Audio: Bhai Joginder Singh Ji Riar – Na Daron Ar Sau Jab Jaye Larhon
COMMENTS on Malaysian Gurdwaras Council (MGC) letter dated 20-Mar-2017 (Ref: MGC/OFF/282/05(07/17) addressed to “President, Gurdwara Sahib” in which the MGC made certain claims related to main headings
- Global Sikh Council (GSC) is a respectable International Sikh Organisation
- False Allegation of Panth Dokhi.
A) Objectives of the GSC
The extract from the GSC website Home Page shows the objectives of the GSC.
Fig 1: Objectives of GSC
The objectives “2. to 5.” listed by MGC seem to match objectives “B to E” of the GSC. However the objective “1” by MGC is very different to that of “A” of the GSC.
For objective 1, the GSC states “To globally promote the teaching of Sri Guru Nanak …” while MGC claims the GSC states “To accept Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji (the shabad contained in it) as the only living Guru of the Sikhs”. These two objectives do not seem to give the same message. The GSC does not mention Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji (SGGS Ji) nor does it refer to LIVING GURU.
What is the stand of GSC on the concept of LIVING GURU espoused in the Sikh Faith? This is not mentioned in the objective by GSC on its home page.
We must look elsewhere for the answer. It is highlighted that the statement by Lord Indarjit Singh, one of the LEADING FIGURES in GSC (as claimed by MGC) stated in Asia Samachar of 15-Jan-2017 (LINK A) that
The metaphor ‘living Guru’ emphasises the importance of the Guru Granth Sahib to Sikhs. Unfortunately, as we see in some gurdwaras, some Sikhs take this too literally. I think it is better to describe it as the embodiment of the Gurus’ teachings and the SOLE perpetual guidance for all Sikhs. We emphasise the importance of the Guru Granth Sahib every time we conclude the Ardas with: ‘Saab Sikhan ku hukum ha Guru Manio Granth.’
The word metaphor means “A figure of speech in which an expression is used to refer to something that it does not literally denote in order to suggest a similarity”. This clearly means that Lord Singh DOES NOT ACCEPT the concept of LIVING GURU as espoused in the Sikh Faith. The phrase “SAAB SIKHAN KU HUKUM HA GURU MANIO GRANTH” is conveniently quoted ignoring the following phrase “Guru Granth Ji Manio PARGAT GURAN DE DEH” which clearly and unequivocally states that Sikhs must accept that Guru Granth as MANIFESTED EMBODIMENT of our GURUS. This phrase does NOT SUGGEST even remotely that LIVING GURU means a METAPHOR.
The statement “The metaphor ‘living Guru …”, made over the media internationally, by a leading figure of GSC, cannot be claimed to be personal. The belief that LIVING GURU IS A METAPHOR is most likely built into the psyche of the person making such a statement and expected to ooze into all activities the person is involved in.
The above analysis questions whether GSC accepts the SGGS Ji as a LIVING GURU.
The SGGS Ji appears more to be a GUIDE BOOK (GRANTH) implied by the statement “guidance for all Sikhs” by Lord Singh.
Is the MGC trying to MISLEAD THE ADRESEES of the letter by claiming that GSC believes in the concept of LIVING GURU?
B) Gur Vichar mischievously written that GSC is Panth Dokhi
The Gurmatta from Akal Takht issued on 6 June 2008 clearly and unequivocally states that the Dasam Granth is an inseparable part of Sikh History and Literature and the entire Sikh Panth is to accept the Dasam Granth in addition to the SGGS Ji which is also our LIVING GURU.
The call for “Ek Granth” meaning ONLY ONE GRANTH, implies rejecting any other Granth and this includes the Dasam Granth?
To reject the Dasam Granth means to go against the Akal Takht Gurmatta which is an edict to the Panth. Aren’t they going against the Panth i.e. “Panth Virodhi”? Aren’t they inimical to the Panth i.e. “Panth Dokhi”? What else can one decipher from this?
Please refer LINK B for more information.
C) SGPC resolution No.36672 passed on 3-08-1973, says that “Chritro Pakhyan” that is inscribed in DG (Bachittar Natak) is not Dashmesh Bani
Firstly that SGPC can pass a resolution (Hukamnama) for the entire Sikh Panth is HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE. According to Wikipaedia and Encyclopaedia of Sikhism (Ed Harbans Singh by Punjabi Uni Patiala) “The Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (or SGPC) is an organization in India responsible for the management of Gurdwaras, Sikh places of worship IN THREE STATES OF PUNJAB, HARYANA, AND HIMACHAL PRADESH AND UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH. The jurisdiction of SGPC does net even cover the whole of India, let alone the world.
Secondly the role of SGPC according to Wikipaedia is “The SGPC manages the security, financial, facility maintenance and religious aspects of Gurdwaras as well as keeping archaeologically rare and sacred artifacts, including weapons, clothes, books and writings of the Sikh Gurus”. It is pointed out that this role applies only to Gurdwaras in three states of Punjab, Haryana, and Himachal Pradesh and Union Territory of Chandigarh. The role of passing Hukamnana for the Sikh Panth is NOT EVEN REMOTELY the role of SGPC.
Thirdly this document is claimed to be a false document. See article at LINK C.
Another point to note is that MGC is referring to the Dasam Granth as Bachittar Natak. Prof Inderjeet of Khalsa College states that use of Bachitar Natak to refer to Dasam Granth is incorrect. Bachitar Natak is only one of the compositions in Dasam Granth which has 43 pages (ਪੰਨੇ). See Link D.
What is the intent of MGC making this statement? Is it not to denigrate the Dasam Granth and hence Guru Gobind Singh whose composition the Dasam Granth is?
The Sangat will wisely judge and act accordingly.
D) The GSC abides by the Rehat Maryada
The GSC espouses Ek Granth. This means as stated earlier, rejection of Dasam Granth. The Akal Takht Sikh Rehat Maryada (SRM) does not reject Dasam Granth. How can GSC claim to follow the Akal Takht Sikh Rehat Maryada?
E) MGC, KDM, SNSM, Tatt Khalsa Diwan Selangor, Sant Sohan Singh Ji Melaka Memorial Society Malaysia and Sikh religious scholars on 7th August 2016, amongst others, the resolution which rejected that GSC is Panth Dokhi was passed
As stated above in (B) the rejection of Dasam Granth is in contravention of the Akal Takht Gurmatta to the Panth. The whole Sikh Panth is to abide by this edict of the Akal Takht. What does the rejection of Akal Takht Gurmatta imply?
F) False news that Raagi Darshan Singh is attending a conference
Note: Raagi Darshan has been ex-commnicated from the Sikh Panth for preaching against the edicts from Akal Takht and the SRM.
It is interesting to note that MGC is making an issue in a statement by Niketen on a facebook posting (which has since been removed) when IT PAID NO HEED TO e.g. the following misleading information
- Dr Harjinder Dilgeer is speaker at a camp (Fig 2) whence he did not attend and
- claiming that Bibi Kiranjot Kaur as DR Kiranjot Kaur (see Fig 3) – this was brought to the attention of Autar Singh’s on his facebook page by Harnaak Singh (see LINK E).
Fig 2: Dr Harjinder Dilgeer conducting Leadership camp
Fig 3: Passing Bibi Kiranjot Kaur as Dr Kiranjot Kaur
Further, noting that the MGC constitution states that it is to uphold the practice of Sikh Religion in accordance with the established Sikh Practices and Rehat Maryada (this means upholding the edicts of the Takhts and the Sikh Rehat Maryada), MGC did not act when various Sikh Organisation in Malaysia were bringing Preachers (Harjinder Dilgeer see Fig 2 and Inder Ghagga see Fig 4) who have had a history of preachings not in congruence with the edicts of Akal Takht as well as the SRM and established Sikh Practices. Why did MGC not act to prevent such activities which are against the objectives of the MGC?
Fig 4: Programs at Gurdwaras
G) SGPC (Highest Sikh Religious Authority), has now issued a statement confirming that concept of “Ek Granth Ek Panth” is rooted in Sikhi
Firstly as far as it is known the Highest Religious Authority for the Sikh Panth are the Five Takhts. This is what the SRM states. How can MGC declare that SGPC the Highest Religious Authority?
If SGPC is stating that Ek Granth is rooted in Sikhi then it is going against the Akaal Takht Gurmatta (see (B) above).
Since the SRM states that the Takhts are the Highest Religious Authority for the Sikh Panth, therefore SGPC statement is ill conceived and untrue. The statement by SGPC appears to be “anti religious” or “anti Panthic”.
Therefore the statement by MGC in its conclusion
Thus, going by SGPC statement, these divisive elements who have no respect of Darbar Sahib and make false allegations as above, are actually “anti religious” and Panth Dokhi themselves.
is shown to be FALSE based on the analysis above.
H) Divisive elements who have no respect for Darbar Sahib
One final point to clarify is the of MGC statement “these divisive elements who have no respect for Darbar Sahib” most likely refers to the Sangat protest at Gurdwara Sahib Greentown Ipoh and Gurdwara Sahib Seremban. At both these Gurdwaras a speaker who have had a history of preachings against the edicts of Akal Takht as well as the SRM and established Sikh Practices was in attendance for the lecture. Also the allegation against Niketen is relevant here.
Akal Takht Mata No 2 dated 27-Nov-2006 sanctions the use of appropriate means to respond to false preachings, based on historical facts and in light of Gurmat. The English translation of this mata is give below.
At Sri Akal Takhat Sahib on Day 14 Maghar Year Nanakshahi 538 (27-11-06) in a meeting of five Singh Sahiban.
Mata No: 2
Some mischievous miscreants are carrying out misleading parchar pertaining to Dasam Granth via media, while those scholars who are loyal to Guru Panth are silent (due to their) vigilant obediance of Sri Akal Takhat’s Instructions dated 14 May 2000, The five Singh Sahibans keeping in mind the issues and after extensive deliberation have decided that, those scholars who are loyal to Guru Panth to appropriately respond to those mischievous miscreants’ false parchar, based on historical facts and and in light of Gurmat.
In these two Gurdwara instances the response of the Sangat, according to the Akal Takht Mataa, was by means of reciting verses from Gurbani to prevent the speaker from continuing with the lecture (though the protesting Sangat was locked out of the Gurdwara in Seremban because the function was deemed private). As for the case of Niketen, Niketan must have heard news about Ragi Darshan coming to Malaysia (albeit claimed false by MGC), and acted in line with the Akal Takht Mata to inform the Sangat accordingly.
The allegation by MGC is therefore FALSE.
All the allegations by the MGC have been shown to be false. Further a tinge of biasness is apparent in that MGC’s statements in that MGC points out faults in some but turns a blind eye to others (who seem to be propagating activities which are not in line with the edicts of Akal Takht and the SRM).
It appears that MGC is condoning those who are acting against the edicts of Akal Takht and SRM.