by Harnaak Singh
An analysis of a talk given by Darshan Dhillon at the EGM
Sangatji, the below is an anslysis of the Video clip of the talk given by Darshan Dhillon at the MGC EGM on 27-05-2017. The video is attached. The timing referred to is the time from the beginning of the video.
| Time (min:sec) |
Darshan Dhillon’s statements | The Fact (please refer Gurvichar for evidence for all the below comments) |
| 00:00 | The third point is that the Dasam Granth is Rachnava, History, Literature | Even the compositions of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji are “rachnava” which in English means compositions. Historical information is also included in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Now coming to his use of the word LITERATURE. I quote Encyclopaedia Britannica “Scripture, also called sacred scripture, the revered texts, or Holy Writ, of the world’s religions. Scriptures comprise a large part of the literature of the world”. Clearly the SGGS Ji is also classed as literature.
Both SGGS Ji and DG are classed as literature, both have historical information and both are rachnava (compositions). What is MGC Exco member Darshan Dhillon trying to show? Is it his IGNORANCE? |
| 00:13 | How can DG be Bani because Guru Gobind Singh did not say it is bani | A stupid statement demands a stupid response “my friend, neither did Guru Gobind state the compositions of SGGS Ji are Gurbani”.
Now to some intelligent information. Mahan Kosh clearly defines that the compositions of Dasam Granth are Gurbani. The other important points to note are that the Bani of Dasam Granth is recited in Harmandir Sahib and all the Takhats. Also sung at the Takhats are the compositions of Bhai Gurdas and Bhai Nand Lal. Why are HINDI songs, or any other rachnava or compositions NOT sung or recited in the Takhats? This CLEARLY POINTS TO THAT ONLY GURBANI CAN BE RECITED/SUNG AT THE TAKHATS. This is also stated in the SRM. Therefore the composition in Dasam Grant are Gurbani. It is only IGNORANCE that does not allow one to accept that the compositions of Dasam Granth are NOT Gurbani. This is due to the Kala Afghana/ Ragi Darshan Ideology guided by Panth Dokhi Global Sikh Council Inc. being propagated by the MGC officials. |
| 00:24 | Three Banees Jaap Sahib, Swaeyay and Benti Chaupai parvanak in SRM. This is the minimum. One can read more if they want. | The SGPC & the Panth has ratified the SRM on 12 October 1936. In 1985 Matta 41 revised the SRM to include 5 morning Banees. Therefore according to SRM after 1985 there are 7 nitnem Banees, 5 at Amrit Vela, 1 in the evening and 1 before going to bed.
Quite clearly the MGC Exco members are 22 years behind time. What has MGC officials been up to all this while. Even the Jathedars from Akaal Takhat and Takhat Patna Sahib in 2013 stated this (7 nitnem banees) in a question and answer session in Malaysia where a number of the MGC Exco including Jagir Singh were present. THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR PLEADING IGNORANCE. Why did he (or any of the other Exco members present) NOT POINT OUT THIS FALSE INFORMATION being imparted at the EGM; is Jagir in the game too? This seems to be a deliberate attempt to mislead the Sangat present. |
| 00:55 | What is this? do 5 or 3 or 6 or 7 | This is clearly a case of Darshan Dhillon misleading the Sangat present. The SRM revised by the Matta 41 clearly stipulates 7 nitnem Banees. |
| 01:04 | Some people cannot even do JapJi Sahib. | Does Darshan Dhillon mean that the MGC Exco is going to proceed to change the SRM to reflect only ONE morning Banee? It would not be a surprise since they have been misleading the Sangat regarding the 3 morning Banees and taken on the role of passing their own Adesh. |
| 01:15 | In SRM Benti Chaupai is starting from “Hamri Karoo Haath …” up to “Dust Dokh Tay Leho Bachaai”. Why did SRM not include “Kirpa Kari Hum Par Jag Maata, Granth Karaa Pooran Sub Raata”. It stopped there because that GURBANI is not Guru Gobind Singh’s Bani”. | I love the statement Darshan Dhillon made, while refereeing to the DG banee he recited, “… ਕਿਓਂ ਕੇ ਓਹ ਗੁਰਬਾਣੀ ਗੁਰੁ ਗੋਬਿੰਦ ਸਿੰਘ ਦੀ ਬਾਣੀ ਨਹੀ …”, meaning “BECAUSE THAT GURBANI IS NOT GURU GOBIND SINGH’S BANI”. He is essentially stating that the part of DG he is referring to is Gurbani but not composed by Guru Gobind Singh Ji. (see from time 01:46)
He himself is not sure what he is saying. Note that it has been proven by credible sources that the whole of Dasam Granth is the compositions of Guru Gobind Singh Ji and is hence Gurbani. This is further substantiated by the arguments above. |
| 02:00 | What is the need to, in the presence of Guru Maharaj to give the status of GURU to another book (ਕਿਤਾਬ). (DG implied) | The question to Darshan Dhillon is if Guru Arjan Dev Ji, being Guru can place Adi Granth (which contained Baanis of Gurus, Sants, Bhagats, Gursikhs, Bhatts) on a higher level than him, why do you think Guru Granth Sahib Ji, our LIVING GURU, might have a problem with Banee of Guru Gobind Singh Ji being respected and worshipped same way? UNLESS you are of the opinioin that SGGS Ji is NOT A LIVING GURU but merely a metaphor. |
| 02:20 | By bringing this book (DG implied) into the Darbar on the head, using a Chaur and Ramalla is automatically declaring this book a Guru. | Further if only Guru has the right to sit on Palki, Takhat, Gaddi, why did Guru Arjan Dev Ji Maharaj do Parkash of Aadi-Granth on palki?
If Guru Arjan Dev Ji, being Guru, can accept Chaur sahib on Granth Sahib Ji, why can’t we Sikhs do same to Baani of Guru Gobind Singh ji Maharaj Also? What Darshan Dhillon says is ritualistic type thinking which our Gurus wanted us to move away from and our forefathers had moved away from? Is the MGC Exco thinking of bringing back ritualistic practices? Do this like this, do this like that, don’t do this, don’t do that!!! |
| 02:30 | If MGC, Jagir Singh did not stop this (DG in Darbar), it would have been a dangerous thing for the Panth – because it is going out of the SRM. We should make out decisions on our own as regards the Dasam Granth. | The comments under 02:00 and 02:20 apply here.
Now is MGC Exco going to take the place of the Takhats to make decisions? In fact they seem to have started doing this by recently passing an Adesh. Is this an order by the masters the Panth Dokhi Global Sikh Council Inc. or are they doing this unilaterally. This is against the SRM which has stated that the Takhats are the Supreme Body and, as has been the practice, have the authority to pass edicts. Further note the MGC constitution stipulates that edicts of the Takhats are to be adhered to, not any other body. Do Darshan Dhillon and MGC Exco really understand the SRM. They seem to be interpreting it according to their agenda. Are they abiding by the constitution of the MGC? |
| 03:30 | We should all have the SRM (this is the Akal Takhat Sanctioned SRM) at home. | I believe it is the duty of the MGC to provide this document. However I have included this below as a PDF document complete with the Matta 41 for Sangat to download and print as necessary. The Matta 41 is included just after the front page. |
| 04:05 | Thank you for listening. I AM NOBODY HERE there are many LEARNED ones sitting in the audience. | This is a very interesting statement to make at the end. Darshan Dhillon talks like he is an expert but then claims he is NOBODY.
Does he have the Gurmat knowledge to make the statements? Looks like he does not. So essentially the whole talk is to mislead all those present. |
Conclusion of the Analysis
From the analysis the following are observed
- • Darshan Dhillon does not understand the meanings of Rachnava, History and Literature. Both the SGGS Ji and the Dasam Granth meet these definitions.
- • Darshan Dhillon does not understand what Gurbani means.
- • Darshan Dhillon does not really understand the SRM and hence it is unlikely he follows it. However he is more than happy to impart his distorted knowledge to the Sangat present misleading them.
- • There is an implication by Darshan Dhillon that the MGC Exco may revise the morning Banees to ONE. It would not be a surprise since they are already starting to pass Adesh.
- • Darshan Dhillon’s arguments about the Prakash are absolutely baseless and intended to misguide and mislead the Sangat present.
- • Darsahn Dhillon seems to be prescribing ritualistic thinking. Is MGC Exco directing us to the times before that of our Gurus, the very thing our Gurus directed us away from.
- • MGC Exco seems to be taking the place of our Supreme Body the Takhats by passing Adesh. This is against the SRM which has stated that the Takhats are the Supreme Body and, as has been the practice, have the authority to pass edicts.
- • Do Darshan Dhillon and MGC Exco really understand the SRM. They seem to be misinterpreting it according to their own agenda guided by the Global Sikh Council and mooted by the Kala Afghana/ Ragi Darsan Ideology they seem to subscribe to.
- • Darshan Dhillon and the MGC Exco is aligned to the Panth Dokhi Global Sikh Council Inc. and subscribe to the Kala Afghana/ Ragi Darshan Deist Ideology. (see the congratulations letter from Panth Dokhi Global Sikh Council to the MGC Exco)
- • Finally Darshan Dhillon admits the he is NOBODY, implying this he lacks the Gurmat knowledge (this is further shown to be the case in the comments under the column “the facts” above)
Is such “Gurmat related” calibre expected from the Exco members of the MGC by the Sangat?
Sangat Ji please note that evidence for all the comments under “The Facts” is available at Gurvichar.com. However we will be happy to respond to this article reasonable questions or clarifications posted.
Please download the PDF of the Sikh Rehat Maryada (SRM) Akal Takth Rehat-Maryada-English
Gur Vichar 