Jeeonwala crushed in debate with Panthik Singhs in Toronto

TORONTO KALA-AFGHANI JEONVALA WASHED-OUT IN DEBATE WITH PANTHIC SINGHS

[www.panthic.org]



Toronto, Canada - A loud and boisterous debate took place last weekend in Toronto between Panthic Singhs and an anti-Dasam Granth nindak, Gurcharan Brar Jeonvala. As predicted, the Panthic Singhs soundly refuted every point Jeonvala raised and in turn presented many irrefutable proofs in support of the authenticity of Sri Dasam Granth.

Jeonvala, the mind behind numerous anti-Panthic articles and websites originating from Toronto, had been regularly challenging supporters of Sri Dasam Granth to debate with him, and thus had become the de-facto spokesperson for the local Kala-Afghani lobby.

Whereas Jeonvala represented the anti-Panthic lobby, Bhai Sukhbir Singh and Bhai Sukhmander Singh were backed by pro-Panthic organizations, such as the Akhand Kirtan Jatha (Gurdwara Tapoban Sahib), DamDami Taksal, Shahbaaz Khalsa to bring forth the Panthic viewpoint.

The debate was aired on Sur Sagar TV’s ‘Bhakhday Maslay” weekly show hosted by Ravinder Singh Pannu. Sur Sagar TV is Toronto areas’ oldest and longest running Punjabi TV channel and is widely watched by the local Punjabi population.

Bhai Sukhbir Singh began the debate by explaining the history surrounding Sri Dasam Granth and the historical texts which support it including the writings of Bhai Jaita or Bhai Jeevan Singh, Bansavalinama P: 10 by Kesar Singh Chhiber and Guru Kian Sakhian by Sarup Singh Kaushish. Bhai Sukhbir Singh further established that no Sikh scholar including Bhai Kanh Singh Nabha, Gyani Dit Singh or Prof. Sahib Singh ever opposed Dasam Granth. Furthermore, and most importantly Dasam Granth is an inseparable part of the Nitnem and Ardas which are recited daily by Sikhs.

In an attempt to prove his point, Jeonvala began to quote some historical texts out of context and distort history but was cut off by the host of the show Mr. Pannu, for his intentional misinterpretations.

English words in Sri Dasam Granth?

When asked to present any proof to support his allegation that Sri Dasam Granth was not the work of Sri Guru Gobind Singh, Jeonvala attempted to quote verses which he stated contained English words such as ‘near’ and ‘lady’. The Panthic Singhs left Jeonvala without any answer when they showed him that the word “lady” was in fact “layndee” which means coward and is not an English word in any way.

Further, when the same methodology is used on the bani in Sri Guru Granth Sahib, the Singhs showed that several words were common in English and Punjabi such as the word “day”. The debate took a humorous turn when Jeonvala was reduced to repeating obscenities when he could not explain the tuk :

ਦੇਇ ਕਿਵਾੜ ਅਨਿਕ ਪੜਦੇ ਮਹਿ ਪਰ ਦਾਰਾ ਸੰਗਿ ਫਾਕੈ ॥ (ਰਾਗ ਸੋਰਠਿ, ਅੰਗ: ੬੧੬)


Jaap Sahib from Shiv Puraan?

Jeonvala’s ignorant arguments took another twisted turn when he attempted to state that contents of Sri Dasam Granth were copied from Shiv Puraan and Markande Puraan. When asked to substantiate this allegation, he was unable to do so and could only state that one line of Shiv Puraan reads “Kaal Kaal” which he ridiculously suggested was proof that Sri Jaap Sahib was copied from, drawing laughter from the Panthic Singhs and even the studio members. Intrestingly, not too long ago, another pro-Kala-Afghani, Inder Ghagga, had claimed that Jaap Sahib was from Markande Puraan, like Jeonvala he too failed to provide any evidence backing this preposterous claim.



Under pressure from the Panthic Singhs, Jeonvala taking a quick break


When none of Jeonvala ’s arguments were successful, he resorted to plain name calling, slandering Sri Dasam Bani as “kanjar kavita”, resulting in demands for him to retract his statement by the host Mr. Pannu. Having no other choice, Jeonvala meekly agreed to retract his statement.

Some of the key points made by the Panthic Singhs in the debate included:

Sri Dasam Granth Sahib is a collection of various works of Guru Gobind Singh Ji, including : Bachittar Natak Granth, Chabees Avtar Granth, and CharitroPakhyian Granth.


Sri Dasam Granth Sahib was also known as Dasam Patshah Ji Ka Granth, and was standardized for off-set printing in the late 1800s by the Panth.


Amrit and Nitnem Banis are documented by eye-accounts written in the Bhatt Vahees, and Bhai Jaita Ji (Bhai Jeevan Singh Ji) writes his eye-witness account as:
ਪਾਂਚ ਕਕਾਰ ਸੰਪੂਰਣ ਦੇਖਿ ਕੈ
ਯਾਚਕ ਸਿਖਹਿ ਸੰਮੁਖ ਬੈਠੀਜੈ।
ਜਲੋ ਬਤਾਸੇ ਲੋਹ ਪਾਤਰ ਮਹਿਂ ਡਾਰਿ ਕੈ
ਛਹਿ ਸਿਖ ਆਸਨ ਬੀਰ ਲਵੀਜੈ।
ਹਾਥ ਪ੍ਰਥਮ ਸਿੰਘ ਖੰਡੇ ਕਉ ਲੇਕਰ
ਜਲੋ ਪਤਾਸੇ ਕਉ ਖੂਬ ਮਿਲੀਜੈ।
ਜਪੁ ਕੋ ਪਾਠ ਕਰਹਿ ਸੰਗ ਤਿਹ ਸਿਖ
ਪਾਤਰਿ ਦੂਸਰ ਹਾਥ ਧੀਰਜੈ।੧੧੨।
ਜਪੁ ਜਾਪੁ ਸਵੈਯੇ ਚੌਪਈ ਅਨੰਦ ਕੋ
ਪਾਠ ਸੋਂ ਪਾਹੁਲ ਤਿਆਰ ਕਰੀਜੈ।
ਪਾਂਓ ਚੁਲੇ ਮੁਖ ਪਾਵਹਿ ਸੁ ਯਾਜਕ
ਏਤ ਜੀ ਨੇਤਰ ਕੇਸ ਪਵੀਜੈ।੧੧੩॥

Bhai Mani Singh Ji's letter to Mata Sundari Ji regarding the compilation of Sri Dasam Granth is authentic, and metals nibs did exist in India during that time. It was also pointed out that the style of writing by Bhai Mani Singh Ji was similar to the style used by Guru Har Rai Sahib.


It was also pointed that the real intention of people doubting Sri Dasam Granth is to reject the concept of Amrit-Sanchar (Khanday-ki-Pahul) and thus eliminate AmritDharis from the Panth and this is exactly in line with the Indian Government's long term plan to marginalize and eliminate Sikhism from India. They referenced the Baat Cheet in the Indian Army Gazette No. 153, 1984 published stated:


“...Amritdharis, who are dangerous people and pledged to commit murders, arson and acts of terrorism, should immediately be brought the notice of authorities. These people might appear harmless from outside but they are basically committed to terrorism...”

Sri Dasam Granth condemns the worship of devi devtas. The RSS would never accept such a Granth that exposed this truth to the world. In actuality, it is the RSS and Indian Government agencies who want the Sikhs to condemn Sri Dasam Granth, and these detractors are working at their behest.
The Panthic Singhs asked Jeonvala whether he would classify Baba Deep Singh, Bhai Mani Singh, Sirdar Kapur Singh IAS, Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, Bhai Sukhdev Singh Babbar, Bhai Anokh Singh Babbar RSS agents? As predicted, Jeonvala again failed to answer the query put forth by the Singhs.

Whisked away to safety


It is obvious that the disgraced Jeonvala could not keep his composure throughout the debate and failed to have a sensible discussion with the other participants. It was reported that due to his outbursts against Sri Dasam Granth, an irate group of Sikhs had arrived outside the TV studios near the end of the debate. Fearing for his safety, Jeonvala was escorted out to a vehicle by the studio management, and whisked away quickly out of sight.

For the Kala-Afghani lobby, Toronto’s truck-driver ‘scholar’ Jeonvala had now become a liability instead an asset.

This is a very good development in Toronto. The anti-Panthik parchaar had to be stopped and these Singhs - Bhai Sukhbir Singh and Bhai Sukhmandar Singh - deserve Shabaash for standing up for Guru Sahib's baani.

It is astonishing that someone can question even the authenticity Siri Jaap Sahib. Jeeonwala quoted "Kaal Kaale" from some Puraan and claims that it is taken from some Puraan. How stupid can you get!

All the power to Singhs who are standing up for honour of Panth!

Kulbir Singh

Those Singhs really knew their facts. Their way of debating was very organised, full of facts and up to the point. Very impressive I must say.

Waheguru ji ka khalsa
Waheguru ji ki fateh

I am no giani, historian, jatherdaar or politician.

But would like to know if both are Gurbani then why two separate Granths ?

If Akal Takhat and SGPC supported Dasam Granth than why uptil now no prakash like Hazoor Sahib and Patna Sahib ?

Both cannot be right !

Kindly enlighten.

Waheguru ji ka khalsa
Waheguru ji ki fateh

Bravo! good work singho!

EXCELLENT JOB.

BJ Singh jeeo,

Quote

I am no giani, historian, jatherdaar or politician.

But would like to know if both are Gurbani then why two separate Granths ?

If Akal Takhat and SGPC supported Dasam Granth than why uptil now no prakash like Hazoor Sahib and Patna Sahib ?

Both cannot be right !

Dasam Granth contains Gurbani and also literary work of Guru Sahib e.g. translations of some Purans e.g. Markande Puran, Shrimad Bhagwat Puran etc. from Sanskrit to Braj Bhasha and Punjabi. Why Guru Sahib did not include his Gurbani in Siri Guru Granth Sahib jee is known only to Guru Sahib. What we do know is that Siri Jaap Sahib, Siri Akal Ustat are Gurbanis and the proof of this is that they are read during Amrit Sinchaar Samagam.

Doing parkash of Dasam Granth is a separate issue and it is best if it is not discussed. In Akhand Kirtani Jatha the tradition is to do parkash of only Siri Guru Granth Sahib jee from the times of Bhai Sahib Randhir Singh jee. But I have not heard anywhere Bhai Sahib opposing parkash of Dasam Granth at Hazur Sahib and Patna Sahib. At Siri Harmandir Sahib, Siri Amritsar Sahib, parkash of only Siri Guru Granth Sahib jee is done. The best thing is to leave things at status quo i.e. leave them as is. There is no pressing need to disturb the status quo.

Kulbir Singh

i'm shocked that these kala-afghanis still have any supporters.

oh well, good job to the toronto singhs for once again showing the truth. may they keep up the prachar.

Guru Piyario,

Waheguru ji ka Khalsa, Waheguru ji ki Fateh,

Daas must say I really enjoyed this debate. This is the second debate which I liked after Bhai Kulbir Singh Jee and Mr. Inder Singh Ghagga. We need such type of debates on the controversial issues. This kind of debate leaves a good impression that Sikh kaum is not kaum of tribes. It is one of the most educated community exists on this globe. I applaud the role of moderator of this TV show. He did not have any hidden agenda like we have seen in past from New York. This debate really made a point that if required chritropakhiyan can be debated openly too. Bhai Sukhbir Singh presented the explanation very well about the said chritar. Although personally daas is still in search of Tria-chritar conclusion and do not how much time it take but I must acknowledge if Singhs like Bhai Sukhbir Singh and Sukhminder Singh come forward then this issue can be resolved without any conflict. So far the so called Sants and their scholars failed to represent and mishandled the issue of Dasam Granth so badly that this became one of the reason that common emotions deviated towards Darshan Singh Ragi. Who knows may be Sant-Mandli has some other agenda. But from this debate I assume these Singhs did the debate with clear mind and only for the respect of Sri Dasam Patshah’s Bani.

One more thing which came out of this debate is that Dasam Granth has two kinds of writings: one is Guru Sahib’s own, second are what Guru Sahib translated. That is why Dasam Granth is known to be the source of Bani as well as source of literature and history. If we understood this concept it will be easier to understand the whole issue. May Guru Sahib shower his mercy to save his Panth dividing further on this issue?

Now as far as the Parkaash question by SingbJ jee, I think Bhai Kulbir Singh Jee explained well. Daas believes we should uphold what Sri Akaal Takhat Sahib has concluded for us that not to do Parallel Parkash, which was also rephrased by Vedanti Jee in 2008. As far as the situation of other two Takhats are concerned that too can be worked out by only in love and respectful atmosphere not by any sort of power show.

If we do not follow Sri Akaal Takhat Sahib’s Hukamnama on parallel Parkash then what is the difference between us and the followers of Kala Afghana.



With Regards,
Daas,
JASJIT SINGH

Well Done Singh Veero. Though the other party was not of any academic standards; you have managed to fix him.

I would say only 1 thing



Gajj Kay Jakaraa Gajaavay Nihaal Ho Jaavay Fateh Paavay Kalgidhar De Mann Nu Bhaavaaayyyyyyy Sooooo Nihaaaaaalllll……!!!!!!!


S A T S R I A K A A L !!!!!!!!!

Bhai Kulbir Singh you hve writen that Bha Randhir singh went to patna sahib and hazoor sahib and never opposed parallel parkashed.

But has Bhai Sahib ever opposed idol worship, chatka and other manmat activities at hazoor sahib?

Thereofre If bhai sahib hasnt writen about opposing parallel parkash, doesnt mean Bhai Sahib agred wth it. At the same time bhai sahib went to mehta for akhand paths and taksalis read raag mala, bhai sahib never wrote against it, doesnt mean bhai sahib now believes in raag mala.

mahamoorkh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bhai Kulbir Singh you hve writen that Bha Randhir
> singh went to patna sahib and hazoor sahib and
> never opposed parallel parkashed.
>
> But has Bhai Sahib ever opposed idol worship,
> chatka and other manmat activities at hazoor
> sahib?
>
> Thereofre If bhai sahib hasnt writen about
> opposing parallel parkash, doesnt mean Bhai Sahib
> agred wth it. At the same time bhai sahib went to
> mehta for akhand paths and taksalis read raag
> mala, bhai sahib never wrote against it, doesnt
> mean bhai sahib now believes in raag mala.



what i think bhai sahib meant was that bhai sahib bhai randheer singh left it as it was (i.e didnt say anything against it or for it) probably for ekta reasons

and bhai sahib never wrote against raagmala? or just akhaand paats done by taksal singhs? just curious

mahamoorkh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
At the same time bhai sahib went to
> mehta for akhand paths and taksalis read raag
> mala, bhai sahib never wrote against it, doesnt
> mean bhai sahib now believes in raag mala.


Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh

Veerjio

Bhai sahib has very clearly written about his views on Raagmala (I think in Gurbani dian lagaan maatraan di vilakhanta) and also written his views on Jhatka in Jhatka Maas Parthaaye Tatt Gurmat Nirney. I don't have access to books right now but I will try and find the exact refernence for Raagmala and post it.

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh

Waheguru ji ka khalsa
Waheguru ji ki fateh

Kulbir Singh ji & Jasjit Singh Ji,

Thanks for your replies.

Am not interested in any controversy or debate.

Have surfed net in the past and found at least 3 different versions of Dasam Granth with dissimilar number of pages.
Some with more content then others.

So which edition should i refer ?

Waheguru ji ka khalsa
Waheguru ji ki fateh

I meat Bhai Sahib went to mehta where there was akhand path and raag mala was read. Bhai Sahib never came back home and specifily wrote about kachi bani raag mala being read. Like you guys said Bhai Sahib left it for ekta reasons.

"mahamoorakh", when bhai sahib was around, mehta was not even formed then. mehta was formed around 1970 whereas bhai sahib left for sachkhand in 1961.

Its written that jatha and taksal use to hold smagams together where ever they were.

singhbj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Waheguru ji ka khalsa
> Waheguru ji ki fateh
>
> Kulbir Singh ji & Jasjit Singh Ji,
>
> Thanks for your replies.
>
> Am not interested in any controversy or debate.
>
> Have surfed net in the past and found at least 3
> different versions of Dasam Granth with dissimilar
> number of pages.
> Some with more content then others.
>
> So which edition should i refer ?
>
> Waheguru ji ka khalsa
> Waheguru ji ki fateh



You will find different versions of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji as well this doesnt mean you will start to doubt Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. During British Raj nany Banis of this granth were been banned (ex Uggardanti). This is why you see many different editions.

On a side not I heard that Parkash was done Bhai Sahibs time . Singhs from the Singh Sabha would do Parkash and recite Bachitar Natak daily?

parkash of sri dasam granth sahib has been going on since the time it was compiled into one granth.

mahamoorkh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I meat Bhai Sahib went to mehta where there was
> akhand path and raag mala was read. Bhai Sahib
> never came back home and specifily wrote about
> kachi bani raag mala being read. Like you guys
> said Bhai Sahib left it for ekta reasons.

thats your opinion! nice to know tho

Sukhdeep Singh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> singhbj Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Waheguru ji ka khalsa
> > Waheguru ji ki fateh
> >
> > Kulbir Singh ji & Jasjit Singh Ji,
> >
> > Thanks for your replies.
> >
> > Am not interested in any controversy or debate.
> >
> > Have surfed net in the past and found at least
> 3
> > different versions of Dasam Granth with
> dissimilar
> > number of pages.
> > Some with more content then others.
> >
> > So which edition should i refer ?
> >
> > Waheguru ji ka khalsa
> > Waheguru ji ki fateh
>
>
>
> You will find different versions of Sri Guru
> Granth Sahib Ji as well this doesnt mean you will
> start to doubt Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. During
> British Raj nany Banis of this granth were been
> banned (ex Uggardanti). This is why you see many
> different editions.
>
> On a side not I heard that Parkash was done Bhai
> Sahibs time . Singhs from the Singh Sabha would do
> Parkash and recite Bachitar Natak daily?


Waheguru ji ka khalsa
Waheguru ji ki fateh

Kulbir Singh ji,

I am not bothered about history, only present.

Akal Takht & SGPC was formed to take decisions, provide guidance & solutions to Sikh Panth.
Just as they standardised swaroop of Sri Guru Granth Sahib jeeo, which is acceptable to 99 % present day Sikhs.
Similarly is there any standard version of Dasam Granth online which has been approved by them ?

You see, many times when i use Sikhitothemax, find a Shabad from Dasam Granth and then want to copy Gurbani font from sridasam.org or searchgurbani.com the content on the pages don't match.

So which one does a Sikh (learner) refer ?

If Akal Takht & SGPC doesn't have a standard version, that means past as well present jathedaar's and committee members were or are incompetent to do the job.

Now a suggestion to Panthic Singhs if you really are convinced with originality of Dasam Granth than kindly upload that version with veechaar online for all to benefit.

As per Gurbani vaad-vivaad is totally useless.

Waheguru ji ka khalsa
Waheguru ji ki fateh

Excellent issue raised by you, Veer BJ Singh jee. There should be a standardized Dasam Granth. The spellings of words and order of baanis, all should be standardized (if it is not already done). If someone can shed some light on this, it would be appreciated.

Kulbir Singh

SinghBj and Bhai Kulbir Singh Ji,

If we accept the 'standard version' of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, then we'll have to accept pad-ched saroops. I don't think we should do that. I personally found SinghBJ's comments to be very dangerous in regards to DasamGranth Sahib. The differences that occur within saroops are not major and the Sodak Committee has already standardized a majority of Dasam Granth Sahib. Since the Panth has not officially banned pad-ched of Guru Granth Sahib Ji, our first motive should be to get this passed. The standardization of Dasam Granth Sahib can come at a later time. Until then, as long as aren't not refuting the contents of Dasam Granth Sahib merely because of a few typos, I think we should be okay.

Regarding the question about incompetency of present/past Jathedars - Dasam Granth Sahib's standardization is not the only matter that has ever affected the Panth. Look at how many issues are currently on-going.

there is supposed to be a standarized beerh issued by the sgpc

Veer Umkeo Heo,

As I wrote in my last post, what I meant was standardize the spelling differences and paath differences found in different Dasam Granths. Just look at Siri Jaap Sahib in different Gutka Sahibaan and you will see many minor spelling and paath differences. This should be fixed. That's all I meant when I said to standardize spellings and fix paath differences in Dasam Granth, if not already done.

As for Pad-chhed saroops, they should not be printed at all. This is pure manmatt going on and Panth never authorized anyone to print Pad-chhed saroops. Bhai Sahib has called this practice Maha Manmatt. Sant Kartar Singh has said "Atyant Mana hai" (Extremely prohibited) about it.

Kulbir Singh

ya daas is against pad ched too but until i can get santhiya of laarivar its alll i have

Umkeo Heo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SinghBj and Bhai Kulbir Singh Ji,
>
> If we accept the 'standard version' of Sri Guru
> Granth Sahib Ji, then we'll have to accept
> pad-ched saroops. I don't think we should do
> that. I personally found SinghBJ's comments to be
> very dangerous in regards to DasamGranth Sahib.
> The differences that occur within saroops are not
> major and the Sodak Committee has already
> standardized a majority of Dasam Granth Sahib.
> Since the Panth has not officially banned pad-ched
> of Guru Granth Sahib Ji, our first motive should
> be to get this passed. The standardization of
> Dasam Granth Sahib can come at a later time.
> Until then, as long as aren't not refuting the
> contents of Dasam Granth Sahib merely because of a
> few typos, I think we should be okay.
>
> Regarding the question about incompetency of
> present/past Jathedars - Dasam Granth Sahib's
> standardization is not the only matter that has
> ever affected the Panth. Look at how many issues
> are currently on-going.


Waheguru ji ka khalsa
Waheguru ji ki fateh

Umkeo Heo ji & Kulbir Singh ji,

If you really believe in Akal Takhat as supreme authority for Sikhs then please STOP contradicting the past decisions.

Otherwise you are in the same category as others who don't follow diktat's of Akal Takhat, whether it is regarding pad-ched, ragmala, rehat maryada and Dasam Granth.

Your replies just show the HYPOCRICY of Akjatha.
If you or jatha don't agree with Mainstream Sikh Panth fundamentals then please come out in the open and say it in front of the whole Sikh Panth.
Don't be cowards, dishonest and hide behind others.
Be open SEPARATIST's like other cults built your own Dharam Sthaan, print and do prakash of Sri Guru Granth Sahib jeeo in Larri-war swaroop without Ragmala, say that you have a different Akj Rehat Maryada.
Don't visit Gurudwara's and do matha tek in front of pad-ched swaroop. Stop requesting Gurudwara committee's to organise and accomodate your programs.

Let Sikhs and Humanity decide where they want to go and who they want to follow !

Please don't hide your own short commings.
Remember when you point one finger at others, rest four point back !

So kindly introspect.

As for me (a novice), who is only interested in Brahm Gian i.e reading, listening and learning from Gurbani plus Viakhia.
I find pad-ched helpful in reading and contemplating on Gurbani.
It helps me in understanding and practicing teachings of Satguru, which is the most important aspect in Sikhi.

And for you kind information, I don't follow dead leaders only the Living GURU.

Waheguru ji ka khalsa
Waheguru ji ki fateh

Singh BJ jeeo,

Please refer to the following article with respect to Laridaar Saroop:

[www.gurmatbibek.com]

There is no Siri Akal Takhat approval on padd-chhed saroop and for this reason, we are under no obligation to accept it as Guru. We don't know about others, but we never do any samagam without Laridaar Saroop. This stand of AKJ is pretty solid in India too.

Dear brother, I agree that we should focus more on attaining Brahmgyan. Guru Sahib kirpa karan.

Kulbir Singh

Waheguru ji ka khalsa
Waheguru ji ki fateh

Kulbir Singh ji,

If you say that jathedaar or committee at Akal Takhat have not given a clear verdict in regards to swaroop then one with Bibek Budh must recognise their role as a SHAM.

I attended Delhi Akj dushehra program, ask organisers or keertanis, did DSGMC let them replace the pad-ched swaroop at Historical Gurudwara's ?

Most of the Charhdikala Akand keertani's performed there without hassels.

Was listening to Katha by Giani Sant Singh ji Maskeen some time back. Giani ji gave an example that ice & rainfall form into flowing rivers. These rivers usually merge in the sea. Several streams too originate from the rivers and make there own way. As long as streams stay attached with the main course, they too flourish but once they get CUT-OFF from the main source, sooner or later they Dry-up.

Waheguru ji ka khalsa
Waheguru ji ki fateh