Welcome to SPN

Register and Join the most happening forum of Sikh community & intellectuals from around the world.

Sign Up Now!

Hum Hindu Nahin

Discussion in 'Sikh Sikhi Sikhism' started by Taranjeet singh, Mar 6, 2010.

  1. Taranjeet singh

    Taranjeet singh India
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer Contributor

    Oct 21, 2009
    Likes Received:
    I have been trying to get hold of the Book 'Hum Hindu Nahin'. But it seems to be out of print. I am giving below the six questions which a sikh should be ready to answer.

    Six Questions by Hindus

    1. The Sikhs have originated from Hindus.
    If you call Sikhs Hindus, because they are converts from Hindus, then why don't you call Christians as Jews who came from Jews and Moslems who originated from Quereshi Christians and Jews, etc? Why they do not accept themselves as such? In particular those
    (Christians and Moslems) who are converts from Hindus, why you do not call them Hindus?

    2. Sikhs intermingle with Hindus in respect of food and dining.
    If you call Sikhs, Hindus because they have social relations with Hindus, then you should know that Jews, Christians, Moslems, Buddhists, etc., also have their social relations. Would you call them the same?
    It will be worthwhile to give the opinion of some of our religious books on this subject.
    From this you will understand the differences between Hindus and Sikhs in respect of communality of food sharing.
    (1) Do not eat from the hands of a clean- shaven (non-Sikh). (Gur Pratap Surya)
    (2) As your chef (kitchen help) keep a Sikh. (Rahatnama Bhai Chaupa Singh)
    (3) There is no distinction of Caste. The four Varnas eat together. (Gur Pratap Surya)

    3. Sikhs intermarry with Hindus.
    If you consider Sikhs as Hindus because they intermarry, then do you consider Jews,
    Christians, Buddhists, etc., not up to their respective religions as they too intermarry? You should know from history that at one time Hindus intermarried with Mughals-- who were Muslims. It is also known that Naushervan was married to Maurice, daughter of a Christian King, and her daughter was married to Hindu Chauramni Rana of Udaipur. Daughter of Silyukas, King of Babylon was married to Raja Chandra Gupta. Hirambi, Uloopi and others who were married to prominent men of India were not Hindus. Moreover what is enjoined on the Sikhs with respect to contracting relations with Hindus and individuals of other religions that is stated here:
    1. Have relations with a Sikh of the Guru. (Rehatnama Bhai Chaupa Singh)
    2. Killing a daughter or to give a daughter (in marriage) to a non-Sikh, such a person commits great offence. Sikh should give his daughter (in marriage) to a Sikh. Thus Gurmukh meets a Gurmukh. Giving a daughter to a Bhadni (non-Sikh) is like giving nectar to a snake. (Rehatnama Bhai Desa Singh)
    3. A Sikh gives (in marriage) his daughter to a Sikh and does not accept any money in exchange. He is my Sikh and will reach in my presence. (Guru Pratap Surya)
    4. When the daughter comes of age only then relations should be contracted, not for a very young girl. And the relations should be Sikhs of the Guru. (Prem Sumagar)
    But tell us one thing. After Sikh-Hindu marriage why does a Sikh become a Hindu and not the other way around?

    4. Sikhs are citizens of Hindustan (India), then why do they say they are not Hindus?
    If you call Sikhs Hindus because they live in Hindustan (India), then you should consider Christians, Moslems as Hindus too. If on account of residence they are Hindus we have no objection to be called Hindus, i.e., Indians.

    5. If you (Sikhs) do mind, to be called Hindus, because of the meaning of the word "Hindu" in Persian, it is your ignorance. The word "Hindu" is a Sanskrit word and it means, one who conquers the enemies and is brave; cf. Ram Kosh, Mer (u) Tantar Prakash and Kalika Purana.

    You have said that the word 'Hindu' has a sublime meaning. And there should not be any objection because it is not a Persian word. You have quoted Merutantar Prakash and Kalika Purana to prove that 'Hindu' is a Sanskrit word.

    To this we would say, "In Sikh religion no language is the language of gods and none is a prohibited language. There is no need to object if a word is from a foreign language. And if according to your belief the Word 'Hindu' means supreme or sublime you are welcome to that. We never say that Hindu is a bad name. Whatever the name of a religion, an individual of another religion should have no objection to that. For example, one of the twelve sects of Yogis is called Pagal (mad) Panth. If we try to counsel them that they should not call themselves by that name, this will be our mistake, nay, and stupidity.

    The word ‘Hindu’ is from Sanskrit or Persian; scholars of the world know it. In 1920 forty five Pundits of Kanshi gave the opinion that “Hindu is pseudo-name given by Moslems, therefore to be called Hindu is not appropriate.”

    So far journals like “Bharto Dhark” have always written that the Hindu name has been given by the Malechas (polluted and of bad intellect). Therefore, the Aryas should never be called Hindus and neither Arya Varat (India) be called Hindustan. The word ‘Hindu’ has never been seen in Vedas, Shahstars, Simritis and epics like Ramayana and Mahabharta. This is strange that now it has been found in the Kosh (dictionary). It would have been better if this effort had been done before the beginning of this dispute and discussion. This effort seems to be without any reward. Having heard from Sanskrit we recall an essay by Bhartendu Babu Harish Chandra, which is:

    Whatever opinion, decision one wants one can get from a Pundit, provided one makes an appropriate offering. Example:
    Question: Pundit Ji, can you by any means prove that Christians and Moslems are Hindus?
    Answer by Pundit: Yes, make offerings. We will prove right now.
    Question: In what way?
    Pundit: Look brother. Kristan (Christians) and Musalmaan (Moslems) are pure Brahmins. In fact, the truth is like this. Yadavs had two Prohits (priests). Lord Krishna went to one of them. That Prohit was called Kristan Manva. Musali (Balbhadar) brother of Krishna went to the other; he was called Musal Manya. The two religions are descendents of those two Prohits. People do not know the correct pronunciation of the Sanskrit language. Therefore, instead of Krishna Manya and Musal Manya people started calling Christians and Moslems. Now bring offerings, so we can write this decision for you.

    Dear Hindu brother, to us it appears that your proving of the ‘Hindu’ word from Sanskrit is something of the same nature.

    6. The word "Hindu" seems to be derived from Indu and Sindhu.
    This is your imagination. It is not proved from your old religious books, otherwise give some examples.

    Excerpts taken from Hum Hindu Nahin
    Written by Bhai Kahan Singh Nabha
    Translated by Dr. Jarnail Singh
    • Like Like x 4
  2. Loading...

    Similar Threads Forum Date
    I need "Hum Hindu Hain" by Rajju Bhaiya Book Reviews & Editorials Jun 23, 2011
    Hinduism Hinduism Teaches the Practice of Humanity Interfaith Dialogues Apr 8, 2011
    Hum Hindu Nahin Sikh Sikhi Sikhism Aug 20, 2009
    Sikh News Sydney police act on Sikh humiliation (Hindustan Times) Breaking News Jul 2, 2007
    Sikh News Sikh priest jailed for human trafficking (Hindustan Times) Breaking News Sep 29, 2005

  3. Taranjeet singh

    Taranjeet singh India
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer Contributor

    Oct 21, 2009
    Likes Received:
    Conversation on Sikhi
    Hindu: In the Guru Granth Sahib it is written “Hindu Salahee Salah”, meaning all praise to Hindus (Vaar Aasa, Ang 465).
    Sikh: Dear Hindu, do not try to deceive Sikhs by quoting half a phrase. In this hymn the Guru has not described the greatness of the Hindus. Consider it clearly, the hymn says:
    Shalok, First Mehl:
    The Muslims praise the Islamic law; they read and reflect upon it.
    The Lord's bound servants are those who bind themselves to see the Lord's Vision.
    The Hindus praise the Praiseworthy Lord; the Blessed Vision of His Darshan, His form is incomparable.
    They bathe at sacred shrines of pilgrimage, making offerings of flowers, and burning incense before idols.
    The Yogis meditate on the absolute Lord there; they call the Creator the Unseen Lord.
    But to the subtle image of the Immaculate Name, they apply the form of a body.
    In the minds of the virtuous, contentment is produced, thinking about their giving.
    They give and give, but ask a thousand-fold more, and hope that the world will honor them.
    The thieves, adulterers, perjurers, evil-doers and sinners
    - after using up what good karma they had, they depart; have they done any good deeds here at all?
    There are beings and creatures in the water and on the land, in the worlds and universes, form upon form.
    Whatever they say, You know; You care for them all.
    O Nanak, the hunger of the devotees is to praise You; the True Name is their only support.
    They live in eternal bliss, day and night; they are the dust of the feet of the virtuous. ||1||

    Where is the greatness of the Hindu religion in the above hymn?

    Hindu: Guru Gobind Singh in his Chhants calls Sikhs as Hindus.

    ਸਗਲ ਜਗਤ ਮੇਂ ਖਾਲਸਾ ਪੰਥ ਗਾਜੈ । ਜਗੈ ਧਰਮ ਹਿੰਦੂ ਸਗਲ ਦੁੰਦ ਭਾਜੈ ।
    “In the whole world will roar the Khalsa Panth. Hindu dharma will flourish and all else will disappear.”

    My dear Khalsa friend, Sikh religion is a Panth (sect) of Hindus as are Bairagis etc. they are not a Quam (distinct identity). In fact, you are making noise for nothing because you do not understand the meaning of Quam and Panth (sect). Only that is a Quam that is large in number but you are only a few million.

    Sikh: My dear Hindu friend, the Chhant is not of Guru Gobind Singh Ji. It is written of Bhai Sukha Singh, a priest of Patna and devotee of Durga. Those who are familiar with the writings of Guru Gobind Singh Ji recognize that words used in the given source were never used by the Guru Ji in his poetry.
    Still if you believe that the Chhants are the writings of Guru Gobind Singh Ji then read the following which convey just the opposite meaning:
    ਮੜ੍ਹੀ ਗੋਰ ਦੇਵਲ ਮਸੀਤਾਂ ਗਿਰਾਯੰ । ਤੁਹੀਂ ਏਕ ਅਕਾਲ ਹਰਿ ਹਰਿ ਜਪਾਯੰ ।
    Graves, Hindu temples and Mosques be destroyed and that only Eternal, Hari is to be worshiped.
    ਮਿਟੇਂ ਵੇਦ ਸ਼ਾਸਤ੍ਰ ਅਠਾਰਾਂ ਪੁਰਾਨਾ । ਮਿਟੇਂ ਬਾਂਗ ਸਲਵਾਤ ਸੁੰਨਤ ਕੁਰਾਨਾਂ ।
    That all Vedas, Shashtras and Puranas to be destroyed. Destroy prayer call, circumcision and Quran.

    ਸਗਲ ਜਗਤ ਮੇਂ ਖਾਲਸਾ ਪੰਥ ਗਾਜੈ । ਜਗੈ ਧਰਮ ਹਿੰਦੂ ਸਗਲ ਦੁੰਦ ਭਾਜੈ ।
    In the whole world will roar the Khalsa Panth. Dharma will flourish and all else ‘Dund’ (Hindu and Islam) will disappear.

    Now will you please tell me, what is that Hindu dharma in support of which you quote these Chhants and that Dharma will prevail after all the Hindu temples, Shashtras, Puranas have been destroyed? You also know the meaning of the word ‘Dund’. It means no other religion remains, Hindu or Moslem. Only Khalsa Panth will remain. Moreover you have said that Sikhi is a sect not a Quam. We quote one more Chhant.

    ਦੁਹੂੰ ਪੰਥ ਮੇਂ ਕਪਟ ਵਿਦਯਾ ਚਲਾਨੀ । ਬਹੁਰ ਤੀਸਰਾ ਪੰਥ ਕੀਜੈ ਪ੍ਰਧਾਨੀ ।
    There is too much corruption in the two religions (Hindu and Islam). The third Panth (Khalsa) is made prominent.

    ਕਰੋਂ ਖਾਲਸਾ ਪੰਥ ਤੀਸਰ ਪ੍ਰਵੇਸਾ । ਜਗੈਂ ਸਿੰਘ ਜੋਧੈ ਧਰੈਂ ਨੀਲ ਭੇਸਾ ।
    The Khalsa Panth is established. Sikh warriors flourish in the world, blue in their wearing.

    Dear friend, the Chhants accepted by you call even the Hindus and Moslems as two Panths not Quam. What can I say more? Would you please tell me if the word ‘Quam’ just like the word ‘Hindu’ is from (in your dictionary) the Sanskrit language?
    I would also like to enquire from you that what is the number required (of disciples) for a Dharma to become a Quam? And at what numerical strength Christians and Moslems were accepted as Quams?

    Hindu: In your Sakhis (religious biographies) many stories prove Sikhs to be Hindus. Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji sacrificed himself for Brahmins. This proves that Sikhs are Hindus.

    Sikh: It has been clearly explained, as far as the Sikhs are concerned, from Gurbani and acceptable Sikh historic texts. There is no need of repetition. We accept only that Sakhis as a (valid) reference which is not against Gurbani.
    To help the defenseless and troubled is the cardinal principle of Sikh religion. The compassionate Guru sacrificed himself to remove the injustice and to help those who sought refuge, which does not prove that the Gurus were Hindus. The Guru showed to Aurangzeb that his desire was to make one religion from two, i.e., to convert Hindus to Islam, but this is the Will of the Almighty Waheguru that there will be the third religion Khalsa Panth distinct from the two. The Guru did not sacrifice for Brahmins but for the whole world, as it is shown in Bachittar Natak.
    He did this (sacrifice) for the sake of the Saints. He gave his head and did not utter a sigh.
    You cannot say that the word ‘Sadh’ or ‘Saint’ means Hindu. My dear Hindu brother the instruction of the Guru to Sikhs is to help the weak and defenseless. Accepting this instruction of the Guru the acts of charity and favor that the Sikhs have done for the country and the sacrifices they have offered to remove injustice, history is witness to that. There is no need for me to narrate that. We consider you (Hindus), Moslems and Christians as well our own part and treat everyone in a brotherly fashion and would forever like to do that. But from religious point of view we (Sikhs) are not Hindus because our beliefs, worship and religious symbols, according to the principles of Quam are different from those of yours. Therefore the Sikh Quam is distinct like Moslems, Hindus and Christians.

    Excerpts taken from Hum Hindu Nahin
    Written by Bhai Kahan Singh Nabha
    Translated by Dr. Jarnail Singh
    • Like Like x 6
  4. Admin Singh

    Admin Singh
    Expand Collapse
    Admin SPNer

    Jun 1, 2004
    Likes Received:
    Taranjeet Ji

    Thank you for this much needed ready reckoner.


Share This Page