Who Is The Author Of Dasam Granth?

[Admin]

Who is the Author of Dasam Granth?
- Late Baldev Singh

Introduction
In order to ascertain the authenticity of authorship of any baani (poetic composition) attributed to
Sikhs Gurus that is outside the Aad Guru Granth Sahib (AGGS), it is essential to understand the
tradition of writing baani by Sikh Gurus and the process of compiling the Sikh canon which was
vested with Guruship jointly with the Khalsa Panth (entire Sikh community) by Guru Gobind
Singh in 1708 [1] before his demise.
Guru Arjan compiled the first formal Sikh canon in 1604 [2] by incorporating the baanis of his
four predecessors, his own and that of humanist bhagats and sufis that were consistent with
Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat), in the form a Pothi/Granth (book) and he named it as Aad Granth
(Eternal Granth). Careful reading of AGGS reveals that it contains baanis of Six Gurus only:
Nanak, Angad, Amar Das, Ram Das, Arjan and Tegh Bahadur. This means that the other four
Gurus: Hargobind, Har Rai, Har Krishan and Gobind Singh did not write baani worthy of canon
status. Further the baanis of Gurus are distinguished from each other by the succession numbers
of Gurus to the house of Nanak with their baanis (Mahala: first, second, third, fourth, fifth and
ninth) whereas the banis of bhagats and sufis are designated as bhagat banis under their names.
Furthermore, the baanis of all the Gurus are recorded under the signature of “Nanak” to affirm
and emphasize the “unity of ideology/thought in the Sikh tradition”. Moreover, in some of their
hymns they use the word nwnku (Nanaku) to emphasize that what they are saying is Nanak’s
voice. Later on Guru Tegh Bahadur added his baani to a copy of Aad Granth [3, 4].
According to Sikhs tradition, Guru Gobind Singh prepared the final version of the Sikh scripture
called Damdami Bir that contained all the baanis of Aad Granth and the baani of Guru Tegh
Bahadur. It acquired this name as it was prepared at a resting station (Damdama) either in
Anandpur or Sabo Ki Talvandi. It is believed that it was this volume which he carried to Nander
with him and vested it with Guruship before his death. Further, it is said that during the battle
with Ahamad Shah Abdali in 1762, it was last for good [5].
Before his death in 1708, Guru Gobind Singh abolished the personal Guruship and vested
Guruship jointly on the Damdami Bir and the Khalsa Panth (entire Sikh Sangat). To distinguish
Damdami Bir from Aad Granth (Awid gRMQ), it was called “Dasven Patshah Da Granth”.
sRI guru goibMd isMG svwmI ny dmdmy dy mkwm sMmq 1762-63 iv~c jo Awqimk Skiq nwl kMT qoN
bwxI au~cwrx krky gurU gRMQ swihb ilKvwieAw, ausdw nwauN dsvy pwqSwh dw gRMQ swihb hoieAw, pr
pRis~D nwauN dmdmy vwlI bIV hY[
The Granth that Guru Gobind Singh dictated from spiritual memory at Damdma in Sammat
1762-63 (1705-06 C. E.) is called “Dasaven Patshah Da Granth Sahib”, but its popular
name is “Damdami Bir” [6].
This account is a refection of the popular belief of devout Sikhs. Actually, Guru Gobind Singh
had a copy of Aad Granth that included his father’s baani. There are manuscripts of Aad Granth
which include the baani of Guru Tegh Bahadur currently available that were prepared during
Guru Tegh Bahdur’s time [3, 4].
Thus the tradition of writing baani by Sikhs Gurus and the process of compilation of Aad Guru
Granth Sahib is an irrefutable argument against any baani of canon status attributed to Guru
Gobind Singh. Had Guru Gobind written any baani of canon status, he would have done so under
the signature of Nanak and incorporated it into Aad Granth like his father, Guru Tegh Bahadur
did? Moreover, had Guru Gobind Singh written any baani that were of any value to the Sikhs, he
would have issued instructions/edict to the Sikhs, and there is absolutely no evidence of that?
Moreover, Sikhs have been reminded since the early 18th century that Damdami Bir (Dasven
Patshah Da Granth) which was vested with Guruship by Guru Gobind in 1708 is the only
Scripture which is the living Guru for the Sikhs.
sB is~Kn kau hukm hY guru mwinE grMQ [
guru grMQ jI mwinE pRgt gurW kI dyh [
j kw ihrdw suD hY Koj sbd myN ly h[
(jo pRB ko imlbo chy Koj sbd mih lyh)[
Sikhs are directed to recognize Granth as the Guru. Recognize Granth as the embodiment
of Gurus. Those who are sincere would find the Gurus’ spirit (teachings) in S
sabad/baani.
[From a hymn that is recited after Ardas (The Sikh congregational prayer).]
Additionally, according to the Rahitnama of Bhai Daya Singh, one of the Panj Piaras (Five
Beloved ones), any Sikh who reads baani other than that of Aad Guru Granth Sahib would go to
hell(ibnW guru kI bwnI ky AOr bwnI pVHY so kuMB nrk myN pVy) [7].
Discussion
There is no evidence anywhere or logical explanation that Guru Gobind authored the spurious
contents of the so-called Dasam Granth with the exception of a letter (Zafarnama) in Persian [8],
that he is said to have written to Emperor Aurangzeb. On the other hand there is overwhelming
strong evidence that goes against the authorship of Dasam Granth by Guru Gobind Singh.
1. Dasam Granth is nothing but a compendium of Puranic literature whereas Guru Nanak
rejected all the essentials of Hinduism, its scriptures and the Sanskrit language [9, 10].
Dasam Granth totally repudiates Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat) which was encapsulated
by Guru Gobind Singh in his “Nash Doctrine or Five Freedoms” as a must for the Khalsa.
The Khalsa should annihilate (nash) the influence of Varna Ashrarma Dharama/Caste
System. In other words Khalsa should be completely free from influence of Varna
Ashrarma Dharama (dharm nash); Hindu rituals/ceremonies/formalities (karam nash);
superstition (bharam nash); family lineage (kul nash) and caste-based occupation
restrictions (krit nash) [11]. So why would Guru Gobind Singh write himself or ask any
one else to write or approve of any writing that repudiates Gurmat and his Nash doctrine?
2. Guru Gobind Singh’s contemporaries and close associates like Sainapati, Nanad Lal,
Prahlad Singh, Daya Singh and Sewa Das make no mention of Guru Gobind Singh’s
writings though they mention Guru Granth and Guru Panth or Guru Khalsa pointing out
that Guru Gobind Singh abolished the personal line of Guruship by vesting it jointly on
the Sikh community (Panth) and the Granth (Aad Guru Granth Sahib) [12]. Had Guru
Guru Gobind Singh written such a large number of miscellaneous works as the contents
of modern so-called Dasam Granth, it is difficult to imagine that Sainapati, Nanad Lal,
Daya Singh, Prahlad Singh and Sewa Das would have failed to notice them? Further
even the Rahitnamas attributed to Guru Gobind Singh’s close associates, Nand Lal, Daya
Singh and Prahlad Singh make no mention of Dasam Granth or any of Guru Gobind’s
writings while emphasizing Guru Granth and Guru Panth [13]. Furthermore, Professor J.
S. Grewal quotes contemporary and latter Sikh source to point out that Guru Gobind
Singh abolished personal line of Guruship when he vested Guruship jointly on the Granth
and the Khalsa (entire Sikh community).
The evidence of Sikh writers on the issue of Guruship does not support the idea that
any person after Guru Gobind Singh could be regarded as Guru. In the contemporary
works of Sainapat, Guruship is vested by Guru Gobind Singh himself in the Khalsa
and Shabsd-Bani. Sainapat, 133-35. Around the mid-eighteenth century, Chaupa
Singh’s Rahit-Nama refers to Guruship vested in the Granth Sahib and in the Khalsa,
the entire Khalsa or the entire Sikh Sangat. Chaupa Singh, 76, 98, 100, 116, & 120.
Koer Singh who is placed in the mid-eighteenth or early nineteenth century, refers to
Guru-Khalsa and Guru Granth. Koer Singh, 138, 139, 183 & 184. Kesar Singh
Chhiber refers to the ‘ten forms’ as lamps lighted by one another. He refers to the
Adi Granth and the Khalsa as Guru. Chibber, 29, 36, 112, 126, 136 & 163-64. Ratan
Singh Bhangu in the 1840s talks of the Khalsa and the Adi Granth as the Guru.
Bhangu, 297, 298 & 389. Thus, the evidence in favour corporal and scriptural
Guruship is overwhelming. The individuals who claimed Guruship did so in spite of
the doctrines of Guru-Granth and Guru-Panth [14].
3. The available European sources on Sikhs up to the end of 18th century mention that
Sikhs had only one scripture, Granth; the visitors to Amritsar and Patna Sahib saw only
one book (Granth) and make no mention of any other book[15, 16]. Besides, the book
named “Dasam Granth” was not known to the Sikhs in Punjab even in the nineteenth
century. For example, Cunningham (1849) [17], Macauliffe (1909) [18] and Bhangoo
(1841) [19] do not mention any book/granth called Dasam Granth.
Sixty-one years after the death of Guru Gobind Singh, Kesar Singh Chibber in his Bansavalinama
(Punjabi) (1769) mentions Bachittar Natak. He quotes from chapter 6 of the Bachittar Natak he
had, a different version of Apni Katha (autobiography) which is found in chapter 6 of the current
version of Bachittar Natak. His version does not have the first five stanzas of the current version
and he does not call it Apni Katha [20]. About four decades later, John Malcolm mentions in his
Sketch of the Sikhs published in 1812 that “Vichitra Natac” is a part of “Dasma Padshah Ka
Granth” [21]. And he quotes the translation of first four stanzas of the current Apni Katha starting
with: “I now declare my own history and the multifarious austerities which I have performed
[22].” This shows that Chibber’s Bachittar Natak is different from Maclolm’s Vachitra Natac.
However, Malcolm makes no mention of the other contents of “Dasma Padshah Ka Granth”. It
seems that Kesar Singh Chibber was not aware of “Dasma Padshah Ka Granth” otherwise he
would have mentioned it in Bansavalinama.
On the other hand Malcolm had access to the spurious “Dasma Padshah Ka Granth” which was
being compiled under the name of Guru Gobind Singh. Its contents were slowly introduced to the
Sikh community under a well-planned scheme in the nineteenth century through Udasis and
Nirmalas who were the mahants and pujaris (priests) of Gurdwaras and Dharamsalas. And there
were 32 different versions of “Dasma Padshah Ka Granth” floating in Punjab in the last quarter
of the nineteenth century. It is only after the “Sodhak Committee” report of 1897 that the modern
version “Dasma Padshah Ka Granth” edited from the 32 different versions was published under
the title of Dasam Granth [23].
Sodhak Committee was set up by “The Gurmat Granth Parchark Sabha Amritsar”, an affiliate of
Singh Sabha, Amritsar, led by Sir Khem Singh Bedi (1832-1904) who was the bitter opponent of
the Singh Sabha, Lahore, led by Giani Dit Singh and Professor Gurmukh Singh [24]. He wanted
to be accepted as the 15th Guru of the Sikhs [25]. He openly preached that Sikhs were Hindus.
His followers preached that Aad Guru Granth Sahib is the fifth Veda, the essence of Vedas and
Upanishads [26]]. His son Kartar Singh Bedi [Kartaru Bedin (the faithless Kartaru)] supported
Mahant Narain Das who murdered about 130 Sikhs at Nankana Sahib in 1921 [27, 28]. His other
son, Gurbakhsh Singh Bedi used to declare from Hindu stages that Sikhs are Hindus [26, 29].
And his great-grandson Amitabh Bachan (son of Teji Bachan) applauded the Indian army attack
on Darbar Sahib in June 1984 and stood with Rajiv Gandhi when Hindu mobs killed thousands of
innocent Sikhs all over India after the assassination of Indira Gandhi on October31, 1984, “to the
teach the *******s a lesson”.
Who wrote “Dasam Padshah Ka Granth”?
The proponents of Varna Ashrama Dharama/Caste System were opposed to Nanakian philosophy
(Gurmat) right from the time of Guru Nanak and they tried to sabotage the Sikh movement and
collaborated with the Mughls rulers who launched vigorous campaigns to exterminate the Sikhs
[30] in the first half of the eighteenth century. There is also strong evidence that British colonists
and missionaries had vested political and religious interest in the subversion of Sikh theology,
history and traditions in order to subjugate them and convert them to Christianity, and to use them
to evangelize the Indian subcontinent [31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37].
Although, Kesar Singh Chibber does not say who authored the Bachittar Natak he had or from
where he got it, but he has left enough fingerprints that make a compelling suggestion/case that
Bachittar Natak is the work of the same mindset that produced Puranic literature. Like Puranas,
Bachittar Natak is also full of Brahmanical ceremonies, formalities, beliefs, unbelievable and
chimerical tales and lies.
In his analysis of Bansavalinama, commenting on Chibber’s views about Guru Gobind Singh,
Khalsa and Khalsa rule, Surjit Hans says:
That the Khatris are rivals to the Gurus and the Muslims as their persecutors had no place
in Sikhism. The low-castes are inherently disqualified. Thus, the Sikh rule should have
been brought into existence to uphold Brahmins and Brahminism. According to Chibber,
Guru Gobind Singh created the Panth to escape personal responsibility for the destruction
of Turks. Guru Gobind Singh fell short of King Bikramajit when he failed to sacrifice his
own person before the Goddess [38].
Hans is quite right as in the narrative of chapter 10 (charan 10) of Bansavalinama Guru Gobind
Singh is a minor player; the creation of Khalsa seems to be a Brahman affair. Chibber talks about
the prominent role his ancestors played in the Sikh movement and it was Cibber’s ancestors who
suggested to Guru Gobind Singh how to prepare the holy water for Khande Dee pahul. There is
long dialogue between Guru Gobind Singh and various Brahmans who were brought from
different parts of India to make Goddess Kali/Kalka appear. The Goddess also intervenes in the
dialogue occasionally, at one place telling Guru Gobind Singh that I crown you as my son and I
give you the mandate to protect the dharama and destroy the demons. Here is a small excerpt
from that dialogue.
mYN Apnw suq qoih invwjw [pMQ pRcur krby khu swjw [
jwie qhW qY Drmu clwie[ kbuiD krn qy lok htwie [
kwlkw khw: “ieh hI kro[ Awp n kwhUM syqI lVo [
Apnw pMQ qU dyih clwie [vhu dYNqw ko mwry jwie”[
I am crowning you as my son. I have created you to promulgate a panth. Go there to spread
dharama and to stop people from straying from the path of dharama. Kalka said, “Do what
I say. Do not fight among yourself. You create your panth to destroy those demons.
Then Chibber makes Guru Gobind Singh attest to this mandate from Goddess Kalka.
ieh kwrin pRB moih pTwieE [ qb mY jgiq jnmu Dir AwieE [
It is for this reason that god sent me. Then I took birth to come to the world.
Bansavalinama, chapter 10, p 134.
It needs to be pointed out here that the Brahmans used the word dharama for Brahmanism
(Varana Ashrama Dhrama) and the word daint (dYNq, demon) for Muslims.
He goes on telling chimerical anecdotes one after another for example: Emperor Aurangzeb
metamorphosed into a parrot and flew to Mecca to fetch a berry in order impress Guru Gobind
Singh with his spiritual prowess. But he could not do that as Guru Gobind Singh also appeared
there under the berry tree with slingshot in his hand.
AaurMgw qoqw bix ky m`ky igAw [ swihb hyT jwie KVoqy, hiQ glylw ilAw [
jid byr pws sUAw AwvY [ qb swihb gulylw clwvY [
byr lYx nhI dyvY AaurMgy nUM [ mwrn gulylw aus dI tMgy nUM [
Aurangzeb metamorphosed into a parrot and flew to Mecca. Guru Gobind Singh followed
him with slingshot in hand. Whenever the parrot approached the tree to pluck a berry, Guru
Gobind Singh shot a mud ball at him. Thus he did not allow the parrot to pluck the berry by
aiming shots at the parrot’s legs.
Bansavalinama, chapter 10, p 181.
Furthe, Chibber makes a bizare claim that Prophet Mohammad’s ancestors were Brahmans and
his father King Amritpal was a great scholar of Hindu scriptures. After killing his father,
Mohammad started his own religion. He learned the philosophy Atharavan Veda and separated
Quranic elements from the Puranas and wrote the Quran in Arabic. He asked for Shiva’s favor
for the safekeeping of Quran. Shiva split the trunk of a Pipal tree in order to make a cavity for
hiding the Quran.
Cl krnw qurkW dw Drmu hY [ muhMmd BI kIqw eyho krmu hY [
ipEu nUM mwir aus rwj lieAw [ Arb dys dw rwj sI BieAw [
…
Kt swl ju~D krdw irhw [ kwl pwie AMimRqpwl rwjw mr igAw [
ipqw pVHwieAw sI, cwir vyd ATwrih purwn [ nauN ibAwkrn, Kt SwsqR mwn [
…
vydWq, byd AQrbx ivcoN ien qq cuix lIqw [ iDAwvW dy supwry, purwn ivcoN kurwn kiF
judw kIqw [
…
isv ky hukm ip~pl Pwit jwh [ip~pl igAw pwt, kurwn riKAw iqs mwh [
Muslims practice the religion of deception and that is what Mohammad did too. He killed
his father to usurp his kingdom. This way he became the ruler of all Arab lands.
… He fought for six years and in due course of time King Amritpal died. His father taught
him four Vedas, eighteen Puranas, nine systems of grammar and six schools of Hindu
philosophy. … He learned the philosophy of Atharvan Veda. Skillfully, he separated the
Quranic element from Puranas. … Shiva ordered the Pipal tree to split. The Pipal tree
obeyed the command and Quran was placed inside it for safekeeping.
Bansavalinama, chapter 10, pp. 167-169.
While the Brahmans like Chibber claimed that Sikhs were Hindus and the Khalsa was created to
protect Brahmins and Brahmanism, the Christians had their own agenda - they wanted to
subjugate and evangelize the Sikhs is evident from the records of East India Company and the
writings of orientalists and Christian missionaries.
Wilkins’s work on the Sikhs, being one of the earliest accounts that dealt with issues other than
military and political, was a long-standing primary source for future writers. He presents an
unprejudiced view of the Sikhs and their practices, so much so that even amongst later missionary
activity in India, his influence quite drastically informed views on Christian missionary policy on
the Sikhs.
In a 1814 article titled “Important Documents Relating to the Seeks in India,” Wilkins’s account
was quoted along with extracts from the Edinburgh Review of Sketch of the Sikhs by Lt. Col.
Malcolm. The introduction reads: “To those who wish to propagate Christianity throughout the
world, it must be gratifying to hear of any facts or circumstances favourable to that object.” Then
follow extensive extracts with article concluding: “It has not been our object to give a particular
history of this sect, which has become a nation in India; but to mention such facts as affords
ground to hope that the efforts to introduce Christianity among the natives in that part of the
world will not go in vain.”
It continues further, “The success of Nanac shows that the habits and prejudices of the Hindoos
are not so immutably fixed as many in Great Britain have imagined. The pacific character of
Nanac, and the approach of his doctrines to those of Christianity, are circumstances remarkable
and important; and we need more information on the subject, than we now possess, to account for
them without the aid of inspiration. As the dispersion of Jews facilitated the spread of gospel
among Gentiles in various parts of the world, so the existence of Seeks may yet facilitate the
spread of gospel in India. It is devoutly to be desired, that nothing may be done on the part of
Christians to introduce their religion among the nations of India, which shall tend to impress a
belief that Christianity is less tolerant, mild and pacific, or in any respect less worthy of reception
than the religion of Nanac. Besides, the account we have of the principle doctrines of the Seeks,
should excite our gratitude to the common Father of our race, that he has, in one way or another,
diffused some correct ideas of himself, more extensively, than has been generally known or
supposed by Christians” [39].
Further, it should be noted that East India Company became the ruler of Bengal, Bihar and
Orissa after defeating Siraj ud-Daula at the Battle of Plassey in 1757. Because of its great
historical significance, East India Company took control of the management of Harmandir at
Patna in 1810. The mahants and pujaris were paid by the government. Mahant Sukha Singh
(1766-1838, the author of Gurbilas Dasvin Patshahi) received annual pension and supply of
opium from the government [41]. John Malcolm in Sketch of the Sikhs says that a Sikh priest of
the Nirmala order living in Calcutta explained the religious texts to him and Dr. Leyden provided
him with the English translations [42].

Conclusion

Both Brahmins and Christians wanted to Hinduise Sikhs, though for different
purposes. The
former wanted to make Sikhs part and parcel of Hindu society whereas the latter wanted to
subjugate and evangelize them, and then use converted Sikhs to evangelize the Indian
subcontinent. And both realized that there was one formidable obstacle in their path to
accomplish their objectives, and that was the unshakable faith of the Sikhs in their living Guru,
Aad Guru Granth Sahib (AGGS). So in order to alienate the Sikh masses from the AGGS, a
parallel granth, “Dasma Padshah Ka Granth” was compiled from Puranic literature under the
name of Guru Gobind Singh, the tenth and the last Sikh Guru.
It is very likely that the writing and compiling of “Dasam Padshah Ka Granth” was a joint
project of Nirmanlas and Udasis living in Calcutta, Mahanat Sukha Singh of Patna and British
orientalists under the sponsorship of East India Company.

References
1. Sangat Singh, The Sikhs in History, Uncommon Books: New Delhi, 2001 4th ed., pp. 83, 86.
2. Daljeet Singh, Essays on the Authenticity of Kartarpuri Bir and the Integrated Logic and Unity
of Sikhism, Punjabi University: Patiala, 2nd ed., 1995.
3. Pashaura Singh, The Guru Granth Sahib: Canon, Meaning and Authority, Oxford University:
New Delhi, Fifth impression, 2007, pp.78, 222.
4. Gurinder Singh Mann, The Making of Sikh Scripture, Oxford University Press, New York,
2001, pp. 84.
5. Piar Singh, Gatha Sri Aad Granth, Guru Nanak Dev University: Amritsar, 1992, p. 414.
6. Kahan Singh Nabha, Mahan Kosh (Encyclopaedia of Sikh Literature), Nantional Book Shop:
Delhi, 1996, p. 437.
7. Piara Singh Padam, Rahitname (Punjabi), Bhai Chatar Singh Jiwan Singh: Amritsar, 5th print,
1991, p.73.
8. J. S. Grewal & Irfan Habib, Sikh History from Persian Sources: Tulika, New Delhi, 2001, p.
96.
9. Baldev Singh, “Nankian Philosophy: The Path of Enlightenment”, SikhSpectrum.com, October,
2008.
10. Jagjit Singh, Sikh Revolution: A Perspective View, Bahri Publications: New Delhi 4th reprint,
1998, p. 105.
11. Editorial: “Nash Doctrine or Five Freedoms.” Abstracts of Sikh Studies, July 1995, pp. 1-7
and July-September 1996, pp. 1-13.
12. Daljeet Singh, “The Historical Identity of ‘Dasam Granth’”, Abstracts of Sikh Studies, July
1994, pp 81- 94.
13. Piara Singh Padam, Rahitname (Punjabi), Bhai Chatar
Singh Jiwan Singh: Amritsar, 5th print, 1991, p. 43-79.
14. J. S. Grewal & Irfan Habib, Sikh History from Persian Sources: Tulika, New Delhi, 2001, p.
42.
15. Amandeep Singh Madra & Parminder Singh, Ed., Siques, Tigers or Thieves: Eye Witness
accounts of the Sikhs (1606-1809), Palgrave Macmillan: New York, 2004, pp. 136, 163, 237,
294-95.
16. Ved Parkash, The Sikhs in Bihar, Janaki Prakashan: New Delhi, 1981, pp. 158, 163-64.
17. J. D. Cunningham, History of the Sikhs, Low Price Publications: Delhi, 1996.
18. Max A. Macauliffe, The Sikh Religion, Vols. (I-VI), Low Price Publications: Delhi, reprint,
1993.
19. Ratan Singh Bhangu, Prachin Panth Parkash (Punjabi), Ed. Bhai Vir Singh, Bhai Vir Singh
Sahit Sadan: New Delhi, 1993.
20. Bhai Kesar Chibber Krit Bansavalinama Dasan Patshahiyaan ka (Punjabi), Ed., Piara Singh
Padam, Singh Brothers: Amritsar, 1997, pp. 134-35.
21. John Malcolm, Sketch of the Sikhs, Asian Educational Services: New Delhi, 1986, pp. 62-63.
22. Ibid., p. 174.
23. Sodhak Committee Report - Sri Dasam Granth Sahib.
24. Sangat Singh, The Sikhs in History, Uncommon Books: New Delhi, 2001 4th ed., pp. 139-41.
25. Ibid., pp. 139, 146.
26. J. S. Grewal, The Sikhs of the Punjab, Cambridge University Press: New Delhi, 1994, p. 146.
27. Sangat Singh, The Sikhs in History, Uncommon Books: New Delhi, 2001 4th ed., pp. 164-65.
28. Ruchi Ram Sahni, Struggle for Reform in Sikh Shrines (Ed., Ganda Singh, Shiromani
Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee: Amrirsar, 1942, p. 243.
29. Sangat Singh, The Sikhs in History, Uncommon Books: New Delhi, 2001 4th ed., p. 155.
30. Baldev Singh, “Evaluating Dyanand's Views on Guru Nanak and the Sikhs” in “e-
Symposium: Swami Dyanand and Satyarth Parkash (Light of Truth)”, SikhSpectrum.com, March
2008.
31. Amandeep Singh Madra & Parminder Singh, Ed., Siques, Tigers or Thieves: Eye Witness
accounts of the Sikhs (1606-1809), Palgrave Macmillan: New York, 2004, pp. 63-66.
32. Harjot Oberoi. The Construction of Religious Boundaries: Culture, Identity and Diversity in
the Sikh Tradition. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1994, pp. 373, 219.
33. Doris R. Jakobsh, Relocating Gender In Sikh History: Transformation, Meaning and Identity,
Oxford University Press: New Delhi, 2003, p. 59.
34. Ved Parkash, The Sikhs in Bihar, Janaki Prakashan: New Delhi, 1981, pp. 104, 121-22, 126.
35. J. S. Grewal, The Sikh of the Punjab, Cambridge University Press: New Delhi, 1994, p. 136.
36. Sangat Singh, The Sikhs in History, Uncommon Books: New Delhi, 4th ed., 2001, p. 159.
37. Ruchi R. Sahni, Struggle for Reform in Sikh Shrines (Ganda Singh, Ed.), Shiromani Gurdwara
Parbandhak Committee (SGPC): Amritsar, 1942, p. i.
38. Surjit Hans, A Construction of Sikh History from Sikh Literature, ABS Publications:
Jalandhar, 1988, p. 284.
39. Amandeep Singh Madra & Parminder Singh, Ed., Siques, Tigers or Thieves: Eye Witness
accounts of the Sikhs (1606-1809), Palgrave Macmillan: New York, 2004, pp. 292-93.
40. Ved Parkash, The Sikhs in Bihar, Janaki Prakashan: New Delhi, 1981, p. 104.
41. Ibid., pp. 121-22, 126.
42. John Malcolm, Sketch of the Sikhs, Asian Educational Services: New Delhi, 1986, pp. 2-3.

 

[spnadmin]

Aman ji

There is much brilliance in this article by the late Baldev Singh ji. Each time I read it something else comes to the fore. Today it is his way of documenting how little the British really did grasp the cross-currents of culture in India, and particularly within the Punjab. These very British blinders made Sikhs seem "unpredictable" -- and perhaps then "unreliable." Out of their illusions and ignorance, not to mention arrogant notion of their right to rule, they concocted one strategy after another to either suppress or compromise the integrity of Sikhism. None of it worked. No matter what theory or pattern they tried to impose on their own perceptions of Sikh identity, Sikhs at once defied those perceptions in one way or another. Yet there was always a competing climate that curried favor with the overlords, to the detriment of protecting cultural integrity. Unfortunately, today we are torn apart today by a controversy surrounding the "Dasam Granth" that was invented and fed by those same imperial interests. Strange how the British succeeded in bestowing so destructive a legacy -- as the Mughals and Persians never managed to do.

 

[harbansj24]

Narayanjot ji,

There is a near unanimity among Sikh Panth that Guru Gobind Singh ji, anointed SGGS as the only living Guru of the Sikhs ( This excludes Namdharis).
Why not make use of this unanimity to advantage for avoiding a split? Why keep harping on DG when we all know that it has a very dangerous potential of bringing about a clear divide among the Sikhs?Is it necessary to rubbish DG in such clear and unambiguos and harsh manner which will hurt the psyche of millions of Sikhs?
The article by late Baldev Singh though brilliantly wriiten does not come with any concrete evidence. It heavily relies on conjectures than on any incontrovertible evidence.

We all very proudly say that Guru Gobind Singh ji had 52 distinguished poets in his court. The questions that naturally comes to mind that how come we are unable to locate any of their works? It is all very easily said that "Oh! It all got destroyed during the evacuation of Anandpur Sahib!" Is it a credible enough reason? Guruji, and Bhai Mani Singh ji lived for sufficient number of years after that. Do you think that none of the works could have been reproduced subsequently? Is it not plausible as IJ Singh ji had very gently suggested that Guru ji could have thought that though such a work could be useful but it definitely was not fit to be included in the SGGS to be cosidered as our Guru?
INMO I think it is not correct to blame everyone else, such as Hindus, Britishers, Christian Missionaries and all and sundry for foisting DG on us without strong enough evidence.

Gurufateh

 

[spnadmin]

hargansj24 ji

You know that I have immense respect for you because of your deep and sincere devotion to Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji. However, I must also with respect disagree with nearly each of your suppositoins.

Narayanjot ji,

There is a near unanimity among Sikh Panth that Guru Gobind Singh ji, anointed SGGS as the only living Guru of the Sikhs ( This excludes Namdharis).

I beg to differ. There is not "near unanimity" within the panth that SGGS is the only living Guru of the Sikhs. We are now hearing that the authority of Aad Granth depends on accepting the authority of the Dasam Granth. The panth may agree that Guru Gobind Singh ji anointed SGGS as the only living Guru, but here at SPN we have reported practical example after practical example of equal parkash given to Dasam Granth. Those who believe that Dasam Granth was written by Guru Gobind Singh have now taken the next extreme step. They now argue that the singular authority of Sri Guru Granth Sahib as Guru depends completely on accepting Dasam Granth as the banee of the 10th Nanak. They say: if you doubt the authorship of Dasam Granth you are doubting Guru Gobind Singh. If you doubt Guru Gobind Singh, you doubt Sri Guru Granth Sahib. If there were near unanimity within the panth regarding Sri Guru Granth Sahib, how did this new thought, which is a blight on logic and common sense, take birth?

Why not make use of this unanimity to advantage for avoiding a split? This question should be asked of Mr. Lamba, Mr. Avtar Singh, the jathedars of the various takhts, JUS Punjabi TV, and all the various and sundry forces at work to promote unquestioning allegiance to the Dasam Granth.

Why keep harping on DG when we all know that it has a very dangerous potential of bringing about a clear divide among the Sikhs?

If I appear to be harping it is because I do not like to be taken for an idiot. There is little in the way of internal evidence to support that many parts of Dasam Granth were penned by Guru Gobind Singh. And there is even less external evidence to suggest the same.

Moreover, the very issues which threaten to divide the panth, and the dispositions of those who would do so, are the same issues and dispositions that shut the doors of Harimandir Sahib against Guru Teg Bahadur.

Is it necessary to rubbish DG in such clear and unambiguos and harsh manner which will hurt the psyche of millions of Sikhs?

The psyche of Sikhs has been injured many times over the course of history. Sikhs are still standing tall. Suppression of uncomfortable issues for the sake of keeping peace in the family damages more than it heals. The most damaging injuries in our history have been caused by belligerent and ruthless suppression by any means possible. Today that includes the handing out of sanctions and excommunications do not abide by our history of resolving internal disputes through public dialog according to Gurmat principles.

The article by late Baldev Singh though brilliantly wriiten does not come with any concrete evidence. It heavily relies on conjectures than on any incontrovertible evidence.
It is the responsibility of the supporters of Dasam Granth's authenticity to provide that evidence with due diligence. They haven't done so. Where is the incontrovertible evidence that Dasam Granth was written by Guru Gobind Singh?

We all very proudly say that Guru Gobind Singh ji had 52 distinguished poets in his court. The questions that naturally comes to mind that how come we are unable to locate any of their works? It is all very easily said that "Oh! It all got destroyed during the evacuation of Anandpur Sahib!" Is it a credible enough reason? Guruji, and Bhai Mani Singh ji lived for sufficient number of years after that. Do you think that none of the works could have been reproduced subsequently?

harbans ji,
You would like arguments raised against Dasam Granth to be backed with incontrovertible evidence. But - How can any of the questions you are asking be answered with incontrovertible evidence? You are asking for evidence that as of yet has not been produced. All we have is anecdotal evidence that Bhai Mani Singh frantically patched together what he could find of the "court documents" and this earliest of birs came to be called "Bachittar Natak." This same story has been questioned as a fabrication. If the work of the court poets can be produced in their original where are they? And if they suddenly found their way to light, do you not think that their authenticity would also be questioned?

Is it not plausible as IJ Singh ji had very gently suggested that Guru ji could have thought that though such a work could be useful but it definitely was not fit to be included in the SGGS to be cosidered as our Guru?

That may be his gentle suggestion. If we agree with that suggestion, then we also have to agree that a "useful work" is not the Guru.

INMO I think it is not correct to blame everyone else, such as Hindus, Britishers, Christian Missionaries and all and sundry for foisting DG on us without strong enough evidence.

I myself do blame the British and feel no inhibitions about saying this. The British realized that there was something indomitable about Sikhi, and it scared them. They sought every opportunity to manipulate sanatan interests that were trying to preserve their perrogatives, and that were willing to play ball with the British to do so. And the result is what we see today. A granth whose true author is a sodhak committee that bundled together a diverse collection of poetry and labeled it the Dasam Granth. Prior to 1900, there was no Dasam Granth.

One interesting observation I would make. The famous scholar, Hew McLeod, assumed by some to be a Christian missionary, did not believe that much of the Dasam Granth was penned by Guru Gobind Singh. As far as I know Hindus have steered clear of this debate.
Gurufateh

harbans ji

I spent a lot of time thinking about how to respond to you and have taken the direct approach. Now you know where I stand in relation to some of your questions. Actually I wrote a much longer reply, mostly about the lack of internal evidence for Guru Gobind Singh's authorship, but scrapped it. There are now many links with extensive references and citations that get to the specific issues related to the history of the Dasam Granth. If you like I will summarize some of the yet-to-be-resolved questions related to the authorship of Dasam Granth.

 

[harbansj24]

Narayanjot ji,

I have written in several earlier posts that neither the proponents nor opponents of DG have any incontrovertible evidence either way. In my "nobody" status, I had also very humbly suggested that respected scholars of Panth should form a committee themselves (AT has miserably failed in this regard) and come out with recommendations about parts of DG (whether authored by or caused to be authored or approved by Guru ji or not) that are acceptable and are part of Sikh psyche and the parts which have never been used by the Sikhs and are of no use to the panth and hence could be removed.


I beg to differ. There is not "near unanimity" within the panth that SGGS is the only living Guru of the Sikhs. We are now hearing that the authority of Aad Granth depends on accepting the authority of the Dasam Granth. The panth may agree that Guru Gobind Singh ji anointed SGGS as the only living Guru, but here at SPN we have reported practical example after practical example of equal parkash given to Dasam Granth. Those who believe that Dasam Granth was written by Guru Gobind Singh have now taken the next extreme step. They now argue that the singular authority of Sri Guru Granth Sahib as Guru depends completely on accepting Dasam Granth as the banee of the 10th Nanak. They say: if you doubt the authorship of Dasam Granth you are doubting Guru Gobind Singh. If you doubt Guru Gobind Singh, you doubt Sri Guru Granth Sahib. If there were near unanimity within the panth regarding Sri Guru Granth Sahib, how did this new thought, which is a blight on logic and common sense, take birth?

Who ever has come up with such illogical arguments, can easily be countered. Because if Guru ji himself had excluded any part of DG from SGGS, he must have had good reasons for that and for annointing only SGGS as Guru. So where is the question of making it as a conditionality of accepting SGGS as guru?

There is little in the way of internal evidence to support that many parts of Dasam Granth were penned by Guru Gobind Singh. And there is even less external evidence to suggest the same.

I could not agree more. And you are also suggesting that parts could also have been penned or approved by Guruji.

The psyche of Sikhs has been injured many times over the course of history. Sikhs are still standing tall. Suppression of uncomfortable issues for the sake of keeping peace in the family damages more than it heals. The most damaging injuries in our history have been caused by belligerent and ruthless suppression by any means possible. Today that includes the handing out of sanctions and excommunications do not abide by our history of resolving internal disputes through public dialog according to Gurmat principles.

I have never suggested suppression of uncomfortable issues. I again repeat that the problem is that neither side knows for sure what exactly is the truth. Then is it not logical to identify which parts are useful and can be retained and which parts rejected?

That may be his gentle suggestion. If we agree with that suggestion, then we also have to agree that a "useful work" is not the Guru.

This is perfectly in order.

And the result is what we see today. A granth whose true author is a sodhak committee that bundled together a diverse collection of poetry and labeled it the Dasam Granth. Prior to 1900, there was no Dasam Granth.

Agreed. But how far are we certain that about the parts of diverse poetry being or not being authored or approved by Guruji?

As far as I know Hindus have steered clear of this debate.

I think many a times it has been mentioned that RSS is behind this mischief. Many Hindus may have nothing to do with RSS but RSS does have many sympathisers among Hindus.

There are now many links with extensive references and citations that get to the specific issues related to the history of the Dasam Granth. If you like I will summarize some of the yet-to-be-resolved questions related to the authorship of Dasam Granth.

Yes please do. This will be an extremely useful input for all SPNers

Gurfateh

 

[spnadmin]

harbans ji

If we don't know one way or the other, then we cannot go about convicting people of heresy, blasphemy and Guru Nindak.

If we don't know one way or the other, then we should admit our ignorance.

If we don't know one way or the other, then we should conduct a straight-up investigation.

If we think we cannot produce evidence, then we should admit that.

It falls to the side that is making the claim of authenticity to produce evidence. So far they have not. What they have done is claimed the high ground. What they have done is persecuted. And everyone knows whether in secret or not that we have been observing and abuse of power that has not abated since the start of the raj.

To this one point that you cited: "I think many a times it has been mentioned that RSS is behind this mischief. Many Hindus may have nothing to do with RSS but RSS does have many sympathisers among Hindus."

I don't equate RSS with Hindus. RSS is a political organization to which Sikhs belong as well as Hindus. Just for purposes of clarification. RSS may be dominated by Hindus, but Hindus are not dominated by RSS. I personally do not see Hindus behind this. I do believe that political interests having an Aryan Samaj orientation are certainly helping the controversies within Sikhi along. Thanks for allowing me to clarify.

 

[roab1]

there is a very vocal anti 'anti-dasam granth people' user here and another site. he is wat i suspected for a long time. anti sikh sabha movement knida dis-illusioned guy. he always talked about showing respect to dasam bani and like that. sometimes i have seen him ask for 'proofs' for sggs while trying to promote his view of dg. but now he has shown his true colors and is publicly dissing singh sabha movement and calling them senseless people on another forum. I have a hunch that these guys don't really care for sggs, it is just a command they are following as guru gobind singh said that. I think if matters came to such pass that they have to choose between dg and sggs they would throw sggs like garbage as it cannot guide them 'fully' and has no martial spirit. These guys appear disguised but in reality are all the way for equal parkash of dg with sggs, only they can't say it openely. they are using veiled and controlled arguments in favour of dg. they are very much using the tricks mentioned often in charitars. Did Bhai Mani singh and Mata Sahib Kaur did paath of charitars together in sangat? or was this supposed to a sexist practise cleverly hidden by the tenth Guru from general mass? Can this user recite chariters with all the girls in his family alone in a room?

if dg can sit at equal terms with sggs so can fake babe these guys enjoy seeing getting killed afterall god is in everthing. so god can sit with god. hypocrites.

 

[spnadmin]

roab1 ji

You have peeled all the layers of the onion down to the core. I read those threads too. And I agree.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Sadh Sangat,

No Sikh scholar, historian, academic, intellect or one with any other title regarding Sikhi can say for certain who wrote DG and which parts are written by our Dasam Pita. It will be nothing but speculation on parts of these people as it has been in the past and still going on.

Only one person could do that and he chose not to, that is, Guru Gobind Singh ji who gave us SGGS as our only Guru.

So, let us respect our Dasam Pita who sacrificed his father, his four sons, gave us Khalsa Panth, added his dad's Gurbani to the SGGS, deliberately not added a single word of his, and told us that SGGS is our only Guru and trust him with his decision.

Second guessing him would be second guessing Sikhi and what it stands for.

SGGS is our only Guru as bestowed upon us by our Dasam Pita. There are no ands, ifs, buts about it.

Sikhs have no other Granth.

Tejwant Singh

 

[Admin]

DG followers state that SGGS is for Atam Rass and DG is for Bir Rass... How does this statement hold weight?

 

[spnadmin]

Aman ji

The statement is propaganda of a certain kind. Gyani wrote a long article about atam rass and bir rass just maybe 2 weeks ago. This is again another ploy to have sant and siphai separated, temple and fortress, this versus that. They have a collection of "conceptual distinctions" that are pulled out on a regular basis.

Some sincerely believe this and others are using this to play cat and mouse games on the Internet.

 

[spnadmin]

This is from a 2006 thread at phorum (tapoban discussion board) on the subject of Bir Rass, although the thread topic is Guru Granth Sahib Defined

Date: 06-29-06 20:05

Gupt Singh ji, very well said. Im in total agreement with you. Dasam Guru Granth Sahib ji and Sarbloh Guru Granth Sahib Ji are not given the respect that they deserve. Guru Granth Sahib Ji is good on its own. But bir ras can only be obtained by the other 2 Guru Granths. And, bir ras forms a major part of a warrior's diet, eg. nihangs. The first khalsa. Today, we are denominated into so many organizations that we are too confused about ourselves and sikhi.

The British, during their campaign in india, banned the other 2 Guru Granths cos they knew the amount of destruction they could cause to the enemies of the khalsa panth. Before the Brits came in, Dasam Guru Granth Sahib was seated in the Akal Takhat, facing Guru Granth Sahib in the Durbar Sahib. They eliminated any form of shakthi which was available to the khalsa. They banned our Bana. They went on a mass killing of the nihangs. Almost wiped them out because they knew if there was one people who knew the traditions of the khalsa, it was the nihangs. To prove this authenticity, go read up chandi di var, written years before 1699. and theres a line which says, Khet Paiyaan Nihangaan. Dashmesh Pitaah had already foresighted the creation of the Nihangs in the khalsa mould.

They wiped out our history and tradition, and what is left now, is, a singh wearing a starched turban(like a cap), beard tied up, trying to fit into the crowd. Im not saying we cant be like this, my point is, we shouldnt forget our traditions, our roots, our bani and our bana.

Bottomline is, we are to blame for our own mistakes. Had the panth not fallen into the hands of the dogras, and modern day SGPC.


Another reason for the loss of respect for the other 2 granths was, when sikhs, led by SGPC, demanded that they were a separate religion, and wanted out from India's Greater Sphere of Hindusim. It was a good move. It was good we established ourselves as an independent religion. But along with doing that, we discarded all things that were hindu-like. If we look into Dasam Guru Granth Sahib, we will see ram avtar, krishan avtar and chandi charitra, which are banis about hindu mythological characters. The purpose of these banis is to gain inspiration and courage from the examples of brave warriors like ram, krishna and the goddess chandi. besides, these banis are written in the way guru ji saw it. itsnothing pro-hindu. But, sadly, our modern leaders, in their narrow mindedness, rejected this.

our history couldve been different. Dear brothers and sisters, i recommend you go read up Dasam Guru Granth at least, and harness that mahaan shakthi of our Kalgidhar Pitaah. Our war of fighting the 5 evils inside us(and the enemies outside), will become 2fold easier.Its bir rass. Its the mukhvaak of our guru. Therefore, it should be given the same amount of respect as our Adi Guru Granth Sahib.

You can see how the comment concludes with the importance of harnessing the power of Shakti, and reading Dasam Guru Granth will make it easier to defeat the 5 evils within. Also notice that the poster is talking about gaining inspiration from Hindu gods; he says however that this is not a pro-Hindu sentiment.

Sarbloh Granth is also referred to as Sarbloh Guru Granth Sahib.

 

[Astroboy]

The Akali Nihang tradition who make use of the Granth holds that whereas the Guru Granth Sahib is the embodiment of "Shaant Ras" (essence of peace), the Dasam Granth and the Sarbloh Granth are the embodiments of "Bir Ras" (essence of war). They believe that the difference between the Dasam Granth and the Sarbloh Granth is that although "Bir Ras" is born in the Dasam Granth, it is in the Sarbloh Granth where the individual warrior achieves an everlasting, final and complete lethal cutting edge advantage in this sphere of "Bir Ras". This Nihang belief is not accepted by the majority of the rest of the Sikh community.

 

[Astroboy]

Position of Sarbloh Granth in several Sikh sects

In all Nihang Singh groups, Sarbloh granth is kept parkaash, it is venerated by Singhs in both the Buddha Dal and Tarna Dal.
Nihang Singhs, Nirmalas, Udasis and Sevapanthis all traditionally acknowledge Sarbloh Granth as Gurbani (writings) of Guru Gobind Singh ji.

 

[spnadmin]

Position of Sarbloh Granth in several Sikh sects

In all Nihang Singh groups, Sarbloh granth is kept parkaash, it is venerated by Singhs in both the Buddha Dal and Tarna Dal.
Nihang Singhs, Nirmalas, Udasis and Sevapanthis all traditionally acknowledge Sarbloh Granth as Gurbani (writings) of Guru Gobind Singh ji.

NamJap ji Thanks for this information. I have been aware for some time that Nihangs keep Sarbloh granth parkash along with Dasam Granth. Sevapanthis even keep the Koran parkaash. What is extremely curious or perhaps even telling is that Nirmala, Udassi and Sewapanthi sampardayas are not the ones who are contributing to the recent uproar. The signers of the judgment against Professor Darshan Singh did not represent the 5 Takhts, and included 2 individuals who were not jathedars, but granthis of Harimandir Sahib. The concerted effort against "blasphemers" is by Damdami Takht, Hazoori Takht, political party Shiromani Akali Dal, and strangely members of the Diaspora who are aligned with these groups. This tells me that the controversy does not have a religious motivation, though they use religious content to promote their case.

 

[spnadmin]

The Akali Nihang tradition who make use of the Granth holds that whereas the Guru Granth Sahib is the embodiment of "Shaant Ras" (essence of peace), the Dasam Granth and the Sarbloh Granth are the embodiments of "Bir Ras" (essence of war). They believe that the difference between the Dasam Granth and the Sarbloh Granth is that although "Bir Ras" is born in the Dasam Granth, it is in the Sarbloh Granth where the individual warrior achieves an everlasting, final and complete lethal cutting edge advantage in this sphere of "Bir Ras". This Nihang belief is not accepted by the majority of the rest of the Sikh community.

Again we take note of the dualism.