SOHJI distorts HISTORY and selectively applies Akaal Takhat REHAT MARYADA.  This is a DISTORTION of the practice of the Sikhs since our Gurus times.

An article at SCRIBD see Figure 1 by (see LINK for article) the Sangat have highlighted some concerns with the Sojhi syllabus.  

Figure 1: Article at SCRIBD

The following is extract (final part) from the document at SCRIBD by the Sangat (see LINK for article) who have highlighted the OTHER ISSUES with the Sojhi syllabus. Also refer to GV article at LINK.  

NOTE: Our comments to the content are in green italics.  We have separated the article into seperate sub-headings (shown in green text).

Other Issues

History

We have several other concerns with the current Sojhi syllabus which include but are not limited to the following:

• Sakhi of Mai Bhago in Virsa, Grade 1, pg. 61 – the text mentions “then at the battle of the Camkaur (ਚਮਕੌਰ), the Guru’s elder sons attained martyrdom, and the Guru was saved by five Sikhs and he evacuated Camkaur.” This view is inaccurate – Although Guru Sahib did agree to the request of the five Sikhs, Guru Sahib left Chamkaur Sahib on his terms and challenged the opposing to army to capture him. We find in Gurbani and Sikh History that the Guru is perfect and needs no help from anyone to be saved. In fact, the Guru is the savior in our lives.

This appears an attempt to change Sikh history and a lack of appreciation of what OUR GURU IS or WHAT OUR GURU IS CAPABLE OF.  It is a wonder what their opinion is of some of the events in Sikh history for example PANJA of Guru Nanak Dev Ji in the rock, and Baba Deep Singh with severed head in hand heading to Harmandar Sahib?

Living Guru

• Poem about Guru Granth Sahib, Virsa, Grade 2, Pg. 47– the poem (“Poem about Guru Granth Sahib” PDF) continually attacks Sikh traditions by referring to Guru Sahib as “a book.” The poem fails to recognize the fact that the Granth contains the Guru’s jot and thus becomes holy and instead dismisses respecting the physical embodiment of Guru Granth Sahib by not advocating seva like doing chaur.

The picture in Figure 2 depicts this.

Figure 2: Guru Granth is a book not a LIVING GURU

To refer to Guru Granth Sahib as a BOOK is absolutely wrong.  The pothi called Adi Granth became a Guru in 1708 when Guru Gobind Singh as related below.  

In Samat 1765, 4th day of Katak month, at Nanded, Guru Gobind Singh Ji bowed before Granth Sahib Ji with offerings of five paise and a coconut. Then he stated to the Sangat that it is my order, consider Granth Sahib as Guru in place of myself.  Bhai Nand Lal Ji in his book “Prashan-Uttar Bhai Nand Lal Ji wrote that he asked Guru Sahib, 

“What is the significance of Granth Sahib?” Guru Sahib replied:

ਦੁਸਰ ਰੂਪ ਗਰੰਥ ਜੀ ਜਾਨ, ਇਸਕੇ ਅੰਗ ਮੇਰੇ ਕਰ ਮਾਨ 

“Doosar Roop Granth Ji Jaan, Iske Ang Mere Kar Maan”

Consider Granth Sahib as my other Roop, and don’t think it has pages; these are the parts of my body (Ang).

This changed the status of Adi Granth to Guru HENCE we say GURU GRANTH or AAD GURU GRANTH.  Take note of the addition of “GURU” to Adi Granth.

That Guru Granth Sahib is our LIVING GURU is a core DOCTRINE of Sikhi.

The fact that SOJHI refers to GURU GRANTH SAHIB as a BOOK cements the FACT THAT SOJHI, SIKHRI AND STAFF do not accept SGGS as our LIVING GURU.

To refer to Guru Granth Sahib as a “BOOK” is BOTH IRREREVENT and SACRILEGIOUS.  

This is GOING AGAINST what Guru Gobind Singh Ji edicted.

Akaal Takhat Hukamnama

• “Rahit Mariada”. Virsa, Grade 4, pg. 4 – Sojhi mentions that only three changes have been made to the Rehat Maryada since it was passed in 1936 while ignoring other changes. On April 28th, 1985 a hukamnama (“Hukamnama about Nitnem Banis” PDF) issued by Akal Takhat Sahib (Sjgned by: Jathedar Akal Takhat Sahib, Jathedar Sri Damdama Sahib, Jathedar Sri Anandpur Sahib, Head Granthi Sri Darbar Sahib, Head Granthi Sri Akal Takhat Sahib).  A curriculum shouldn’t advocate personal views on issues that the Panth doesn’t have a clear consensus on and should instead focus on bringing the community together.

By ignoring such an important change, SOJHI shows some biasness towards the Akaal Takhat Hukamnamas.  By rejecting the change as identified in the 1985 hukumnana (which proclaimed 5 morning Nitnem Banees), SOJHI exposes its ideology which is rejecting some compositions of Guru Gobind Singh Ji in Dasam Granth.  Are they against the Dasam Granth?  It is pointed out that this thinking is similar to the thinking of the Kala Afghana / Ragi Darshan and the Missionaries who denigrate the Banee of Guru Gobind Singh.  See LINK A for more information on the Kala Afghana / Ragi Darshan and the Missionary Ideology.

• There are countless spelling mistakes in the Boli part of Sojhi – Use of `,’ ‘M’ and ‘I’” is very inconsistent.

This is a minor issue and may not hinge upon ideology but needs rectification so not to cause confusion.

By now it is clear that we already have lot of controversies in our religion. We don’t need more controversies on Gurmantar, Ardaas and Dohra. In its current state, Sojhi has and can only create further controversies, confusion and dubidha. These are the few issues that have been brought to our attention, as a result we ask that Sojhi be available in its entirety to the Sangat, so it can be properly reviewed and overhauled to ensure that all other rehat and maryada inconsistencies in the syllabus can be addressed by the entire Sangat.

This completes the discussion of the SCRIBD article “CONCERNS WITH SOJHI”.  

Summary

The SCRIBD “CONCERNS WITH SOJHI” article exposes the belief, concepts, philosophy and thinking, essentially the ideology, of the designers/developers of SOJHI in relation to Gurmat and Sikhi tenets (doctrine).  

WHY do we say this? BECAUSE inevitably the ideology of the developers will be reflected in their work.

We can, from this three articles, sum the ideology up as follows:

• They do not accept the prescribed Gurmantar.
• The want to change the Dohra. 
• They do not accept the LIVING Guru concept.
• They reject authentic long standing historical records.
• They consider the Guru Granth Sahib as a book of knowledge.
• They selectively reject Hukamnama from Akaal Takhat.  

In the next post we will look at Sikhri’s comments we believe are mooted by the SCRIBD article “CONCERNS WITH SOJHI”.  We will analyse how the developers/designers of SOJHI address the concerns that have been listed in this and previous two posts and which have been summed up in this post.

---