Shabad Jhooth Na Bol Pandey – Bhai Harjinder Singh Ji
by Harnaak Singh
In Part 1, posted on 01-05-2017, I addressed the first 6 pages of Jagir’s (President of MGC) response dated 27-04-2017 to Datuk Sucha Singh’s interview posted on Gurvichar.
First let us summarise the main points from Part 1.
- Considering that Jagir has time to address correspondence related to Gurdwara Boards of East Africa, Jagir’s statement “time should be better spent in Guru Ki Sewa”, instead of addressing local issues raised in Datuk Sucha’s interview, appears highly hypocritical.
- Kirtan/Katha on Dasam Granth Bani has been conducted in Malaysia from the time of our forefathers. Jagir must have been living in oblivion before 22-04-2016 for him to say that there was no Dasam Granth related programs conducted in Malaysian Gurdwaras for 130 years.
- Jagir even got the meaning of the SGGS Ji verse he quoted in his support wrong. This has been a problem with Jagir and his cohorts, giving wrong messages using verses from SGGS Ji.
- • There is much to be said about Jagir’s pitiful understanding of the Gurmatta (he quoted) and the Sikh Rehat Maryada (SRM). He is giving wrong and misguided messages using these.
- Jagir quotes a FALSE DOCUMENT “Resolution No. 36672” in support of his claim.
Now I will look at the pages 6 to 9 of Jagir’s letter starting from “Part Two (of interview)” on page 6. Having seen the extent of the misleading/ misguiding messages by Jagir as exposed in Part 1, it would be no surprise to expect the same in the rest of the letter.
- Jagir, stressing the importance of the SRM, said the SRM was a result of deliberation for more than 12 years and Akal Takhat says “ਸਿੱਖ ਰਹਿਤ ਮਰਿਯਾਦਾ ਏਕਤਾ ਦਾ ਪ੍ਰਤੀਕ ਹੈ । …” of the SRM. Further Jagir states that Datuk Sucha is trying to change the SRM.
The meaning of the first line as given by Jagir is “SRM is the proof of Panthic unity”. Is this correct?
Jagir translates “ਪ੍ਰਤੀਕ” to mean “PROOF”. According to Uni Patiala Punjabi-English Dictionary the meaning of this word is given as “symbol, emblem, token, signifier, mark, sign”. The word “proof” according to the Uni Patiala English-Punjabi Dictionary means “ਸਬੂਤ, ਪ੍ਰਮਾਣ, ਗਵਾਹੀ”. The words “symbol, emblem, token, signifier, mark, sign” do not in any way imply “proof”. The SRM as a SIGN of unity does NOT IMPLY PROOF of unity. This clearly points to choice of words to mislead the Sangat.
In Part 1 (3) I have shown that this is the modus operandi of Jagir and his cohorts is MISLEAD BY MISINTERPRETATION.
Jagir, actually I agree with Datuk Ji. Your statements, claims etc. are definitely laughable about. I myself cannot stop laughing when I read your statements “misinterpreting and misguiding” the Sangat, hoping they are fools. Now at this point and on this matter I repeat what I had stated in Part 1.
By your stand on the Dasam Granth, Jagir, you display your ignorance. I draw your 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, you are WRONG, in stating that only the Jaap Sahib, Sawaeeyay and Chaupai are stipulated by SRM. In this article 3(ੳ) SRM also stipulates part of Chandi Di Vaar. The SRM was prepared by Gurmat learned intelligentsia Sikhs who prepared the Sikh Rehat Maryada after conducting 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 (12 as you say) to prepare the draft which was unanimously accepted. Do you think the Sangat is so stupid to believe your nonsense, AND that this learned group, WERE FOOLS, back in the 1930s, and made a mistake in accepting the PART OF CHANDI DI VAR for the Ardas stipulated in SRM? That would have been the case if they had understood the Chandi Di Vaar as YOUR MAT (or rather MAN MAT) TELLS YOU, they would have rejected it to be included in the SRM. But that was not the case. They were guided by GURMAT.
Further let me put it to you Jagir, that Chaupaee, which is a part of Nitnem as stipulated in SRM, is a part of Charitro Pakhyan. A composition is either rejected or accepted, accepting parts of a composition and rejecting other parts, makes no sense to learned scholars. I wish to bring your attention that SRM cites only reading of six paurdee of Anand Sahib. Does it mean that the rest of the Paurdian of Anand Sahib is rejected by the SRM? No it is not! Hence Charitro Pakhyan, 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. Can you, Jagir, find a statement to this effect?
We continue on that “Chaupaee” the epilogue of Charitro Pakhyan is cited as Nitnem Banee in SRM. Remember that SRM was prepared by Gurmat learned intelligentsia Sikhs who prepared the Sikh Rehat Maryada after conducting proper research over a long period of time. Do you think the Sangat is so stupid to believe your nonsense, AND that this learned group, BEING FOOLS, back in the 1930s, made a mistake in accepting the EPILOGUE OF CHARITRO PAKHYAN as a part of SRM? They relied on their GURMAT not MAN MAT to include Chaupaee as a part of the SRM. Come on Jagir, you can do better than that!
So it is clear, from a complete analysis of the contents of the SRM and the implication therefrom, that the compositions in Dasam Granth are Gurbani. Otherwise any part of these compositions would not be included in the SRM.
Jagir, you accuse Datuk Sucha Singh for trying to change the SRM. However you do not list any evidence of how Datuk Ji is doing this. Jagir, are you LYING?
You, Jagir and your cohorts, aligned to the Kala Afghana Ragi Darshan Ideology, paranoid about propagating this ideology, are MISINTERPRETING AND MISLEADING and LYING TO the Sangat. This is why YOU ACCUSE others of trying to change the SRM. Remember the saying “a self-absorbed person only can see the fault of others but is colour blind to his own”.
- Jagir you said there is no Bani under the name “Akaal Ustat” in Bachittar Natak (DG).
Firstly Jagir, you ignorantly and rudely term Dasam Granth as Bachittar Natak (please refer to my response Part 1 (5) Rachnava). I think you are LYING when you quote the Gurmatta in your favour. This Gurmatta uses the word “Dasam Granth” not “Bachittar Natak”. I don’t think you abide by the Gurmatta. Terming Dasam Granth, Bachittar Natak is evidence enough. NOBODY SHOULD BELIVE THAT JAGIR ABIDES BY THE GURMATTA!
Secondly I will prove YOUR LIE IN YOUR STATEMENT about no Bani called “Akaal Ustat” in the Dasam Granth. The extract from the contents page of the Dasam Granth, shown in Figure 1, completed around 1698 AD clearly proves you wrong. The Bani is listed as “Ustat Akaal Ji Ki” which is equivalent to “Akaal Ustat”. This is what I mean that I laugh at what you write, Jagir. Do you think the reader, the Sangat, are fools? Sorry Jagir, you can’t get away with such a level of LIES, MISINTERPRETATION AND MISGUIDING!
Based on your this LIE, I would conclude that all other related statements cannot be anything more than a pack of LIES.
Figure 1: Akaal Ustat
- Jagir, you say “the Dasam Granth is only recognised as History and Literature and not Gurbani”.
Based on, as has been pointed out earlier, your pitiful understanding of Verses from the SGGS Ji, Gurmatta and the SRM, who would believe what you say? I for sure don’t.
Gurbani is the compositions of our Eleven Gurus (hopefully you know who the eleventh Guru is). The Dasam Granth was composed by Guru Gobind Singh. So the compositions in the Dasam Granth are Gurbani. Further let me point out to you what SGGS Ji states about Gurbani.
ਸਭਿ ਨਾਦ ਬੇਦ ਗੁਬਾਣੀ SGGS 879
Gurbani is the sound current of the Naad, the Vedas, everything.
Professor Sahib Singh explains this verse in Figure 2. The English equivalent of this explanation follows.
Figure 2: Extract from Prof Sahib Singh’s Teeka explaining the verse
Gurbani is, the composition of our Gurus, through which the human acquires God realisation. In Gurbani the knowledge of all the Naads (sound current), the Vedas and books of faith/religions is included. This means that you do not need to refer to the granths/ books of other faiths, since the required knowledge is in Gurbani. Gurbani gives the human the complete avenue for God realisation.
This is why Guru Gobind Singh composed Dasam Granth which provides the required knowledge to understand the Vedic and other mythological references in SGGS Ji. Therefore according to SGGS Ji, Dasam Granth, composed by Guru Gobind Singh Ji, which explains these, is Gurbani.
This is what you do not understand, Jagir, because you have BLINKERS ON, and lack the appropriate knowledge to understand Gurbani/ Gurmat. This is beyond your understanding!
Considering your Ek Granth (at the best case SGGS Ji as is now) I challenge you to explain the meaning of following verses using only SGGS Ji as your reference. You must explain these verses COMPLETELY including historical background related to any or all the words in the verses so that the reader or Sangat fully understands the meaning.
ਕ੍ਰਿਸਨੁ ਬਲਭਦ੍ਰੁ ਗੁਰ ਪਗ ਲਗਿ ਧਿਆਵੈ॥ SGGS 165 Line 6
ਬਧਿਕੁ ਉਧਾਰਿਓ ਖਮਿ ਪ੍ਰਹਾਰ॥ SGGS 1192 Line 6
If you cannot, the question is, “Is your Ek Granth ideology you propagate” a ‘farce’?
Therefore are you competent to be the President of the MGC?
The president of MGC should be knowledgeable in true Gurbani/ Gurmat and Sikhi not the tainted version propagated by the Kala Afghana/ Ragi Dashan Ideology you follow with your alignment to the Global Sikh Council Inc.
NOTE that you as the MGC President are and claim to be the originator and the copyright owner of your Ek Granth Ek … ideology; it being your brainchild. The logo of Ek Granth Ek … is claimed copyright by Sikh Vichar Forum (SVF). Looks like you also are in bed with SVF.
The conclusion is that if you cannot explain these verses completely, then you are not knowledgeable and are misleading and will mislead the Sangat and are betraying and will betray the Gurdwaras as well and on top of this you are prone to lying.
Thus do you meet the requirements of the constitution of MGC? It is quite clear that you don’t.
What conclusion can be drawn?
You should be MAN ENOUGH TO RESIGN FROM THE PRESIDENCY OF MGC WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT.
- Jagir you said, about Akaal Takhat Matta No 2 dated 27-11-2006, “it is understood that this was issued to some Parcharaks who were questioning the Nitnem Banis”. Further you go on to say the Akaal Takhat Gurmatta No 1 does not recognise Dasam Granth as Gurbani because it does not explicitly say so.
You have interpret both of these documents, as has been pointed out above, with your blinkers on, and with the motto “LIE, MISINTERPRET AND MISLEAD”.
The GURMATTA essentially says SGGS Ji is our living Guru as ordained by Guru Gobind Singh Ji and that no one is allowed to question that Dasam Granth. There was no mention of Nitnem Banees.
The MATTA states that some miscreants are carrying out misleading parchar on Dasam Granth and Gursikhs loyal to the Guru Panth should respond appropriately to these mischievous miscreants. Again there is no mention of Nitnem Banees.
Further the Gurmatta-1 states that SGGS Ji is our living Guru. You do not support this view (see Link N and Link O), because Jagir, you subscribe to that ‘the Living Guru SGGS Ji as a metaphor’. Are you abiding by this Gurmatta?
This again exhibits your ignorance and shows lack of knowledge in understanding the advise (in any form Gurmatta, Matta etc) from the Takhats. This is in addition to your lack of understanding the SRM which has already shown to be the case above (and also in Part 1).
- Jagir, you state “The MGC has never banned Ardas in Gurdwaras”.
Your response is laughable.
This is another LIE. You issue and edict, that only Jaap, Sawaeyay and Chaupaee can be recited in the Gurdwaras. Go and read and properly understand your concluding statement in your letter dated 12-07-2016. Remember in this you are going against the SRM which has approved the ARDAS with the Dasam Granth Part.
With the exception of these three Banees no other composition from the Dasam Granth can be recited. Part of the Ardas is from the Dasam Granth. So what does this mean? Removing the part from Dasam Granth “cripples” the ARDAS.
YOUR EDICT TO THE LETTER PROHIBITS RECITING THE PART OF THE ARDAS FROM THE DASAM GRANTH. Under these circumstances can you still call the “crippled ardas” an ARDAS?
I am at a loss to appreciate your thinking. It is YOUR STATEMENT THAT IS ABSURD AND MISCHIEVOUS AND IRRESPONSIBLE. This is why I say your statement is laughable.
Further if I may add, there appears a hidden motive to modify the Ardas to be possibly in line with what Ragi Darshan has done. This is on the basis that your response via email/ letter referred to in Part 1, Point 1 uses a degrading tone when referring to Dasam Granth portion of the Ardas besides many other discussion read over the WhatsApp Groups.
- You state “the English translation contains words “Guru Granth’s or Guru Gobind Singh’s hymns” which are not found in the original Punjabi version. You also state “The person who translated admitted that he had added his own words in many places, in the English translation”.
By this statement you are implying that Guru Gobind Singh Ji’s Banee is not Gurbani. My discussion under points (3) Part 1, (5) Part 1 and (8) show that Guru Gobind Singh Ji’s Banee is Gurbani. Further see Link P where the SRM English translation done in 1994, which includes (Guru Granth or Guru Gobind Singh’s hymns), is shown to be an authentic translation of the original Punjabi/Gurmukhi approved and accepted on 1-Oct-1932. See Figures 3 and 4.
Figure 3: Extract from English translation of the SRM
Figure 4: SRM on Kirtan
I put it to you that this English translation is AUTHENTIC and prepared with the auspices of SGPC and dated 1994, very much prior to the Kala Afghana/Ragi Darshan Ideology that you, Jagir, and your cohorts subscribe to and are steering the MGC towards.
The anti-Dasam Granth activities were started by the Kala Afghana Ideology cohorts in around 2000. So there is no reason for this translation to be prepared to defend the status of the composition of Dasam Granth as Gurbani. In 1932, when the Punjabi version of the SRM was prepared, the learned scholars involved, had no doubt to the fact that Dasam Granth compositions were Gurbani, this controversy being raised by the Kala Afghana/ Ragi Darsahn Ideology around 2000. In the English translation the phrase “Guru Gobind Singh’s hymns” were added to clarify that of Gurbani includes both the compositions of SGGS Ji and Sri Dasam Granth for the English reader. This is further evidenced by other inclusions in the SRM as I have pointed out in Point 6 above.
You also state that the “person who prepared this translation admitted adding his own words”. However you do not provide any evidence to substantiate this claim of yours. Further you are implying that all those scholars, I quote from the extract in Figure 1, “HIGH STATUS PERSONS OF THESE PERSONS IN THE REALM OF SIKH RELIGIOUS LEARNING”, under whose auspices the translation was prepared, ARE FOOLS! How can anyone believe what you claim?
Based on this and what I have stated in Point 6 above, I put it to you that you are LYING. Is this acceptable to the Sangat?
Your position is largely due to your LACK OF UNDERSTANDING of the, or REFUSAL to accept the long standing meaning of Gurbani. Again this points to ignorance on your part. There is plenty of baseless “wishful thinking”, without any substantiating evidence, in your statements, which, as I have stated above, are a pack of lies.
Again this points to ignorance on your part. Therefore all your related statements are “MALA FIDE”.
Once again I repeat, your motto is “LIE, MISINTERPRET AND MISLEAD” to meet with your agenda of propagating the Kala Afghana/ Ragi Darshan Ideology.
Are you fit to be the President of MGC?
… to be continued in Part 3