Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I also prefer this Sikh history, not least because it doesn't make me feel so defeatist, like I'm aspiring to an impossible standard of human behavior as the other one did. The task of being a Sikh is difficult enough, it's not one that needs to be made even more daunting.

That's exactly the aspect of Sikhi I struggled with growing up as a child and even up until quite recently. The overwhelming belief that I could never measure up to those Sikhs of yesteryear, no matter what I did, due to their almost inhumanly perfect demeanours was overwhelming at times. It was incredibly disheartening, particularly for someone such as myself who was incredibly proud of our faith and its tenets.

Of course, i would never advocate "lowering the bar" in order to make guys like me feel better about their deficiencies (that way lies the erosion of standards). There must be a higher benchmark that we must strive to reach, yet I'd prefer if it was based on factual history, instead of unrealistic fantasy designed to conjure a mythology on par with the more established faiths we were surrounded by in India.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jacfsing2

Some point to the manner in which Sirhind was razed to the ground. You don't believe empty houses and fields were destroyed whilst the people were allowed the opportunity to observe the destruction in safety? No, it's safe to say the civilian population was adversely affected during those acts of vengeance, hence Banda Singh's honest admission that he'd overstepped the limits of what was acceptable.

I do feel some sympathy to those who "might have been innocent"(if you remember before he was a Sikh, he was sad for shooting an innocent deer, so I highly doubt these were innocent people). He had his own personal flaws, but this was not one of them, (maybe the fact that he split the Punj Pyare from giving him orders?)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's exactly the aspect of Sikhi I struggled with growing up as a child and even up until quite recently. The overwhelming belief that I could never measure up to those Sikhs of yesteryear, no matter what I did, due to their almost inhumanly perfect demeanours was overwhelming at times. It was incredibly disheartening, particularly for someone such as myself who was incredibly proud of our faith and its tenets.

Of course, i would never advocate "lowering the bar" in order to make guys like me feel better about their deficiencies (that way lies the erosion of standards). There must be a higher benchmark that we must strive to reach, yet I'd prefer if it was based on factual history, instead of unrealistic fantasy designed to conjure a mythology on par with the more established faiths we were surrounded by in India.

Realism is missing from the version of Sikh history narrated by the white clad charlatans who lead us today; a majority of them only show backbone when their own order is challenged, 'who the hell do you think you are? We will put up a chabeel and shoot you. We are the only true Sikhs here...' and then they will conjure up some fantasy regarding how one of the ten masters dispatched a certain Sikh to do so and so and how they are descended from the latter. In reality these charlatans with their flowing beards, and even more larger guts, have "lowered the bar" (as you put it) on Sikh history and the Sikh faith. Their false stories of past Sikhs performing quixotic acts are far from the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't find what he did wrong at all, he brought justice to the people who made many people Shaheed, and he brought justice to the executioners of Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji as well as the Sahibzadey. I don't see how that's a mistake?

Banda Singh, kudos to him form performing these acts, also did much better than he is credited for today. His revolution, if analyzed properly, speaks volumes to the concept of Khalsa-Raaj and Sikh politics. Look at how his revolution differed from that of the otherwise obdurate Rajputs and Marathas:

'In an ironic twist of faith the Marathas and the Rajputs, who are lauded as the cream of the sub-continent’s military crop by Hindu nationalists, were more or less in cohorts with the Mughals. ‘Only very rarely do we hear of Hindu chieftains seeking to protect Hindus… Rajput chieftains offered no opposition even to temple demolitions by the Mughals…’ (14) The Rajputs were handicapped by three main factors viz. a lack of natural resources (they were mostly desert dwellers) (15), a parochial tendency to concentrate solely upon feudal and dynastic interests (16) and finally their own pecking order. (17) In the aftermath of the Mughal conquest of the sub-continent, the Rajputs were the first to fragment socio-political taboos by offering their females in marriage to Muslim males. (18) At a time when most Hindus despised even the notion of Muslims touching their food, the Rajputs expected their daughters to warm the beds of their Mughal overlords. The main pillars of Mughal administration and security, it is somewhat telling that out Akbar’s 416 military commanders 47 of the most prominent were Rajputs. (19) Whilst Maharana Pratap’s revolt was ongoing, the Rajputs of Marwar, Ambar, Bikaner and Bundi marched against him and played a decisive role in crushing his forces. (20) Their own obdurate interests often collided with any national sentiments they might have possessed and overruled the latter. It is no wonder then that the Rajputs, as a whole, failed to initiate and lead any long-lasting revolution to oust or even break the Mughal grip upon the sub-continent.'

'The Marathas, though distinctive in their political acts, were more or less similar to the Rajputs in that that prior to Shivaji they were proud sub-ordinates of the Muslim oppressors. Shivaji’s own father had allied himself with the Southern Pathans during the Karnataka expedition, ‘in which the Hindu religion was ruthlessly put down, lands devastated, shrines desecrated, idols broken, women’s honor violated, and all the accumulated wealth of centuries drained away…’ (21) Though great credit goes to Shivaji for arousing his fellows’ sentiments to counter the pernicious foreigners and their faith, his movement when compared with Banda Singh’s movement falls short in three respects.'

'1.) The Sikhs rejected Caste and proposed the creation of an egalitarian society. This was an aspect of Banda’s multi-faceted revolution in the Punjab and one which admirably succeeded. In the words of Irvine, ‘a low scavenger or leather dresser, the lowest of the low in Indian estimation, had only to leave home and join the Guru (referring to Banda; interjection ours), when in a short time he would return to his birthplace as its ruler with his order of appointment in his hand. As soon as he set foot with the boundaries, the well-born and wealthy went out to greet him and escort him home. Arrived there, they stood with joined palms, awaiting his orders… Not a soul dared to disobey an order, and men who had often risked themselves in battlefields became so cowed down that they were afraid even to remonstrate. Hindus who had not joined the sect were not exempt from this.’ (22) Compare this with Shivaji who according to Basham was, ‘more a restorer of old than… a builder of the new… The Marathas did not encourage reforms in Hindu society, and the India of the 18th century was if anything more conservative than it had been in the days of the first Muslim invasion.’ (23)

Basham’s view is borne out by Shivaji’s own personal correspondence. Whereas Akali Guru Gobind Singh Ji enjoined his Sikhs- among them Banda- to annihilate the very edifices of Caste (24) Shivaji issued a circular edict enjoining, ‘all members of society not to create innovation in Caste practices but follow the traditional path prescribed by the Shastras.’ (25) Furthermore he being a Bhonsle (a tiller of land), Shivaji had to beg ratification from the Brahmins before he could officially declare himself as sovereign. Several Brahmins refused to accede to what they considered as being his ludicrous request before he finally found one willing to enthrone him for a large sum of money. (26)'

'2.) Shivaji’s revolt against the Mughals arose more by chance than by design. Whereas the Sikh movement (including Banda’s) was construed to acquire an autonomous Sikh led state, Shivaji initially wanted to be a vassal of the Mughal emperor. His (Shivaji’s father) had been a mercenary in the pay of the triumvirate Pathan principalities of Southern India. (27) Enamoured of his valor, the rulers of these principalities had bequeathed him with several estates. Upon his father’s demise Shivaji succeeded him as the administrator of the aforementioned estates and commenced entertaining notions of his own state. To this end he set out for Delhi and submitted a proposal stating that he, Shivaji, would be more than honored to become a vassal of the Mughals if they recognized his autonomy. (28) Even after his treacherous confinement he would pen a lengthy letter to Raja Jay Singh pledging his life to the Mughals and also swearing an oath to assist them in the conquest of Bijapur. (29) After his escape he would dispatch another lengthy letter to Jay Singh complaining that, ‘the Emperor has cast me off; otherwise I intended to have begged him to allow me to recover Kandhar for him with my own unaided resources.’ (30)'

'3.) The ideological evolution of the Sikhs was finalized under Akali Guru Gobind Singh Ji who also outlined the faith’s political dimensions to a great extent. (31) ‘The great Sikh scholar Kapur Singh was convinced that Guru Gobind Singh believed in an aristocracy dedicated and consciously trained-but not by right of birth- and which is grounded in virtue and talent…’ (32) Whatever territories Banda and the Sikhs acquired, they handed them over to be administered by the most competent among them irregardless of birth and societal position. The latter proved to be a momentous decision as men who had been oppressed for centuries by the orthodoxy and the cudgel soon rose to political prominence, and changed the lot of their charges. Though seen by some as being the sole leader of the Sikhs, Banda was only an elected candidate. He was subject to the will of a Gurmatta, a general resolution of the Sikh assembly, and often consulted his fellows before charting his courses of action. (33) Respected for his military prowess and leadership, he was in no way a pontificate among the Sikhs who he led. He was more subject to their will than they were to his.

This principle of leaders being led by their electors was later noted by Colonel Polier, ‘as for the government of the Sicques (sic), it is properly an aristocracy, in which no pre-eminence is allowed except that which power and force naturally gives; all the chiefs, great and small, and even the poorest and most abject Sicques look themselves as perfectly equal in all the public concerns and in the greatest Council or Goormata of the nation, held annually at Ambarsar (Amritsar), Lahore, or some other place. Everything is decided by the plurality of votes taken indifferently from all who choose to be present at it.’ (34) Though during the post-Ranjit Singh era his successors ignored this vital principle and committed fratricide over the right to rule the Sikh empire; the real power vis-a-vis administration and policy lay with the Khalsa army Panchyats or councils of five who represented the people. (35) Rarely did Shivaji ever consult his people on pressing matters and rarely did they possess a voice to make their concerns known to the Maratha. The Maratha forces at the time of his death were also heavily fractured and elected to be led blindly by the noose by whichever potential successor pandered to them. (36)

Given such circumstances and situations, it can safely be summarized that Banda Singh’s revolution- though short lived- was more successful than that of his contemporaries. It aimed to conceive and utilize a plebeian (for a better want of word) base via which to liberate the victims of Caste and Islamic oppression. It aimed to make the proletariat the arbitrator of his own political destiny, and finally it reformed the otherwise dismal social circumstance of the Punjabi peasantry. Landowners and estate administrators, who formed a crucial component of both Mughal and Hindu administration, were effaced by Banda and land proprietorship bequeathed to the peasants who literally tilled the land. (37) Farmers who often suffered under the ‘whip and cudgel’ (38) finally enjoyed the fruits of their labor under Banda. No such reforms were forthcoming from either the Maratha or Rajput revolts.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Realism is missing from the version of Sikh history narrated by the white clad charlatans who lead us today; a majority of them only show backbone when their own order is challenged, 'who the hell do you think you are? We will put up a chabeel and shoot you. We are the only true Sikhs here...' and then they will conjure up some fantasy regarding how one of the ten masters dispatched a certain Sikh to do so and so and how they are descended from the latter. In reality these charlatans with their flowing beards, and even more larger guts, have "lowered the bar" (as you put it) on Sikh history and the Sikh faith. Their false stories of past Sikhs performing quixotic acts are far from the truth.

These frauds still view us as the peasantry; to be roused and herded into action whilst they retire to a safe vantage point, and observe the ensuing carnage. Whose blood is split (literally or figuratively)? Ours.

These wealth-obsessed individuals who masquerade as our spiritual betters, sitting adjacent to Guru Granth Sahib Ji lecturing us on how to be the perfect Sikh. Disgusting. What's even more disgusting are the enablers of these satanic personalities: the enemy within our ranks, namely us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jacfsing2

Banda Singh, kudos to him form performing these acts, also did much better than he is credited for today. His revolution, if analyzed properly, speaks volumes to the concept of Khalsa-Raaj and Sikh politics. Look at how his revolution differed from that of the otherwise obdurate Rajputs and Marathas:

@13Mirch, I already said what he did was right.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use