to Lisbon. Italy had no significant political status during that era as it was wholly owned by France, Austria and the Vatican. Italy in fact did not exist. The Portuguese had been vying with the British for economic control. It was the habit of those trading companies to send notes back home to sponsors because they were also playing an important role as spies for foreign governments who had invested heavily.

BTW I have found Internet archives in Portuguese regarding Portuguese activity in India during that era. But cannot read Portuguese. You can and maybe you can help.

Click to expand...

Spnadmin ji,

Guru Fateh.

You are right that there was no place called Italy then but there was the Republic of Venice which dominated the trade routes between Europe and Asia. The author seems confused as the information was found in the Portuguese archives.

One thing worth noticing is that Portugal put its stamp on India long before the British and stayed longer till 1954 when the Indian Armed forces kicked them out, hence Goa became part of India.

The Portuguese were great traders. In process to keep the lucrative spice route to India open, and also grab the riches from Africa, they colonised Mozambique on the east coast and Angola on the west in Africa which became important ports for Portugal to repair their ships and also wait for the monsoons. Angola also had many riches like Gold and diamonds.

Please post the URL in Portuguese you have found and I will translate it and post it here.

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh

Tejwant ji

You have your life's work cut out for you (LOL) another life's work perhaps! Here is the link. It is not to an article but to a collection of articles.

Portuguese in India document collections

http://www.zum.de/whkmla/region/india/xpindia.html

You need to scroll down to the section on External Files which are internet documents.

Tejwant Ji writes;-Lastly, as Goa is on the west coast where Vasco da Gama landed and started his Portuguese colony under the reign of King of Portugal at that time then the name should be "Portuguese West India Company" not East.

I would assert that is incorrect.

There was a Portuguese East India Company before the brits.This company traded with NOT ONLY with INDIA, but Sumatra, Malacca in Malaysia,[Malacca was dutch initially, then the Portugese took over, before finally the Brits]and Macau in China, together with what is currently called Leste,[ Portuguese East Timor].

Portugal also had a hold along the east coast of India in what is Pondicherry, that the Dutch and later French took control of.

There was also a Dutch East Indies Company, that traded mainly with Malacca for a short period and then subsequently controlled the trade in what is currently Indonesia.

However, the most prominent was the later British East Indian company.The word "east" is not to indicate that it was started in the east, but that THE TRADE was with the east.The Brits originally landed at Madras,which is in South India, current Tamilnadu.


The statement is incorrect again when it is said ..." One thing worth noticing is that Portugal put its stamp on India long before the British and stayed longer till 1954 when the Indian Armed forces kicked them out, hence Goa became part of India."

The Dutch had landed in india before any other, but were ousted from Pondicherry by the french.They also had one small settlement on the west Coast, Anjivdiv,The Portuguese ousted them from there when they took over Daman, Diu and Goa.

Brigadier Sagat Singh JI accepting the seal of surrender from the portugese General In charge Portugese Armed Forces, Daman, Diu & Goa teritories.


The Portuguese were kicked out of India finally in 1961 NOT 1954, when India launched Operation Vijay for the liberation of Goa.The beleagured Portugese Forces, and their General surrended to a Sikh Brigadier Sagat Singh , who led his Sikh parachute brigade into the City of Goa.

There were a number of other WEST INDIES COMPANIES dealing with the west Indies islands and the colonial masters such as the French, spanish etc , but this had nothing to do with the Dutch east indies or east India company, or the portugese east India company.

Chaan Pardesi said:

The Portuguese were kicked out of India finally in 1963 NOT 1954, when India launched Operation Vijay for the liberation of Goa.The beleagured Portugese Forces, and their General surrended to a Sikh Brigadier Sagat Singh , who led his parachute brigade into the City of Goa.

Click to expand...

Chaan Pardesi ji

Many thanks for correcting an error of fact which I have noted above. And also for enlarging our understanding of the scope of Portuguese influence in South Asia, including India.

I believe I have already resolved questions about the East versus West India companies in an earlier comment.

This helps me (and perhaps others) grasp the extent to which the Portuguese had an interest in the political affairs of the region for generations, including the political context in which our Gurus lived. Perhaps we could talk more, move in the direction of exploring the Mughal political scene on the subcontinent at that time.

The statement is incorrect again when it is said ..." One thing worth noticing is that Portugal put its stamp on India long before the British...

The Dutch had landed in india before any other, but were ousted from Pondicherry by the french.They also had one small settlement on the west Coast, Anjivdiv,The Portuguese ousted them from there when they took over Daman, Diu and Goa.

Click to expand...

Although Chaan Pardesi ji's knowledge is commendable, however, it is interesting to notice that he does not see any difference between the British and the Dutch.

Tejwant Singh said:

....however, it is interesting to notice that he does not see any difference between the British and the Dutch.

Click to expand...

Tejwant Ji,

Please qualify your statement.The current line is rather blend, unintersting in itself and bold, or is it simply meant to lead nowhere?

For the information, we know where the Dutch come from; just in case some doubt exists, it is Holland or Netherlands[Nederlaands in their language] and their empires and where the Brits come from and their empires; so how what is there that does not allow to differentiate them between each other?

For information the major colonial power in Sout East Asia were the Dutch who ruled over entire Indonesia, an area far bigger then the british colonies of Burma, Malaya , Singapore and British North Borneo put together[ in South East Asia.]

For the attention of all, I have a name and it is Gurcharan Singh, which I rather be addressed as; I do end my mails, with my name attached at the end.

Thank you.

Chaan Pardesi said:

Tejwant Ji,

Please qualify your statement.The current line is rather blend, unintersting in itself and bold, or is it simply meant to lead nowhere?

For the information, we know where the Dutch come from; just in case some doubt exists, it is Holland or Netherlands[Nederlaands in their language] and their empires and where the Brits come from and their empires; so how what is there that does not allow to differentiate them between each other?

For information the major colonial power in Sout East Asia were the Dutch who ruled over entire Indonesia, an area far bigger then the british colonies of Burma, Malaya , Singapore and British North Borneo put together[ in South East Asia.]

For the attention of all, I have a name and it is Gurcharan Singh, which I rather be addressed as; I do end my mails, with my name attached at the end.

Thank you.

Click to expand...

Chaan Pardesi ji,

Guru fateh.

Please read my original post again with which you found faults, perhaps a bit slowly this time and you will understand what I wrote.

You are an intelligent person. There is no doubt that you understand the difference between the Dutch, whom by the way I never mentioned in the post and the British, whom I did mention.

If you need further help, please do not hesitate to ask.

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh

<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=1><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset" class=alt2>Originally Posted by Tejwant Singh
[[....however, it is interesting to notice that he does not see any difference between the British and the Dutch.


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Tejwant Ji,

Please qualify your statement.The current line is rather blend, uninteresting in itself and bold, or is it simply meant to lead nowhere?]]


Dear Tejwant Ji ,



As your reply is devoid of any substantive content in response to my question,I will spare myself re-reading again;what you wrote as it would be waste of time.. but will repeat again what I asked as result of your statement which you appear to have sidestepped, in answering now..I am also surprised that you claim to have NOT mentioned it???????Are you sure?????

YOU suggested I "do not see any difference between the Dutch and the English", I asked you to qualify that.

Never mind, you may not want to reply to that.But please spare me any of your "intelligence ideation".God has given that same to all.It is how one taps into it.BUT that is not the issue at discussion; and you dont want to expand on what you said ...so we will call it quits on that subject and perhaps explore THE issues as suggested by SPNadmin JI.

Gurfateh,

GURCHARAN SINGH< KULIM