Jump to content

Recommended Posts

To quote a portion:

'The seven years, from 1708-1716, which chart the meteoric rise and execution of Banda Singh Bahadur are a testament to the rugged individualism and grit of the Sikhs. They reflect a prominent pattern of Sikh history viz. the ascent, descent and the re-ascent of the Khalsa over it’s foes. As memories of June 1984 loom ever closer, it would be prudent for Sikhs worldwide to reflect upon the revolutions of both Banda and the Sikhs of ’84 and attempt to identify the similarities in both. It is a given that no two movements can ever be fully compared or even contrasted, but a general consensus can always be agreed upon vis-a-vis their effect and ultimate conclusion. The forced demise of Banda Singh’s revolution did not put it’s spirit to sleep; rather it only bolstered the Sikh spirit and the Khalsa continued it’s struggle for sovereignty and religious freedom in the wilderness of the Punjab. Post-’84, the Sikhs failed to derive inspiration from their past and rather focused solely upon the trauma of ’84. As such, their history was brought to a premature conclusion on the events of the aforementioned period. One need only imagine what the result would have been if the post-Banda Sikhs had focused solely upon their treatment at the hands of the Mughals, rather than taking any conducive steps towards preserving themselves from such atrocities in the future.'

https://tisarpanthdotcom.wordpress.com/2016/06/03/the-stalwarts-revolution/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was alpha as anything. A proper "Banda." Liberal Sikhs want to downplay or even write him out of Sikh history because of his aversion for Islam, and the way he went about giving those animals a bloody nose. He perhaps went too far, and like a genuine man, he was all too willing to accept his mistakes, and the following quote of his prior to his execution - in a conversation with a Mughal higher-up - proves he understood the nature of God more than most so-called men of God:

"Whenever men become so corrupt and wicked as to relinquish the path of equity and abandon themselves to all kinds of excesses, then Providence never fails to raise up a scourge like me to chastise a race so depraved; but when the measure of punishment is full then he raises up men like you to bring him to punishment."

Banda Singh is an important element of Sikh history. Just as Nawab Kapur Singh was reduced to the margins long ago, so too is Banda now being pushed out. The lives of these men are worth learning from.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jacfsing2

He perhaps went too far, and like a genuine man, he was all too willing to accept his mistakes, and the following quote of his prior to his execution - in a conversation with a Mughal higher-up - proves he understood the nature of God more than most so-called men of God:[/i]

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?

Share this post


Link to post
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?

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only mistakes banda singh bahadur did in their short time as a sikh, was after destroyin muslims n bringin justice to sikhs, he began disobeyin the khalsa and khalsa instructions n wanted ppl to worship him more than the guru. A bit similar to wat ranjit singh did. Both banda n ranjit singh were supposed to make it sikh empires, but both got greedy/egotistical n both raj's failed. But banda singh bahadur did repay the khalsa back, with his shaheedi, which has and will go down in history, as the 1 of most courageous shaheedis.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

There's a bit of a tendency amongst apnaay these days to make the puraatan Sikhs into something they weren't. It's essentially a legacy of the British colonization of the Punjab and the Sikh pysche - hence the transplanting of Western knightly/chivalric virtues onto the characters in our itihaas. This fiction was conducive to the Brits' agenda for the Sikhs as a source of potential recruits. The true story of early Sikh history, with its cast of half-naked unruly horsemen ransacking settlements and burning everything else to the ground, was not the recipe for producing the docile and obedient European-style line infantry [paid in wages and discouraged from looting] that they required - so they tried to get rid of it.

*Also the very popular idea that 'Sikhs have never attacked first'. [As if to suggest that there is anything wrong with attacking your enemies before they can lash out at you. There isn't] In reality Sikhs have attacked first, it happened all the time in the confederacy era. This seems to me like another Angrezi myth calculated to keep their Sikh ghulaams from rising up and rebelling/attacking first.

Edited by Balkaar
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a bit of a tendency amongst apnaay these days to make the puraatan Sikhs into something they weren't. It's essentially a legacy of the British colonization of the Punjab and the Sikh pysche - hence the transplanting of Western knightly/chivalric virtues onto the characters in our itihaas. This fiction was conducive to the Brits' agenda for the Sikhs as a source of potential recruits. The true story of early Sikh history, with its cast of half-naked unruly horsemen ransacking settlements and burning everything else to the ground, was not the recipe for producing the docile and obedient European-style line infantry [paid in wages and discouraged from looting] that they required - so they tried to get rid of it.

Absolutely. The slightly naive belief that all puratan Sikhs functioned according to Satjugi behavioural tendencies in a world ravaged by Kaljug is quite amusing. The same people will point to historical Sikh defeats and social misfortunes as divine punishment for erring from those sacred ideals, as if we were spared from violence and death when our Guru Sahibs were at the forefront of Sikh life.

It's a dangerous and, at worst, a deliberately misleading rewriting of Sikh history in order to edit the slightly questionable aspects of human behaviour, in order to present a watered-down version of reality. We've nothing to be ashamed of at all. There's no dishonour in showing humanistic tendencies in those apparently hallowed times; if anything, future generations of sophisticated and intelligent Sikhs will be more inclined to learn about and respect our history if it isn't a mythological white-wash more akin to the folklore of thousands of years ago as opposed to events that barely occurred 500 years in the past, which in the grand scheme of human history is not too long ago.

For clarification, I'm referring to solely to the period post-Guru Sahibs. I'm not casting aspersions on our Guru Sahibs divinity in any way.

Edited by MisterrSingh
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely. The slightly naive belief that all puratan Sikhs functioned according to Satjugi behavioural tendencies in a world ravaged by Kaljug is quite amusing. The same people will point to historical Sikh defeats and social misfortunes as divine punishment for erring from those sacred ideals, as if we were spared from violence and death when our Guru Sahibs were at the forefront of Sikh life.

It's a dangerous and, at worst, a deliberately misleading rewriting of Sikh history in order to edit the slightly questionable aspects of human behaviour, in order to present a watered-down version of reality. We've nothing to be ashamed of at all. There's no dishonour in showing humanistic tendencies in those apparently hallowed times; if anything, future generations of sophisticated and intelligent Sikhs will be more inclined to learn about and respect our history if it isn't a mythological white-wash more akin to the folklore of thousands of years ago as opposed to events that barely occurred 500 years in the past, which in the grand scheme of human history is not too long ago.

Demonstrating some of these humanistic/Kaljug tendencies is definitely necessary in war. The Nihang Singhs have always maintained that you need some measure of Tamoguni and Rajoguni instincts to be a sipahi, and they're right, for else would someone be capable of taking a life? Sikhi distinguishes itself from other faiths by inhabiting the real world - it doesn't obsess over the next one like Islam, and it doesn't tell people to run away from it's troubles like Hinduism - it has a very practical and human component which the others do not, partly because it recognizes that nobody can live in this world without being being touched by it in some way. Why try to replace this with the banalities of all the rest?

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.

Edited by Balkaar
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baba jee was a Brahmgiani Mahapush. He has been misunderstood by early Sikh writers. Among the Gupt 96 crore Shaheed Singh Khalsa fauj, he is very much honoured and is one of the top most generals. Even Sant Gurbachan Singh Bhindranwale had Darshan of Baba Banda Singh Bahadur along with respected Shaheed like Baba Deep Singh jee and others. While living, Baba jee had all the Akali Shaktis and used them extensively along with the 5 teers given by Guru Gobind Singh Jee Maharaj in war against the Mughals.

Edited by Jonny101
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by MisterrSingh
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How sad that on a thread regarding Banda Singh Ji within two posts all the negative/incorrect aspects of Banda Ji are brought up again.

Banda Singh was a TRUE son of Guru Gobind Singh Ji , it is said that Guru Ji was about to give Banda Singh Ji His own siri sahib but the likes of Binod Singh grabbed the siri sahib saying this belongs to the Khalsa panth. It was the will of the Guru to give Banda Singh Ji His siri-sahib how sad that the Sikhs opposed their own Guru.

The Sikhs would say "Khalsa dhi fateh", Baba Banda Singh Ji would say "Guru dhi fetah". There is rubbish that has been written about Banda Singh Ji I do not believe a word of it. Do you have any idea how oppressive the musallay were at the time? Wedding used to take place in the middle of the night because if the mohgals got wind of it they would come and take off with the bride, anywhere they was a sadhu they would behead, this disease needed to be cut out.

All his life he had waited for Guru Gobind Singh Ji and Guru Ji specifically went looking for him, finding him near Nanded.

Baba Banda Singh Ji was a Mahan Mahapursh and a Mahan yodha the likes of which we may never see again. Forget any negativity and Rememeber him as a true mahapursh in your adrass's in the morning and you will get great blessings from your Guru.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
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?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?)

All revolutions tend to be violent. Without force, all movements are ultimately deadened. The Punjabi peasants, irrespective of Caste and Creed, rose up as one under Banda's dynamism to confront their oppressors who were notorious for many misdeeds. A few portions from the article, in question, should substantiate this:

'The peasant, since time immemorial, has been one of the pontificate societal blocs of the sub-continent. The onset of the Aryan invasion, and the societal evolution which followed, reduced him to the status of a pariah in the Varna (Caste) scheme of things. (2) The raison d’ etre behind this was that the tillers of land perpetually killed insects and as such were unworthy of pursuing Moksha or liberation from worldly affairs. (3) Caste segregation however did not conclude there. It’s promulgators alleged, on a scriptural basis, that the peasant was a pariah owing to his past Karma; thus then there was no recourse left for the peasant but to accept his lot in life silently. His suffering was perniciously impugned on his own self by his betters and he was indoctrinated into believing that only he was responsible for his own oppression.'

'The context in which Banda ignited his revolution can only be understood if one was to analyze the condition of the peasantry under the Mughal Polity. The Prophet Muhammad had decreed to his apostles, before his demise, to conquer lands far and wide and spread Islam at all costs even if this meant resorting to the razor edge of the sword. (4) The fervor and passion with which his apostles executed this edict is a lurid tale of genocides, massacres and purges which have earned a notorious residence in history. The indifference with which the upper Castes persecuted their sub-ordinate brethren was the same indifference with which the invading Muslims oppressed both them and their victims. The Rulers of Islam, dependent as they were upon an ultra-orthodox clergy to ratify them, soon realized that the Prophet’s command clashed with a ground reality. In the words of Eraly, ‘…as the Arab empire expanded into the lands of other established religions, it became impossible to enforce the death-or-Islam rule, as infidels in new territories were too firm in their own faith to accept Islam, and too numerous to be killed. Moreover the subject people were needed to do the productive work which Muslims, as the ruling class, usually shirked.’'

'Placating the Islamic Ulama required the conversion of dar-ul-harb-the land of infidels- into the dar-ul-Islam or the land of Muslims. (6) Given the aforementioned factors though, this was a colossal implausibility. The Mughal elite however avoided any clerical repercussions by utilizing a loophole in this principle. They imposed a transitional arrangement upon their infidel subjects which stipulated that, ‘their lives were spared only provisionally; they were permitted to live only on sufferance. And as long as they remained infidels, they had to suffer numerous humiliating disabilities…’ (6) Owing to Caste, the fractured state of sub-continental society did not allow any prolonged resistance towards the Islamic rulers. Ephemeral revolts such as Maharana Pratap’s were ultimately crushed by individuals belonging to his own community whilst the Mughals interfered only occasionally.'

Muslims, read Islam-Sikhism; the Da'wah group etc, who tend to argue that Muslims only destroyed non-Muslim places of worship for political reasons:

'Muslim apologists contend that under Islamic rule such acts were only ever ordered for political purposes (9) but the destruction of a religious place of worship , even for political purposes, does not signify respect for another faith. Rather, it only exposes the ruling race/faith’s prejudice towards a subject people. The cause, and level, of intolerance may vary but the antipathy cannot be ignored.'

'Contemporary records, of the time, substantiate the almost sub-human existence of the peasant. Moreland notes that, ‘the peasant is the last person to benefit by a rise in price, while he is the first to suffer from a fall…’ (10) A marked difference existed between both Muslims and Hindus even in matters of employment and occupation. Muslims, as the ruling class, shirked what they perceived as being menial tasks. These were often thrown upon the Hindus who whilst performing them had to undergo numerous humiliations. Among them the prime sufferers were usually the artisan or the peasant. ‘The tyranny is often so excessive as to deprive the peasant and artisan of the necessities of life, and leave them to die of misery and exhaustion…’ (11) During Aurangzeb’s reign Bernier noted that, ‘a considerable portion of the good land remains untilled from want of labourers, many of whom perish in consequence of the bad treatment they experience from the governor…’ (12) The Dutch trader Pelsaert would contrast the grandeur of Muslim life with that of the Hindu’s when he would remark that, ‘in the palaces of these lords dwells all the wealth there is, wealth which glitters indeed, but is… wrung from the sweat of the poor… resting on no firm foundation… (though) resplendent in the eyes of the world.’'

Given such brutalities is it any wonder then that Sullahs were dragged out of their beds and slaughtered in the same way as their Prophet once slaughtered those who refused to believe in his cult?

Edited by 13Mirch
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Right, from one point of view, there is only Parmatma. From Rehras: ਤੂੰ ਆਪੇ ਦਾਤਾ ਆਪੇ ਭੁਗਤਾ ਜੀ ਹਉ ਤੁਧੁ ਬਿਨੁ ਅਵਰੁ ਨ ਜਾਣਾ ॥ You Yourself are the Giver, and You Yourself are the Enjoyer. I know no other than You. ਸੋਪੁਰਖੁ ਆਸਾ (ਮਃ ੪) (੧) ੨:੩ - ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ : ਅੰਗ ੧੧ ਪੰ. ੨ 
      Raag Asa Guru Ram Das   Bhai Gurdas ji elucidates this viewpoint: ਆਪੇ ਭੁਖਾ ਹੋਇਕੈ ਆਪਿ ਜਾਇ ਰਸੋਈ। He (the Lord) Himself posing to be hungry goes into the kitchen and cooks the food kneading in it all sorts of delights. ਭੋਜਨ ਆਪਿ ਬਣਾਇਦਾ ਰਸ ਵਿਚਿ ਰਸ ਗੋਈ। Himself eating and getting satiated He showers praises on the dainty dishes. ਆਪੇ ਖਾਇ ਸਲਾਹਿਕੈ ਹੋਇ ਤ੍ਰਿਪਤਿ ਸਮੋਈ। He Himself is the delight as well as the delighted. ਆਪੇ ਰਸੀਆ, ਆਪਿ ਰਸ, ਰਸੁ ਰਸਨਾ ਭੋਈ। He is the juice as well as the tongue which relishes its taste. ਦਾਤਾ ਭੁਗਤਾ ਆਪਿ ਹੈ, ਸਰਬੰਗ ਸਮੋਈ। He permeating through all, Himself is the giver as well as receiver. ਆਪੇ ਆਪਿ ਵਰਤਦਾ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਸੁਖੁ ਹੋਈ ॥੩॥ Knowing the fact that He permeates among all, the Gurmukh feels immense pleasure. ਵਾਰਾਂ ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰਦਾਸ : ਵਾਰ ੨ ਪਉੜੀ ੩ ਪੰ. ੬
    • Could you now pose the questions I posed to your Christian "friend" and tell us what his answers are? Also a few more: Is it possible for Jehovah to cease existing? If Jesus is God, then why did Jesus call out to God the Father asking why He had forsaken him? Does that mean God can fall into low spirits (dhendi kala)? If so, is He really God? If He's depressed, how can he help us out of our depressions? Or is He really all-powerful? If it's possible for him to not be perfect, is it possible that what Jesus taught can be said to be imperfect? If so, cannot his words in the Bible said to be imperfect? And if Jesus was imperfect, then his disciples become imperfect by extension, correct? And if his disciples were imperfect, then what they wrote in the Bible is imperfect, too, by extension, correct? If Jesus is God, then why was Jesus tempted in the desert when Satan tempted him? Is God tempted by Maya? If so, is Maya more powerful than Jesus (or Jehovah)?
       
    • Thank you.  I don't often eat them myself, but I was curious.  I appreciate the feedback.
    • It must be leaving everything which carries a higher life form In  it - as an egg is the food of a chick. There are some papers or maybe rehet in punjabi which mentions not eating eggs.  Most of my elders did eat though. I think it is recently it got practised more and you can see why. Eggs contain harmful bacteria these days. You might fall behind in your simran by falling ill. Just my speculation. 
    • A poster in another thread mentioned eggs being off limit.  So I tried researching dietary teachings of Sikhi.  I ran straight into a wall of conflicting information. Some eating meat as long as its not kosher or halal, others eating jhatka meat only.  Still nothing on eggs.  I respect everyone's personal choice, but where do the eggs come in?  
×