by Harnaak Singh

We continue with the analysis of the Presentation by Autar Singh at the MGC EGM.  

As in previous parts, Autar’s presentation has been split into spoken parts and each part analysed.  What he says is in summarised in black text and the comments in brown/red text.  Please refer to the video slides which relate to the text below.  

In this part we address the Autar’s use of the word “COMPROMISE” in relation to whether the SRM bans Guru Gobind Singh Ji’s compositions which are included in the Dasam Granth .

DOES SRM BAN GURU GOBIND SINGH JI’s BANEE?

And Sikh Rehat Maryada is the unifying factor.  It is a compromise.

Considering the SRM, up to mid-2016, there was never a problem since everybody agreed to the common base and the SRM DOES NOT BAN reciting Dasam Granth Banee.  

This is evidenced by Dasam Granth Banee being recited at the Harmandir Sahib, all the other Takhats and Gurdwaras worldwide to date.  

Even in Malaysia prior to mid-2016 there were no issues reading or reciting Dasam Granth Banee.

Further, the SRM was prepared, NOT BY FAKE PROFESSORS, BUT by GURMAT LEARNED SIKH INTELLIGENTSIA.  

Who after making complete research on Rehat by searching the historical Commands/ Rehatnamas/ Literatures/ Manuscripts and the Customs from our Gurus time prepared the SRM. 

It took them more than10 years to prepare the draft which was unanimously accepted.  They were guided by GURMAT and would have rejected any unapproved composition to be included in the SRM.  

Let us review the Dasam Granth Banees referred to in the SRM.   Jaap, Ten Sawayeeyas and Chaupai.

Ten Sawayeeyas is from Akaal Ustat.  Chaupai that is a part of Nitnem (with the 1985 amendment) as well as Rehras as stipulated in SRM, is the epilogue of Charitro Pakhyan.  

SRM Article IV 3(a) English Version which lists the Ardas.  Part of the Ardas is the composition from Chandi di Var.  

Akal Ustat, Charitro Pakhayn and Chandi Ki Vaar, all compositions by Guru Gobind Singh Ji are NOT rejected by the SRM.  

Had these, or any other compositions in Dasam Granth, been rejected it would be explicitly stated in the SRM and parts of these composition would not have been included in the SRM.  

Further Chapter V Article VI (c) of SRM states that “In the congregation, kirtan only of Gurbani (Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji’s or Guru Gobind Singh’s hymns) …” 

AND Chapter IX, Article XIII (c) states that “the exposition can only be of the ten Gurus writings or utterances …”.  

From these statements it is clear that the SRM does not BAN the composition in Dasam Granth.  If any composition was rejected it would be explicitly stated in the SRM.  

For example the SRM has clearly stated in Chapter IX, Article XIII (c) the expositions should be “NOT OF A BOOK OF ANY OTHER FAITH” to mention ONE.  

Since MGC introduced the BAN on Dasam Granth Banee by MISINTERPRETING the SRM and the EDICTS of the Takhats, they have created a contentious issue to the common base of the SRM.  

This is a COMPROMISE in the sense that Autar, MGC and their cohorts do not TRULY want to read or recite the banee from Dasam Granth which the SRM does not BAN.   

This is why Autar, MGC and their cohorts say that the acceptance of the SRM is a COMPROMISE.  For others the SRM is a common base.

Autar, MGC and their cohorts misinterpret and mislead the Sangat by childish antics e.g. 

• they do not accept the SRM English Translation which explicitly states the reciting of Guru Gobind Singh Ji’s Banee, 
• they do not accept the credible meaning of the word “Gurbani” but manufacture a distorted meaning.

They sing the tunes of their distorted misinterpretation that 

• the SRM BANS Guru Gobind Singh Ji’s Banee
• Dasam Granth is not composed by Guru  Gobind Singh Ji BUT however DO NOT PROVIDE credible evidence in support except for a FAKE Resolution No 36672 which they keep regurgitating at every opportunity 
• Charitro Pakhyan cannot be recited in the presence of the family when there have been so much evidence of open discussion of this composition of Guru Gobind Singh Ji by credible experts.

Interestingly there is substantial information in the public domain by the Anti-Dasam Kala Afghana/ Ragi Darshan aligned Group, to which Autar, MGC and cohorts are also aligned, using VIVID KAAM BASED GRAPHICS AND LANGUAGE.  

It is therefore easy to see how HYPOCRITICAL it is OF THEM to say that there cannot be open discussion of Charitro Pakhyan.  It is out there in the Public Domain in fact much more by people /groups they are aligned with.  What do they mean cannot be open discussion?