Sri Dasam Granth kirtan at Harmandir Sahib by Chardi Kala Jatha

by Harnaak Singh

Introduction

Sangat Ji and Mr Jagir

In this posting we will discuss Jagir Singh’s (MGC) response dated 27-04-2017 (see attached PDF file) to Datuk Sucha Singh’s interview posted in three parts (30-03-2017 Link A, 31-03-2017 Link B and 01-04-2017 Link C respectively) on Gurvichar.

Essentially Datuk Sucha Singh has condemned mainly

• the banning of recitation of Dasam Granth Bani by Jagir (President of MGC) in the Malaysian Gurdwaras,
• contravening the constitution of MGC by Jagir and his cohorts, AND
• the declaration that the Takhats are in the transgression of the Sikh Rehat Maryada (SRM).

In the following the comments by Mr Jagir Singh in his letter are in brown text and numbered.  My response is in black text.  Highlighting of parts may be in other colours.

1. Jagir stated “… an apology is hereby tendered to Sanggat for this reply, as the time should be better spent in Guru Ki Sewa instead of engaging in such an exchange.  The MGC here is only exercising its right of reply, otherwise falsehood will triumph. …”.

Jagir’s “apology”, actually “fauxpology” or “mere lip service” is a cleverly crafted political statement, to garner support from the Sangat.  He is giving an impression that he is “very busy” in Guru Ki Sewa, but is forced to a right of reply to clarify falsehood.

The first word that comes to mind is “hypocrite”.  This statement by Jagir appears highly hypocritical.  Let me explain why.

I had written an email dated 19-Sept-2016 to “Gurdwara Boards East Africa & other Sikhs” in relation to a letter to them by Lord Singh on Dasam Granth.  See extract in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Email to Gurdwara Boards East Africa 

Jagir and his cohorts had the time to spend in making an 18 page response via email dated 23-Sept-2016 to this email/letter of mine.  The email which was sent by Jagir/MGC is shown in Figure 2. See Link D for the complete Jagir/MGC response. This correspondence had nothing to do with MGC. I expected a response from the Gurdwara Boards East Africa.  But, however Jagir/MGC prepared a response to me.  I was quite surprised to receive this response from MGC.

FOR A LOCAL ISSUE HIGHLIGHTED BY DATUK SUCHA SINGH a member of the Sangat of Malaysia, Jagir CONSIDERS IT A WASTE OF TIME but is more than happy to respond on behalf of Gurdwara Boards East Africa.  Has he got his PRIORITIES RIGHT?  It does not appear so.

To spend time handling a local issue is a waste of time BUT to spend time responding to matters related to another organisation that has no contribution to MGC Jagir considers important and is willing to take out time from “his very busy in Guru Ki Sewa time”.  What a joke!

In addition to this, what other non MGC related issues, which the Gurdwaras and Sangat of Malaysia are unaware of, is Jagir and his cohorts involved in and working on?

Figure 2 Email from MGC 

2. Jagir states that “In the long History of the Gurdwaras of more than 130 years no Semagam pertaining to “Dasam Granth’ has been done or organized in a Gurdwara in Malaysia, except the recent 1^st case at Gurdwara Sahib Titiwangsa from 22/04/2016 to 24/04/2016.”

Jagir is definitely ignorant of status of Katha/Kirtan in Malaysia prior to 22-04-2016

Many a Kirtan/Katha on Dasam Granth Bani has been conducted in Malaysia from the time of our forefathers.  For example Kirtan/Katha by Jassa Palla, Dharam Singh Jakhmi, Harbans Singh (Jagadhari) and many others, has been conducted or performed on the compositions in Dasam Granth (in parallel with compositions from SGGS Ji) in Gurdwaras all over Malaysia.

What is MGC talking about? First time during 22-04-2016 to 24-04-2016?  Jagir must be living in oblivion before 22-04-2016.   I suspect that Jagir has got his dates wrong.  My goodness “what quality of Guru Ki Sewa”?

3. Jagir says “after Gurtagaddi was bestowed by Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji on Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji (SGGS Ji) in 1708, the human Guruship was ended for all time and the living Guru henceforth for the Sikhs is SGGS Ji”.  Further, Jagir says “Therefore, after 1708 there can only be Darbar of SGGS Ji, who is the eternal living Guru of the Sikhs”. Jagir further quotes “ਜੋਤਿ ਓਹਾ ਜੁਗਤ ਸਾਇ ਸਹਿ ਕਾਇਆ ਫੇਰਿ ਪਲਟੀਐ” to support his claim.  Translation by Jagir is “The same Guru Nanak Joth had pervaded all succeeding Gurus with only the body forms change“.

Can Jagir point out who is questioning the Guruship of SGGS Ji?  In fact Datuk Sucha Singh has unequivocally stated that nobody, including himself, questions the Guruship of SGGS Ji.

If anyone does question the Guruship of SGGS Ji, it is Jagir and his cohorts who claim that our LIVING GURU SGGS Ji is a METAPHOR meaning SGGS Ji is not a living Guru.  Can Jagir explain how a metaphor can hold a Darbar?

Further, Jagir does not know the meaning of Darbar.  He stated that there can be only Darbar of SGGS Ji after 1708.  What nonsense is he talking about?  Maharaja Ranjit Singh (1801-1839) held Darbar during his reign.  So did his predecessor and successor.  The Maharajas in Rajastan have been holding Darbars in their own kingdoms.  Jagir should not live in his “world of fairy tale” knowledge.  About time he acquired some real true knowledge in relation to the word “Darbar” and I would go on to say also on TRUE SIKHI AND THE TRUE TEACHING OF OUR GURUS.

Jagir cannot even interpret the verse he quotes in his favour correctly.  He gives a distorted meaning for this verse.  See the discussion below.

The verse he quotes is a part of Stanza 2 of in Ramkali Ki Vaar Rai Balvand Tatha Satay Dhoom Aakhi (SGGS 966).  In the related Stanza the Bhatt is composing (the “rachna”) the Shabad about succession of Guru Nanak to Baba Lehna.  See Figure 3 for the Punjabi explanation (green) by Prof Sahib Singh Ji.

Figure 3: Professor Sahib Singh explanation of the verse 

Professor Sahib Singh explains this to mean “The Jot of Baba Lehna Ji is the Jot of Guru Nanak Dev Ji, the lifestyle of Baba Lehna Ji is the lifestyle of Guru Nanak Dev Ji”.  Only the bodily form was changed.

For God’s sake Jagir, do not show your ignorance to the Sangat.  Please do spend some time learning Gurbani before making ignorant responses.  Remember the constitution requires the PRESIDENT as well as the FOUR VICE PRESIDENTS of the MGC to be knowledgeable in Sikhi/Gurbani and be Amritdhari. I further add that the President and the Four Vice Presidents make up the PANJ PIARAY who can make decisions for MGC as has been the practice in the Sikh Panth.  Thus, the importance for the President and Vice-Presidents to be Amritdhari and knowledgeable in Sikhi/Gurbani.

This seems to be a Global problem with verses quoted by Jagir and his cohorts.  They draw FANCY conclusions from single verses and give the wrong message of the verse as well as other Gurmat Concepts to the Sangat.

I will list some examples from your cohorts

• • Amrit Vela is “the first phase of life (conception to about 1 year) – see Link E
• • The verse “Dukh Daroo Sukh Rog Payaa … ਦੁਖੁ ਦਾਰੂ ਸੁਖੁ ਰੋਗੁ ਭਇਆ …” is relegated down to a bunch of exercises – see Link F
• • Jup is not chanting, NAAM is not Name (refering to God) – see Link G.
• • SGGS Ji as a LIVING GURU is a metaphor – see Link H
• • ੴ should be pronounced Ek Oh Beant – see Link I.

4. Jagir says “There is no mention in SRM as to other parts of DG/BN”

Again MGC’s honourable president, Mr Jagir further displays his ignorance.  I draw his attention to SRM Article 3(ੳ) which lists the Ardas of the Punjabi version (Article IV 3(a) English Version).  Part of the Ardas is the composition from Chandi di Var (a composition of Guru Gobind Singh Ji).  Now DEFINITELY Mr Jagir is WRONG, in stating that only the Jaap Sahib, Sawaeeyay and Chaupai are stipulated by SRM.  In this article 3(ੳ) SRM also stipulated part of Chandi Ki Vaar.  The SRM was prepared by Gurmat learned intelligentsia Sikhs who prepared the Sikh Rehat Maryada after making a complete research on Rehat by searching the historical Commands/ Rehatnamas/ Literatures/ Manuscripts and the Customs during our Gurus time. It took them more than10 years to prepare the draft which was unanimously accepted.  Do you think the Sangat is so stupid to believe your nonsense, AND that this group, BEING FOOLS, back in the 1930s, made a mistake in accepting the PART OF CHANDI KI VAR for the Ardas stipulated in SRM?  Had they understood the Chandi Ki Vaar as YOUR MAT (or rather MAN MAT) TELLS YOU, they would have rejected it as a part of the SRM.

Further let me put it to you Jagir, that Chaupai that is a part of Nitnem as stipulated in SRM, is a part of Charitro Pakhyan.  Hence Charitro Pakhayn, a composition of Guru Gobind Singh Ji is not rejected by the SRM.  If it was rejected it would be explicitly stated in the SRM.  For example the SRM has clearly stated in Article XIII (c) the expositions should be “NOT OF A BOOK OF ANY OTHER FAITH” to mention ONE.  You should go and read and understand the SRM and you will find many exceptions are listed.  I have tried but failed to find statements that reject the compositions of Dasam Granth.  Maybe you can find this statement!

Further point to note is that “Chaupai”, the epilogue of Charitro Pakhyan, is a part of Nitnem.  The SRM was prepared by Gurmat learned intelligentsia Sikhs who prepared the Sikh Rehat Maryada after making a complete research on Rehat by searching the historical Commands/ Rehatnamas/ Literatures/ Manuscripts and the Customs during our Gurus time. It took them more than 10 years to prepare the draft which was unanimously accepted.  Do you think the Sangat is so stupid to believe your nonsense, AND that this group, BEING FOOLS, back in the 1930s, made a mistake is accepting the EPILOGUE OF CHARITRO PAKHYAN as a part of SRM?  Had they understood the Charitro Pakhyan as YOUR MAT (or rather MAN MAT) TELLS YOU, they would have rejected the Chaupai as a part of the SRM.  Come on Jagir, you can do better than that!

I must further add that, along the lines of your comments that compositions of Dasam Granth are excluded, then since the complete Anand Sahib is not referred to in the SRM (though it is one of the Banees recited at Amrit Sanchar) then it should not be recited as Nitnem?  This would not surprise me since one of your prominent cohorts rejects devoted Gursikhs reciting Sukhmani Sahib as a part of their Nitnem.

I would like to add that SRM Article V(l) of the English Version clearly states that on entering a Gurdwara one must pay “obeisance (metha tekna ਮਥਾ ਟੇਕਣਾ) before SGGS Ji”.  I have heard, though I stand corrected, that one of your prominent cohorts does not do this. What adherence to SRM are you talking about?

Now how else can SRM stipulate Chandi Ki Vaar to be recited as Ardas unless the compositions of Guru Gobind Singh are accepted Gurbani by the SRM. There you are Jagir, your ignorance again or are you now going to COOK UP ANOTHER EXCEPTION.  Jagir whatever I wrote in the article at Link J on Gurvichr very much applicable here.

5. Your comments on Katha and Kirtan from Dasam Granth refer.  In the absence of a proper structure for ease of referencing in your letter, I refer to your statements on the lower part of page 3 to the top part of page 6 (before Sub heading “PART TWO …”).  The points referred to are with related headings from your letter.

RACHNAVA/ GURMATTA-1:

You do not even  understand what the word “Rachnava” means.  It simply means “composition” of a poet (Mahan Kosh).  The whole of SGGS Ji is the “Rachna” of our Gurus, Bhagats, Bhats and Sikhs.  For GOD’S SAKE don’t play around with words to prove your misleading interpretation to the Sangat.  Sangat Ji please see through this.

Neither do you understand the phrase from the Gurmatta you quoted.  This is because you don’t understand the word RACHNA.

The Gurmatta states that as regards the compositions (rachnava) from Dasam Granth that the Panth has accepted, NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO QUESTION OR RAISE ISSUES on these.

Please read the English translation carefully.  This Gurmatta you quoted, which you do not understand properly as was intended, CLEARLY ACCEPTS DASAM GRANTH as the compositions of Guru Gobind Singh Ji and do not name it “Bachittar Natak (BN)”.

You have the audacity to term it BN.  And by doing this IT IS YOU who is not abiding by the Gurmatta -1.  I shake my head at this!

CHARITRO PAKHYAN:

Your quoted document “Resolution No. 36672” is a FAKE DOCUMENT.  See Link K for this analysis that shows that this document is FAKE.

Further evidence supporting that the above document is FAKE is that “Chaupai” the epilogue of Charitro Pakhyan is a part of Nitnem.  The SRM was prepared by Gurmat learned intelligentsia Sikhs who prepared the Sikh Rehat Maryada after making a complete research on Rehat by searching the historical Commands/ Rehatnamas/ Literatures/ Manuscripts and the Customs during our Gurus time. It took them more than 10 years to prepare the draft which was unanimously accepted.  Do you think the Sangat is so stupid to believe your nonsense, AND that this group, BEING FOOLS, back in the 1930s, made a mistake is accepting the EPILOGUE OF CHARITRO PAKHYAN as a part of SRM?  Had they understood the Charitro Pakhyan as YOUR MAT (or rather MAN MAT) TELLS YOU, they would have rejected the Chaupai as a part of the SRM.  Come on Jagir, you can do better than that!  Therefore your Resolution No. 36672 is a FAKE document as shown in Link K.

RECITING OF DASAM GRANTH BANI IN 5 TAKHATS:

Mr Jagir, you don’t even appreciate what recite means.  Let me tell you singing, discourse, discussion, reading are all a subset of reciting.  The Dasam Granth shabad was recited at Harmandir Sahib of recently.  This video is posted in this article. 

Your implied statement that “DG instils Brahmanical ways” is gross ignorance.  Article at Link L shows that Jagir “has missed that the very essence of Guru Gobind’s thought is encapsulated in the definition of Mahakaal in Akal Ustat, his position of Devi-Devtaa in Bachitar Natak and the spirit of the sword in Chandi (Durga) Ki Var.  These concepts are in complete synchrony with SGGS Ji.” clearly shows that the compositions in Dasam Granth are averse to your claim of “Brahmanical ways”.  Further spend some time at Gurvichar.com and you will find many more articles that PROVE YOUR STATEMENT WRONG.

TAKHAT PATNA SAHIB IS IN TRANSGRESSION:

Mr Jagir, your conclusion is marred by your skewed understand of the SRM.  Please read article at Link M.

Jagir’s Response in PDF file.

MGC-Sucha-Letter-to-all-Gurdwara_MGC-Reply-To-Datuk-Sucha-Singh-interview-at-Gurvichar

… to be continued in Part 2