Controversy Surrounding Prof Darshan Singh Ji

[spnadmin]

Another undecided/unknown factor till date. Since, nowhere it has been confirmed which of the particular five banis were their at the time of Khande kee pahul By GGS jee. Once, I had visited a gurudwara Sahib in Bhatinda distt. this place is controlled by Bhai Ghaniya jees generations (Sewa Panthi). I was able to join for the Nitnem there in the morning which starts at 2 am. The strange thing was Jaap Sahib was replaced by Sukhmani Sahib in the nitnem. Upon checking with Sant Kahan Singh, the dera cheif there, he confirmed it was their since Bhai Ghaniya jees time and before.

Hardip ji, This is entirely understandable!

The Sewa Panthi, you probably already know this, are in the original sampardaya or traditions that predate the creation of the Khalsa Panth in 1708 by Dasam Pita. Therefore their nitnem draws from the banee of earlier Guru's, Nanak 1 through Nanak 5, as found in the Aad Granth.
Sewa Panthi are staying within their historic tradition. The Sewa Panthi did not choose Sukhmani Sahib over other prayers. Sukhmani Sahib did not replace Jaap Sahib; rather it continued as part of the Sewa Panthi tradition from the beginning. Jaap Sahib never was part of that tradition.

I do not know if any other religious book has parkash with the Aad Granth among the Sewa Panthi. However, Bhai Khanaiya had chelas who were Muslims. Sewa Panthi consider the Koran a holy book and draw inspiration from it. In each of the sampardayas the rehats and the nitnem are different, as are the religious books that share darshan with Sri Guru Granth Sahib.

The uproar in these past few years, leading to the many charges made of heresy and blasphemy, stem from a different place. They stem from grave challenges to whether Dasam Granth has any authentic connection at all to Sri Guru Gobind Singh.

The current controversies, in Finland over Ardaas, in India and the Diaspora over whether Nitnem will change, etc. -- I personally do not see this as a matter of whether Sikhs have options, or whether choices can/cannot be freely made. They raise questions that are very different from questions regarding the practices of the sampardayas. Few question the authenticity of Aad Granth, in large part because of the pains taken by Guru Arjan Dev. He invented a tamper-proof system for binding the shabads of the Aad Granth together. The Granth was sealed. There are many concurrent records that Guru Gobind Singh declared the Aad Granth as Guru Granth.

And the emotions and the venom which surround the challenges to Professor Darshan Singh? There are many unscrupulous and politically motivated players in this drama, whose only motivation is to throw their lot with Badal and SGPC. But for others, the challenges raised to the Nitnem are painful, a grave concern. We have to remember, as you point out, that the record is not at all clear regarding authorship of these prayers, and gets cloudier with each chapter in this story. And so does the tension that surrounds it.

 

[Gyani Jarnail Singh]

.Here is Mail from the most respected Elder Manmohan Singh baveja Ji of Australia..who writes...

Akal Takhat and its authority
Posted by: "bavejamsingh" bavejams@yahoo.com bavejamsingh
Mon Dec 7, 2009 1:20 am (PST)

Dear All,

A few months ago, I posted a question ...... as to how did or from where did
Akal Takhat derivie
its authority?

Not a single person was able to reply.

I am posing that question again. Unless we can establish that,Jathedar of
Akal Takhat has the absolute authority to give unilateral ruling on all Sikh
affairs, anything Akal Takhat Jathedar says or dictates is irrelevent.

Akal Takhat had no authority from Guru Sahiban. In fact there was no Akal
Takhat in Guru Sahiban's time. Sixth Guru Sahib started sitting on a
platform opposite Sri Harmander Sahib and declared that as his Takhat or
seat of power to challenge Mogul empire and from there he held his court,
recieve Sangat and declare his plans. No other Guru Sahiban ever visited
that place. For a long time, it was called Akal Bunga - not Akal Takhat.
There is no historical evidence of its being callled Akal Takhat, initially.
Earliest reference is of Maharaja Ranjit Singh arranging an appearance
before Sarabat Khalsa held at Akal Bunga, where he was given a token Tankha,
for violation of Sikh code of conduct by marrying his court dancer.

After Sri Guru Hargobind jee, it was under control of Moguls, untill Khallsa
attacked and took control. Later, the place was under control of Mahnats,
untill SGPC was established after Nakana Sahib Saka, when many Sikhs were
brutely murdered there, as they went to protest against Mahant's bad deeds.

Sikhs got control only around 1925, after passing of Gurdwara Act, which
authorised Sikhs to form SGPC by electing the management committee by
voting. It is only after that some actitivities started to create a central
authority to rule on Sikh affairs, as Sikhs were fragmanted in various
organisations.

Then, the four Gurdwaras were declared as Takhats by Sarbat Khalsa and it
was decided to make all Panthic decisions by joint decisions of 4 Jathedars,
to be announced from Akal Takhat, due to importance of Darbar Sahib and
SGPC, being a legal Sikh organisation.

Initially, the Jathedar of Akal Takhat was appointed by consultation of all
major Sikh organisations, Sants and Deras, for uniersal acceptance and
announced by Sarbat Khalsa,

Somehow, in recent past,Akal Dal politicians controling SGPC, started
appointing their own person as Jathedar of Akal Takhat. Later, SGPC even
unilaterly declared Dum Dama Sahib a 5th. Takhat, without consulting other
Jathedars out of Punjab and without even consulting Sikhs at large. The idea
was to have majority of Jathedars 3 out of total 5, under control of SGPC,
which was in turn under control of Akal Dal politicians.

Later, SGPC even starting ignoring other two Jathedars - Patna Sahib and
Hazoor Sahib and started making decisions by three Jathedars of Punjab and
two head granthis of Harmandar Sahib and Akal Takhat. This, in itself is
absolutely irregular, as never did any authority vest with these three
employed Jathdedars of SGPC and two Head Granthis. They have not even
invited other two Jathedars of Takhat Patna Sahib and Hozoor Sahib. Five
paid employees, controled by politically appointed SGPC management, have not
authority over Sikh Panth at all, other than run the Gurdwaras under SGPC.

Thus, it is time to STOP the wrought and chalange the very base of such
decision making and suxh annoncement by employees of SGPC.

SGPC is an organisation formed under Act of Indian parliament and is only
authorised to manage Gurdwaras in Punjab, as it was after 1947 partition.

I suggest, Singh Sahib Bhai Darshan Singh and Sarna jee to lodge a complaint
with Judicial commission, which overseas SGPC and also file a suite in
Indian courts of law to restrain, such unauthorised bullying by politicians,
who control SGPC.

This is flagrant abuse of trust and respect, Sikhs have been giving to Akal
Takhat, and it is time to define the system, to prevent further abuse.

Manmohan Singh
Australia

 

[spnadmin]

Gyani ji

You know that everything that Manmohan Singh ji is saying is true. He is not making any of this up. And it is not his opinion. Everything can be documented. I do not understand why there is so much bowing and scraping. The record of the jathedars has not been too clean either. This should be an open and shut case. And yes, the court should be petitioned on this for violation of due process and misfeasance.

Thanks for posting it.

 

[ballym]

Sat Sri Akal Ji,

Your reply has really hit me hard. Especially when you say - who can ex-communicate "Gobind".

It is true, who are we to pass any judgement on anybody.

So I take back my words that "The decision to Ex-communicate him was justified".

But I, as an individual, has no faith in Professor Sahib anymore. Especially after hearing the media fire link.

WGJKK, WGJKF

Just hought to share this... as you seem to be a thinking person able to see reason...
He ( Prof.) did some mistake by referring the King as Guru Gobind Singh. BUT....
Just imagine that next generation ... or say.. sixth next generation from now.... reads Dasam Granth which is by then treated as topmost granth of Sikhs.... those people would think that our gurus wrote about these matters instead of leading us on path of truth?
2. One argument given is that it is written to make the point that all this( whatever is written in those stories) is bad for us and these thing must be shunned.
Do you need to describe in details to tell your kids that you should not do this? It is like ... taking someone to brothel and then asking him /her not to come here!!!
3. By the way, why do we suddenly need Dasam Granth after all these centuries... only after we started talking seriously about separate country( I am not supporting Bhidranwale here. His hijacking of the movement did more harm than good).
4. Darshan Singh is preaching about Supremacy of Guru Granth Saahib. That message is lost in minor point of referring Guru Gobind Singh as the person in the story. His main point that promoting and equating this granth with Guru Granth Saahib will kill your religion as your next generations will not like to associate with such a religion having such unauthenticated book as their primary source of inspiration.

 

[spnadmin]

ballym ji

As of yet my own opinion of Bhindranwale has not firmed up. I am divided on this subject. But everything else you have posted is food for thought and I will be letting it settle in deep. Thanks.

 

[ballym]

The Chritro Pakhyan are supposed to be stories showing various shades of character of women . If it is so then it seems a bit wierd , because Sikhism is supposed to be equally for men & women . If shades of women's character are told then shades of men's characters are also to be told . Seems a bit demeaning to women when shades of only WOMEN'S CHARACTER are told & not men's .

It is a good eye-opener. Was it because hindu religion could not accept someone preaching equality for women in those times and made up a bunch of stories and passed it on as guru's words. It was far more easier to do this in those times. Just imagine , a pious looking person starts stating that he found writings of the guru somewhere and are very good.
Hwo could sucha precious( as many people now say) dasam Granth stay hiding until hindus felt threatened that Sikhs may have a separate state for them? prof. darshan Singh's aim is to keep our religion safe... nothing else. He may have done some silly mistakes but his main point is lost on us. that is what these people wanted. Beware!

 

[spnadmin]

Apologies for interrupting the thread. But once again ballym ji you are hitting the nail on the head.

I have first-hand proof that you are correct. After voicing support of Professor Darshan Singh, and making a few comments on the net that Chaubis Avtar and Charittarpakayn are NOT by the pen of Dasam Pita, I started to get emails telling me that I needed "male" attention.

This is part of the romance. It is so adolescent even when expressed by grey beards in their 60's -- the so-called "Dasam Granth" makes them feel young again, like the "warriors" that only the chosen can become, with all that talk of crocodiles, sword magic, horses, striking monkeys dead, licking up of blood, sneaking in and out of seamy lairs, and on and on.

The truth of Sri Guru Gobind Singh is not about any of that. Forgive me again. Guru Gobind Singh and his shaheeds were not King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table.

 

[ballym]

ballym ji

As of yet my own opinion of Bhindranwale has not firmed up. I am divided on this subject. But everything else you have posted is food for thought and I will be letting it settle in deep. Thanks.

At the cost of going a bit off topic, I would like to state that my opinion on Bhindranwale is based on following:
1. His litrary abilities.
2. His length of service which is known to public ( ... may be from 1978 to 1984)
3. His foolishness to stay in golden temple. He was a Kaayar not a martyr. Did he ever led from front?
4. He ultimately caused decimation of atleast one generation of sikhs as Government had to take action. No alternative was left.
5. I am sure that if we had or in future have a good thinking leader, our religion is safe.
People showing him as martyr just want money from illiterate sangat.
the problem is that we do not have well paid religiou teacher like Christians have.
I hope once Badal goes, his control on SGPC will fade and we may have good persons take control.

 

[gaganji]

http://ggsacademy.com/panthicvichar/dasamgranth/edict

Please listen to the Nagpur Seminar.

 

[spnadmin]

gaganji

Thanks -- And 2 hours ago I just joined up with ggsacademy - next stop is to find out how to be helpful in a concrete way.:happykaur:

 

[Jagmeet_hazursahib]

Dasam Granth
Dasam Granth

this is the link that proves what happened with with the people who opposed Dasham Granth.World has witnesssed that any one who opposes the guru's own baani or make derogatory comments against it will not be spared.

Dasham Granth was never challenged untill the last decade.Even at the time of Maharaja Ranjit singh ji ,it was recited without any conflicts.then suddenly some one comes out and challenges it and an issue is created.there was no issue regarding the authenticity of Dasham Granth Sahib untill 2000 or the last decade which signifies or proves that the sikh people accepted Dasham Granth as Guruji's own work but the controversy starts when a sikh starts speaking ill of it.

 

[Jagmeet_hazursahib]

Yes all sikhs do or should consider Sri Guru Granth Sahib as their eternal Guru but the Dassam Granth also plays an integral role in the Sikh faith. A considerable portion of the nitnam Bani is from the Dassam Granth.

All of the old Taksals or Jathebandi's have shown utmost respect to Dassam Granth. A Sikh will be incomplete without the Bani of the dassam Granth!

Refuting the supremacy of the Dassam Granth is one issue but to claim that our own Guru was characterless is totally unacceptable!

Where do we draw the line with preachers? If pds can make this claim then what other bogus claims will be made?

It's quite ironic that the Bani of Dassam Granth gave pds a healthy income via kirtan but now he considers it worthless!

What are preachers such as pds trying to achieve by creating more schisms in the Panth?

We all say that SGGS is our Guru but does not SGGS tell us to unite rather than divide?

The older Taksals and Jathebandi's have kept the maryada of Guru Ji intact since Guru Ji's time. The new preachers seem to claim that anything other than their own knowledge is worthless!

Have you ever seen these preachers dong sewa in a Gurdwara anywhere such as dusting sheets,cleaning soes,preparing and serving langar,or general cleaning? If not then these are the fundamental principles of becomng a Sikh.

Before making any judgements on the Dassam Granth I would urge you to listen to the entire SGGS Katha by Takhur Singh Patiala. You can download this free of charge at <!-- m -->http://www.gurbaniupdesh.org<!-- m -->

 

[Admin]

A considerable portion of the nitnam Bani is from the Dassam Granth.

Gurfateh Jagmeet Singh Ji!

This argument is used in every discussion on this topic but this is quite a flawed argument simply because so-called Dasam Granth in its present form was complied only in 1903 by Sodhak Committee setup under the influence and pressure of the treacherous regime of British Imperialists. British, who had come to India to plunder whatever was leftover in India. And we very conveniently tend to forget that these British imperialist were known for their divide and rule policy? They have given us the partition of 1947, they split the land of Sikh Gurus, Punjab into two nations, which can now never be enjoined. And still we believe that whatever this Sodhak Committee did was alright? Are we not fooling ourselves here?

I see no reason as to why would shrewd British would try to resurrect Sikh religion, which they had successfully subdued and put well into the dumps? Afterall, Sikhs had been their biggest enemies and in between them they fought three epic wars and so British knew the prowess of Sikhs. Then, why would they allow the Sikh faith to gain momentum which was going to challenge them eventually? The only sane thing that they could have done to Sikhs was to demolish the basics of Sikh Panth in totally so that Sikhs could never recover!

So, coming back to the topic originally, Panth's approved Nitnem Banies were never really part of so-called Dasam Granth. To make a claim that Nitnem Banies were a part of so-called Dasam Granth is a total mis-information.

As a matter of fact, quite shockingly, Zafarnama, was also not part of the so-called Dasam Granth originally. It was only included by the Sodhak Committee in 1903, in the so-called Dasam Granth after there were verifiable third party Persian historical evidences found that confirmed that Guru Gobind Singh ji indeed authored Zafarnama Himself.

One more point that needs consideration here is, and you might not be aware, is that there were about 34 variations of so called Dasam Granth available with the Sodhak Committee in 1903 to pick and choose from and 'decide' which were the hand written Banies by the Tenth Master.

Quite, interestingly, the following seven compositions were removed from existing compilations:

1. Sahansar Sukhmana
2. Vaar Malkauns
3. Vaar Bhagautee Kee
4. Sri Bhagwant Gita Bhaksha Guru Gobind Singh Kirat
5. Raag Asa and Raag Sorath Pt. 10
6. Asfotak Kabits Majh Pt. 10
7. Chakka Bhagautee Ka

It seems these compositions were randomly removed from the so-called Dasam Granth in such a way so as to make the page count of the Dasam Granth (1428 pages) round about similar to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji (1430 pages), out only Guru!

The following questions have been raised time and again:

• Why above seven poetic compilations were removed from Dasam Granth by the Sodhak Committee, which was formed under the direct influence and control of British imperialists.

• Who gave these member of Sodhak Committee an authority to decide which is Guru's bani and which is not? Don't you think its like putting words in the mouth of the Guru?

There is more to the puzzle than putting a blanket cover the whole issue.

Prof. Darshan Singh is not the first person ever to question the authenticity of so-called Dasam Granth and will not be the last either if these core questions are not addressed to the satisfaction of Sikh Panth.

Bhul Chuk Maaf
Gurfateh

 

[BhagatSingh]

Aman Singh ji,
If the most of the Nitnem banis are not part of the Dasam Granth, where are they coming from?
I think that argument has less to do with Dasam Granth and more to do with the authenticity of the Banis, and the question: Why non-SGGS writings are in nitnem?

 

[Bmandur]

Re: Prof Darshan Singh Ji Ragi

Prof. Darshan Singh was myfavorite

Gurfateh Ranghi JI

Do not include what others says or said.<FONT color=black>You tell us what you think after reading the Dasam Granth JI and Chritropkhayan.<?"urn:

at knowledge he has no one can not explain the way Prof Darshan JI does"
Thank you

 

[Bmandur]

[


The following questions have been raised time and again:

• Why above seven poetic compilations were removed from Dasam Granth by the Sodhak Committee, which was formed under the direct influence and control of British imperialists.

• Who gave these member of Sodhak Committee an authority to decide which is Guru's bani and which is not? Don't you think its like putting words in the mouth of the Guru?

There is more to the puzzle than putting a blanket cover the whole issue.

Prof. Darshan Singh is not the first person ever to question the authenticity of so-called Dasam Granth and will not be the last either if these core questions are not addressed to the satisfaction of Sikh Panth.

Aman Singh ji you are right 101%

Akal Takhat has to provide us an answer on those quoestion
Bhul CHuk Maaf
BMandur

 

[Bmandur]

Yes all sikhs do or should consider

Have you ever seen these preachers dong sewa in a Gurdwara anywhere such as dusting sheets,cleaning soes,preparing and serving langar,or general cleaning? If not then these are the fundamental principles of becomng a Sikh.

YES I HAVE SEEN Preachers HERE IN CANADA ONTARIO

 

[Bmandur]

the facts

professor darshan singh, a former jathedar of the akal takht, has for several decades dazzled sikhs around the world with his inspiring kirtan and erudite discourses on gurbani.

He has also been quite courageous, forthright and outspoken about the anti-sikh and anti-sikhi goings-on in india and punjab since 1984.

Through the last two decades, his integrity has been attacked by a handful over and over again. Through time, the allegations have been found to be wild and baseless.

The most recent one is over his views on the dasam granth. He is now being accused of making derogatory remarks about guru gobind singh!
　
questions to ponder -


to those who have known him these past few decades through his kirtan and discourse, do you think it is reasonable to believe, or at all feasible, that prof. Darshan singh would make derogatory remarks about guru gobind singh or say anything which could in anyway be designed to be hurtful to his memory?


- why has he been the focal point of repeated and relentless attacks?

- even if we disagree with his views on any subject, is it right for any of us to attack him personally and accuse him of being an "enemy of sikhi"?

- how should the community deal with such allegations against its highly respected elders?

jeo singh sahib jeo

 

[roopsidhu]

SSA,
Very good posts by Bmandur ji,
I wonder that the persons writing in favour of DG are ignorant or motivated by anti-sikh elements. The facts about charitropakhian are so clear even a common man can reach to conclusion easily. The ones who are not ready to understand are not willing to understand purposely.
I can not understand another thing happening in these threads. How come that some one appriciate one post and again appriciate the next post also which is totally contradictory to the earlier post. If one person is appriciating both posts which contradict each other, what we should understansd from it.
May be I could not understood the phenomenone. If some one can explain it please.
Roopsidhu

 

[spnadmin]

roopsidkhu ji

In reaction to your comment that some points of appreciation in this thread were contradictory: I went back a few pages and re-read some of the comments. I did not see too many instances of that contradiction.

Some remarks may have seemed at opposites but were not so much at odds but just about this or that different part of the controversy. So that might make it look as if some people were appreciating the contradictory posts. This may explain. The thread continued for several pages over an extended period during the height of the controversy regarding the "excommunication" of Professor Darshan Singh. There were some shifts in attention to various aspects of that controversy. To me it looks as if a group of people, who were in basic agreement, still disagreed on one point and agreed on the others. Thus their pattern was not uniform in expressing "Thanks" or appreciation. It is hard to reconstruct what people may have meant over a stretch of time.