Jump to content

In Defense of Baba Banda Singh Bahadur


Recommended Posts

Guest AjeetSinghPunjabi
1 hour ago, dallysingh101 said:

It's the same with Baba Deep Singh ji. Unfortunately I can't ask Mr. Bhangu about his omissions, but I appreciate what he did leave us. 

I know i shouldn't be saying this but I wonder sometimes what the actual history is . Have we overglorified our history ? I wonder sometimes, but i quickly ask my mind to STFU lol because it might sow seeds of atheism and un-sharda towards guru sahib in my mind and i don't want that. 

Besides why would it matter if , say, for the sake of argument, it was only Guru Teg bahadur ji who got shaheedi and there were no 3 sikhs with him , and similar incidents in sikh history. Or perhaps Baba Deep Singh ji didn't fight with his head on his hand.  Why would it matter and why should it matter to us ?

As long as these examples help us be better in sikhi, we should overlook them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:

I know i shouldn't be saying this but I wonder sometimes what the actual history is . Have we overglorified our history ? I wonder sometimes, but i quickly ask my mind to STFU lol because it might sow seeds of atheism and un-sharda towards guru sahib in my mind and i don't want that. 

Besides why would it matter if , say, for the sake of argument, it was only Guru Teg bahadur ji who got shaheedi and there were no 3 sikhs with him , and similar incidents in sikh history. Or perhaps Baba Deep Singh ji didn't fight with his head on his hand.  Why would it matter and why should it matter to us ?

As long as these examples help us be better in sikhi, we should overlook them. 

I think there is a big problem with any reductionalist approach.  I think acting like we could know everything is the depth of stupidity myself. History is fascinating and interesting, especially when we find new things out. It also depends on how you use it. Let's take the Banda Singh example:

Person 1 might say: "Oh, that's disrespectful to Banda Singh, these writers were motivated for x,y reasons. etc. etc."

Person 2 might say: "Well, we've got fascinating information here, we get to expand our language skills reading this stuff (a continual struggle for the diaspora). It keeps us away from other waste of time stuff like watching BB. Also (crucially) we've got a non-whitewashed example of leadership  during a crisis in the narrative  and we could analyse many of the issues that come up from this and learn from them."

 I'd say people who have problems which such accounts generally do so because they've turned our puratan ancestors into some sort of demi-gods (which I note is post annexation phenomena) and have dehumanised them and in light of this, so now they cannot grasp the importance of the writings because it conflicts with their preconceived notions. The Singh Sabha approach to historiography is largely responsible for this, because many of those people (I imagine through close contact and education with christians and anglos during the colonised period) imbibed their values and worldviews and judged their own ancestors in light of their 'education' or mental conditioning.

What shocks me is that people don't grasp that if hypothetically today, we had to fight it out as a community, we are pretty much guaranteed to see similar issues of some people not being happy with any leader, and differences arising. This will inevitably lead to fractures ala Bandai and Tat Khalsa. One key thing to take from the narrative, is that despite that, Singhs still persevered. 

Another key fact that Bhangu's critics fail to recognise is that Bhangu himself narrates how later (after Banda's demise) when the going got super tough with the moghuls, he records how the Tat Khalsa lamented Banda Singh's loss and wailed about how if he was still there, he'd had dealt with the moghuls and they wouldn't have been suffering like they were. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

I think there is a big problem with any reductionalist approach.  I think acting like we could know everything is the depth of stupidity myself. History is fascinating and interesting, especially when we find new things out. It also depends on how you use it. Let's take the Banda Singh example:

Person 1 might say: "Oh, that's disrespectful to Banda Singh, these writers were motivated for x,y reasons. etc. etc."

Person 2 might say: "Well, we've got fascinating information here, we get to expand our language skills reading this stuff (a continual struggle for the diaspora). It keeps us away from other waste of time stuff like watching BB. Also (crucially) we've got a non-whitewashed example of leadership  during a crisis in the narrative  and we could analyse many of the issues that come up from this and learn from them."

 I'd say people who have problems which such accounts generally do so because they've turned our puratan ancestors into some sort of demi-gods (which I note is post annexation phenomena) and have dehumanised them and in light of this, so now they cannot grasp the importance of the writings because it conflicts with their preconceived notions. The Singh Sabha approach to historiography is largely responsible for this, because many of those people (I imagine through close contact and education with christians and anglos during the colonised period) imbibed their values and worldviews and judged their own ancestors in light of their 'education' or mental conditioning.

What shocks me is that people don't grasp that if hypothetically today, we had to fight it out as a community, we are pretty much guaranteed to see similar issues of some people not being happy with any leader, and differences arising. This will inevitably lead to fractures ala Bandai and Tat Khalsa. One key thing to take from the narrative, is that despite that, Singhs still persevered. 

Another key fact that Bhangu's critics fail to recognise is that Bhangu himself narrates how later (after Banda's demise) when the going got super tough with the moghuls, he records how the Tat Khalsa lamented Banda Singh's loss and wailed about how if he was still there, he'd had dealt with the moghuls and they wouldn't have been suffering like they were. 

There was an Ardass performed for Baba Ji's chardi kala at Sri Darbar Sahib by the Tat Khalsa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/07/2017 at 9:37 PM, dallysingh101 said:

Bhangu's Panth Prakash is also a great source on Banda Singh Bahadhur. 

There is this strong tendency by many apnay to whitewash (essentially rewrite) history to make it inline with some sort of preconceived (usually romanticised) image they have in their head. I think this way of thinking stems from victorian/anglo/protestant christian values  from the colonial period (that people have imbibed), because prior to that, indigenous Sikh historiography had no problems with warts and all accounts of Sikh history. After the 'annexation' Sikh historians all of a sudden felt compelled to start rewriting/hiding stuff. After a century of that, we've ended up in a strange position where we are overly suspicious of our own pre-colonial literature and whilst our ancestors had no problem with the contents, people today struggle to accept them.  

Today dolly aka moni is saying this about Baba Band Singb.  In several years he will take biased and/ alter data to say Sant Jarnail Singh ji Khalsa is wrong in some fashion.  Panth Parkash is not accepted in totality.  Moni only accepts those part that hurt Sikhs. Gurmukhs only accept that is according to Gurbani.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Akalifauj said:

Today dolly aka moni is saying this about Baba Band Singb.  In several years he will take biased and/ alter data to say Sant Jarnail Singh ji Khalsa is wrong in some fashion.  Panth Parkash is not accepted in totality.  Moni only accepts those part that hurt Sikhs. Gurmukhs only accept that is according to Gurbani.

If reading what another Singh historian wrote about 200 years ago is enough to 'hurt' a Sikh, they must be really weak minded. 

Stop crying at every little thing for your own sake. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

It's the same with Baba Deep Singh ji. Unfortunately I can't ask Mr. Bhangu about his omissions, but I appreciate what he did leave us. 

Here is another example.  On sikhawareness forum moni fanatically tried to force other to accept goats story around punj pyare.  Even after moni was told of Bhai jeevan singhs written account of what actually happened on 1699.  He tried very hard to dismiss Bhai jeevan singhs account.  The other poster said the samething I am saying today.  The other poster called him out.  How can your account be accepted?  On what merit and authencity.  This extremist could not answer the question and he ran away with his tail between his legs.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

If reading what another Singh historian wrote about 200 years ago is enough to 'hurt' a Sikh, they must be really weak minded. 

Stop crying at every little thing for your own sake. 

This shows you are very stupid to accept everything that is written down 200 years ago.  200 years from now dolly aka moni will be your name because your grand child will learn from Mr. Stupid to accept everything written.   On the other hand Gurmukhs have done the hard work of cross checking and going with a more accurate account.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moni has been whining on these forums for more than 20 years.  Its always the same argument that has been shown to be proven wrong that he will bring up.  Always attacking the poster and never providing authentic accurate writings.  He's a internet warrior and a troll for last 20 odd years.  The very labels he is, he tries to put on others.  UK sangat need to meet this guy in person and have a face to face debate and record it.  Expose the troll for all to see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Mahakaal96 said:

Baba Binod Singh didn't disobey anyone, he was never under the command of Banda, rather, as per the wishes of Guru Mahraj Banda was under the command of Panj Singh, one of whom was Baba Binod Singh. If anyone disobeyed, it was Banda when he considered himself above the Khalsa.

Nawab Kapur Singh and the panth accepted jageer from the Mughals to, I suppose you consider him as a 'baba Santa singh of his time'. 

The bottom line is, you know nothing about raj neeti.

Answer @13Mirch, do you want him to put up the audio clip in which Sant Jarnail Singh agrees with the perception of Banda as depicted by Rattan Singh Bhangu? 

Why is there a hukamnama from Mata Sundri Ji commanding all sikhs to abandon Banda because he had abandoned gurmat? 

According to you, Baba Binod Singh was wrong, Mata Sundri Ji was wrong, Rattan Singh Bhangu was wrong & Sant Jarnail Singh was wrong..... but you and your modern historians are right..... clown!!

What are you talking about? Binod Singh was the only one of the Panj Pyaras who left the councel of the Punj Pyaras and abandoned the Singhs. All the other 4 of the 5 Pyaras remained with Baba Ji including Binod SIngh's OWN SON!

Binod Singh had contacts with the Mughals. He then recieved a Jagir from them for his treachery. This treacherous person then uses his influence with his Mughals friends to free his son from death. So this traiter not only broke ranks and disobeyed his leader, he left the councel of the Panj Pyaras, he saves his own son while letting all the other Singh die.

On the other hand, Baba Jee was a Bedaagh Shaksee`at (a blot less personality). He was personally handpicked by Gurus Sahib. He lived and for his Guru's commands. He killed the killers of the Sahibzade, he created the first Sikh state and uprooted 800 years of Muslim rule. He gave land to the peasants who were living like serfs. And if that isn't enough, he died such a unimaginable torturous death but did not waver one bit. He had his own son's beating heart shoved into her mouth  How can you compare this to the traitor who saved his son and accepted Jagir from the Mughals!

I will defend Baba Jee as long as I have swaas in my body. You are doing Nindya of this Brahmgiani Mahapursh. You have no idea how much Paap you are putting on your head by doing this.

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