Fateh

"wae khalsa wae fateh", "wae khalsa fateh" or " wae ji khalsa wae ji fateh" isn't the Fateh we got.

Of course it is not the Standard Version of Fateh; but if somebody in certain conditions appears to sound like that; it should not be an issue. If we speak quickly, some part of Gurmantar; may not come on lips.

This fateh is never fine. Gurfateh is Gurbani. If we break up bani like this we are kurehiti. Guru Sahib via sangat told Shaheed Bhai Mani Singh Ji he should be chopped from limb to limb for messing with Gurbani. We are no different if we break Guru Sahibs fateh we will not gain Guru Sahibs kushi by doing so.

Veer Sukhdeep Singh Ji is also corrrect. We must be respectful to the words of the GURU and take time to say all the words with passsion.

Sorry for going off topic,

Quote
Sukhdeep Singh
Guru Sahib via sangat told Shaheed Bhai Mani Singh Ji he should be chopped from limb to limb for messing with Gurbani.

Can I ask the Sangat's opinion about the authenticity of this Sakhi. Some Gursikhs believe that this not true, reasoning that Bhai Mani Singh ji couldn't have given such a supreme sacrifice (shaheedi) if he had committed such a great sin, and these stories were concocted by extraneous influences to show our Mahan Shaheeds in bad light. Another example is the 'Sakhi' of Baba Banda Singh Bahadur becoming 'egotistical' and becoming the self-proclaimed highest authority of the Khalsa. Please can the Sangat do some vichaar on this, it has been troubling me for some time now...

Quote

This fateh is never fine. Gurfateh is Gurbani. If we break up bani like this we are kurehiti. Guru Sahib via sangat told Shaheed Bhai Mani Singh Ji he should be chopped from limb to limb for messing with Gurbani. We are no different if we break Guru Sahibs fateh we will not gain Guru Sahibs kushi by doing so.

I guess you are the only perfect Singh on this planet then

i agree, fateh should be said as it is, waheguru ji ka khalsa waheguru ji ki fateh.

what the heck does wae mean??? nothing!

outwardly Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sorry for going off topic,
>
>
> Guru Sahib via sangat told Shaheed Bhai Mani Singh
> Ji he should be chopped from limb to limb for
> messing with Gurbani.
>
>
> Can I ask the Sangat's opinion about the
> authenticity of this Sakhi. Some Gursikhs believe
> that this not true, reasoning that Bhai Mani Singh
> ji couldn't have given such a supreme sacrifice
> (shaheedi) if he had committed such a great sin,
> and these stories were concocted by extraneous
> influences to show our Mahan Shaheeds in bad
> light. Another example is the 'Sakhi' of Baba
> Banda Singh Bahadur becoming 'egotistical' and
> becoming the self-proclaimed highest authority of
> the Khalsa. Please can the Sangat do some vichaar
> on this, it has been troubling me for some time
> now...

I dont think this Sakhi undermines Bhai Sahib
Bhai Mani Singh Ji is one of my favorite role models because of this Sakhi.

Lets look at our current "leaders" or role models. People like Darshan Lal was summoned to Sri Akal Takht and he outright refused to come numerous times. He had no regards for the panthic law. There are others too who have socialized with known adversaries of the panth like the RSS and they too do not come to Sri Akal Takht for Pesh.

Shaheed Bhai Mani Singh Ji on the other hand was a Gurmukh of a whole different caliber. When he was summoned to Sri Akal Takht and was given such a harsh punishment he replied " Sat Bachan" I see no difference between the Sangat and the Guru. He had so much faith in this Gurmat principle of Sangat being representatives of the Guru he asked for Sangats blessing to not lose his Sikhi when being tortured. He was a panthic SIngh in complete obedience to the panth how can we say this sakhi undermines him or his shaheedi?

Mehtab Singh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This fateh is never fine. Gurfateh is Gurbani. If
> we break up bani like this we are kurehiti. Guru
> Sahib via sangat told Shaheed Bhai Mani Singh Ji
> he should be chopped from limb to limb for messing
> with Gurbani. We are no different if we break Guru
> Sahibs fateh we will not gain Guru Sahibs kushi by
> doing so.I guess you are the only perfect Singh on
> this planet then


Bhai Sahib I dont think Im a perfect Singh for saying fateh in its entirety . Most Singhs I know say proper Fateh. Only a few Singhs that are lazy like to chop down Guru Sahibs bani. Such actions are manmant and not approving to Guru Sahib.

Sorry If I offended you

Did anyone find out if the sakhi has any reliable sources?

It is said that Bhai Mani Singh re-arranged Gurbani according to Mahallas and Bhagats, instead of Raags. This Bir is still available today. The last time I read about it was that it is in Delhi somewhere.

I have not checked it myself but have heard that this Saakhi is mentioned in Pracheen Panth Prakash written by Sardar Ratan Singh Bhangu.

Whether this Saakhi is true or not, one thing is true for sure - we should say full Fateh and not shorten it because Fateh is Gurbani.

Daas,
Kulbir Singh

Vaheguroo Ji,

I am really passionate about this topic aswell! Cant stand it when people say "Fateh" or Gurfateh or Khalsa Fateh or w.e. I notice it happens mainly in emails/texts. The full Fateh should always be said

There are two versions of this “sakhi”. First one is that he wrote bani in smaller gutkas and pothis which upset the panth and hence he was cursed. This makes no sense because bani used to be written in pothis and gursikhs had Dasam Banis in pothis as well which Bhai Sahib collected to make one granth. Second version is that he unbounded the original Bir and then rearranged the Angs. Bhai Sahib showed the Bir to couple of Singhs who came to Darbar Sahib. When they saw it, they cursed Bhai Sahib that he too would be chopped limb by limb. Singhs were upset when they saw the original Bir rearranged because Bhai Sahib had allegedly taken it apart and then rejoined it. Then Bhai Sahib requested that his Sikhi sidak must not falter to which Singhs agreed.

The said Bir is in Gulab Singh Sethi’s house in Delhi. I do not know whether this Bir really has the history as is being claimed but the story makes no sense. Bhai Mani Singh’s shaheedi is a great example of martyrdom for the sake of truth. It was not a result of punishment. Had Bhai Sahib wished to do that he would’ve written a new Bir and not desecrated the original one. Besides, if we believe that Bir in Delhi is the original one then which one was lost in the Great Holocaust? All historians unanimously agree that Damdami Bir was lost in 1762. Another reason why this story doesn’t make sense is because the Bani could not be rearranged in the said order (without writing a new Bir) because many times Bhagat Bani and Mahalla Bani appear on the same Ang. So how did Bhai Sahib separate the two? I have not come across any source which states that Bhai Sahib rewrote a new Bir. In this case, no one would’ve uttered a single word in opposition because Singhs used to write Panj Granthi pothi and keep gutkas which had Dasam Pita Banis as well. So if Panj Granthi and gutkas (like the one of Baba Deep Singh at Damdama Sahib) do not have banis in order then it is reasonable to assume that Singhs did not see anything wrong with it. Writing a new Bir in different order (not for the purpose of making it better organized) would not have been objected to. If Baba Deep Singh and other caliber gursikhs were not punished then why would Bhai Mani Singh be an exception?

I personally do not recall Bhai Sahib being summoned to Akal Takhat. In this case, Panth would’ve given him tankhah and he would’ve been forgiven. Cursing him to be chopped limb by limb at the hands of the Mughals is not something panth would’ve done. Besides, his shaheedi enraged the entire panth and Singhs chopped of Qazi’s and butcher’s heads. This again shows that his shaheedi was not a punishment. He wouldn’t be a shaheed if he deserved it. Guru Rakha

Bijla Singh Wrote:
>
> I personally do not recall Bhai Sahib being
> summoned to Akal Takhat. In this case, Panth
> would’ve given him tankhah and he would’ve
> been forgiven. Cursing him to be chopped limb by
> limb at the hands of the Mughals is not something
> panth would’ve done. Besides, his shaheedi
> enraged the entire panth and Singhs chopped of
> Qazi’s and butcher’s heads. This again shows
> that his shaheedi was not a punishment. He
> wouldn’t be a shaheed if he deserved it. Guru
> Rakha



In Pracheen Panth Prakash, I remember reading that Bhai Sahib was summoned at Akal Bunga aka Sri Akal Takht.

Also, I agree I dont think the sangat would give such a punishment. When they stated " He should be chopped up from limb to limb" I think it was a figure of speech because they were outraged that Bhai Sahib changed angs around. I think Bhai Sahib took the figure of speech literally and did not want the words of Sangat to fail so he honored the bachan of the sangat by becoming shaheed. Either way this is a great example to always honor the orders of Sadh Sangat.

Going back to the question of Guru Sahibs fateh. Guru Sahib said that the Gursikh who says fateh first when meeting antother Gursikh bears more fruit then the recepient of the Fateh. So if we are getting phul from saying Fateh why do we need to cut it short?

While the different versions of the Sakhi about Bhai Mani Singh Ji are being discussed and dis-agreed upon; another version is also there, which is not considered here. It was the idea of "PAD CHHED" which came to Bhai Sahib's mind. He discussed it with others. Singhs did not agree with him. So Bhai Sahib Ji dropped the idea at once. But he in his mind, himself feels that even conceiving this idea was wrong. So, he feels guilty and himself thinks of a punishment for himself. That was not a "curse" from others. He gets what he wished in love of the Guru.

I hope it is satisfactory on all acccounts.

Had a query...heard from a bazzurg once. He said in puratan times when Gursikhs use to meet. This is how they use to say FATEH.

Gursikh 1: VahigurooJiKaKhalsa!
Gursikh 2: VahigurooJiKiFateh!

In other word, Gursikh 1 will the the first half and the Gursikh 2 will say the 2nd half. Can anyone confirm this?

Chota veer

This is quite an interesting thought Bhai Chatrik jeeo. Whenever I have said Fateh to Professor Udai Singh jee Toronto, he has repeated the second Pankiti as stated above i.e. he would say "Vaheguru jee kee Fateh" upon hearing the first Pankiti "Vaheguru jee ka Khalsa".

Having said that, most Singhs I have met, have always said full Fateh in response to hearing full Fateh.

Kulbir Singh

I remember one time hearing a conversation between two gursikhs in the jorha ghar of the gurdwara sahib. The gursikhs met each other and both said full fateh and then hugged. After the hug, one of the gursikhs said, " People say that when we say fateh each gursikh gets to say and hear vaheguru 4 times, but they don't realize that when we hug, we hear vaheguru rom rom countless times."

May guru sahib bless us with such prem filled greetings.

piyasi chatrik Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Had a query...heard from a bazzurg once. He said
> in puratan times when Gursikhs use to meet. This
> is how they use to say FATEH.
>
> Gursikh 1: VahigurooJiKaKhalsa!
> Gursikh 2: VahigurooJiKiFateh!
>
> In other word, Gursikh 1 will the the first half
> and the Gursikh 2 will say the 2nd half. Can
> anyone confirm this?


I was taught by my NanaJi that when someone says VahigurooJiKaKhalsa! you then say VahigurooJiKiFateh! as a joint effort.

Piyasi Chatrik Ji, I also like the idea of the FATEH you introduce here. I also used to say like that to selected persons. (Junior in age ).
I never knew that this was popular with PURATAN SINGHS. It has some benefits. It saves time. One starts, other completes. It keeps one more attentive and in listening mode. As Sukhdeep Singh Veer Ji puts it; it makes the FATEH "a joint effort". Imagine, Puratan Singhs, on horse backs greeting others in loud and extended voice, "WAHEGURU JI KA KHALSA." And the others, in a still higher pitch responding with, "WAHEGURU JI KI FATEH." More of the eye contact is there in this case.

It seems both sides start simultaneously; but one opts to be in low voice (while listening with full attention) in one half, to accomodate the higher pitch of the second party.

Anyway, as Kulbir Singh Ji Veer Ji says, complete followed by complete is still better.

Quote

Also, I agree I dont think the sangat would give such a punishment. When they stated " He should be chopped up from limb to limb" I think it was a figure of speech because they were outraged that Bhai Sahib changed angs around. I think Bhai Sahib took the figure of speech literally and did not want the words of Sangat to fail so he honored the bachan of the sangat by becoming shaheed.

Sukhdeep Singh, the reason I disagree with this is because if Bhai sahib was summoned, the entire sangat could not have spoken out but only the jathedar. By the way, Bhai Sahib himself was the jathedar so you or anyone who believes in this story will have to provide the name of the person who was appointed as the jathedar to give punishment to Bhai Sahib. Historical texts are quite about this. Historians also do not state that a new bir was written. Bir at Gulab Singh’s residence is Dasam Granth one. Since Bhai Sahib was a brahmgyani he knew which statement was a metaphor and which one literal.

Gursikhs (early Sikhs) were far above anger and other thieves. They fully respected Bhai Sahib as a jathedar, scholar, companion of Guru Sahib and a pooran Sikh. Maharaja Ala Singh bowed before Abdali and submitted to his authority. Khalsa did not get angry but rather gave him tankhah. Whenever Bhai Subaig Singh used to come to Khalsa, he could not intermingle with other Sikhs until he received a tankhah because he was a “milvartania Sikh” i.e. an employee of the Mughals. When Jassa Singh Ramgharia killed his daughter he was excommunicated and then forgiven. When Singhs attacked a camp of Muslim women thinking there were Mughal army men in it, they humbly put their swords back in the sheaths, left and attacked the next camp. This impressed Noor Mohammad so much that he could not stop praising Sikhs in his diary. All of this shows that Sikhs did not act in anger no matter how grave one’s mistake was. Bhai Sahib’s mistake was nothing close to killing a daughter or bowing before Abdali. Khalsa was going through hard struggle so they knew the importance of unity and loved each other so much that they would not outrageously say anything to lose a rare gem of the panth.

Now, the reason this story does not make sense is because a Sikh could not intermingle with rest of the Panth until he completed his tankhah. Bhai Sahib allegedly changed the order in 1727 and he became shaheed in 1738 so it took 11 years for the punishment to come true. Then how could Bhai Sahib live amongst the Sikhs and as a jathedar for 11 years without completing his tankhah? If the statement was made outrageously then clearly it means it was not a tankhah that was prescribed. So what was the tankhah? It is impossible to believe that the same panth that sat down and had a long discussion on Dasam Granth could not discuss “mistake” of Bhai Sahib in a rational manner. If the story is true then it means Bhai Sahib was not a shaheed. Although he died very bravely but that doesn’t make him a shaheed. It means he deserved it. Thus, panth could not have beheaded the Qazi and the executioner. Sikhs killed Chandu, Gangu and his family, executioners of Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji, Sahibzadas and Bhai Hakikat Singh Ji. The only reason is because Sikhs were innocent and Mughals were the criminals. In case of Bhai Mani Singh Ji, executioners were killed because it was their fault. Had sangat’s bachan come true, Singhs would not have punished the Mughals.

Now, we all respect Bhai Sahib and since he means so much to all of us, it is important to get to the bottom of this story. The only way is to go through our historical texts and see what each of them states to get a true picture of the event rather than me stating bunch of assumptions. I will discuss it in a separate topic. This will be a good learning exercise for me. I thank you for that. Guru Rakha

"Now, we all respect Bhai Sahib and since he means so much to all of us, it is important to get to the bottom of this story. The only way is to go through our historical texts and see what each of them states to get a true picture of the event rather than me stating bunch of assumptions"

Bhai Sahib let me begin by stating I strongly agree with the above sentiments. In my heart of hearts, I only wish to be the dust of Gurmukh like Shaheed BHai Mani Singh Ji. I initially mentioned sakhi about Shaheed Bhai Mani Singh Ji for the purpose of highlighting a point which is one should make efforts to respect bani to get Guru Sahibs happiness. I thought the Sakhi of Shaheed Bhai Mani Singh Ji would be a good example to illustrate this point, because despite Shaheed Bhai Mani Singh Ji having such a high jeevan he was still capable of making mistakes and being summoned by Guru Sahib for such mistakes; only Guru Sahib is without mistakes. No doubt Bhai Sahib has utmost respect for Gurbani if he didnt then why else would he have the privilege of scribing Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji as Guru Sahib recited? I dont think Bhai Sahib intentionally made the mistake of changing format of Maharaj Jis saroop, but either way this act of changing format of Guru Sahibs saroop was displeasing to Guru Sahib.

I do not accept everything written in histroy especially everything written Sri Guru Panth Parksah, but I do appreciate some of the teachings this historical text offers. This text describes how Khalsa Fauj was governed and it explain the moral characters of the panths past leaders. However, when understanding this text we need to keep in mind its written in poetic form so many historical details of events are left out for poetic reasons. Let me try to show how this becomes the case in poetry. If I made the rhyme

Bijla Singh came, and he said " Sukhdeep Singh you are so lame"
how dare you blame a Brahmgiani who has so much fame"

No many people would not understand the full details of what Im saying here. Only users on this forum will have an understanding of the following rhyme.

Sri Guru Granth Parksah is written in similar terms. So when reading such text we cant take each word as literal and we have to read between the lines. Take the following poetic pangti from Sri Guru Panth Parkaashfor example

ਗੁਰ ਸੰਗਤ, ਸੰਗਤ ਗੁਰ ਆਹੀ,ਗੁਰ ਸੰਗਤ ਮੇਂ ਭੇਦ ਕਛੁ ਨਾਹੀ ।੧੩।


These are not the exact words of Shaheed Bhai Mani Singh Ji instead it is a poetic narration of what Shaheed Bhai Mani Singh Jis reaction was after " Sikh Sangat" said he should be chopped from limb to limb. "Sangat" in this poetic verse is referring to Panj Pyaarey. In the above pangti, Bhai Mani Singh Ji is acknowledging that the Panj are the Guru and there is no difference between the two. Historically , Jathedar of Sri Akal Takht or any other institution was always submissive to Panj Pyaarey. For example, take Nawab Kapoor Singh Ji whom was the jathedar of Dal Khalsa. He had so much respect for the Guru Panth he would never make a decision or give directions to the panth without the consent of the Panj ( Singhan)

ਬਹੁਤ ਸਿੰਘਨ ਕੋ ਆਦਰ ਧਰੈ , ਬਿਨਾਂ ਪੁਛੇ ਪੰਥ ਗੱਲ ਨਾ ਕਰੈ

- Sri Guru PanthParkash



Shaheed Bhai Mani SIngh Ji whom had the highest moral character was no different the Nawab Kapur Singh Ji . He always stayed submissive to the will of the Panj Pyaarey. Even though the statement of the Panj might have been symbolic; Bhai Mani Singh Ji was so humble, and was felt with complete guilt inside for his actions he would do anything even die to regain the Kushi of his Guru. Nobody knows for sure what " paap" Bhai committed whether he rearranged the angs or included Sri Dasam Granth with Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji remains anonymous. We dont have much references to what exactly happened. One reference we have is this poetic verse from from Sri Guru Panth Parkash


ਜਿਮ ਗੁਰ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਬੰਦ ਬੰਦ ਹਿਲਾਯਾ, ਤਿਮ ਤੁਮ ਬੰਦ ਬੰਦ ਹੋਗ ਕਟਾਯਾ। ਸਿਖ ਸੰਗਤ ਇਮ ਦੀਨੋ ਸ੍ਰਾਪ, ਮਨੀ ਸਿੰਘ ਸੋ ਲਾਗਯੋ ਪਾਪ

Now nowhere in this pangti is the exact crime. This is the setback of writing history in poetic form. Even though are some advantages in writing history in poetic form the biggest disadvantage is much of the historical details are left out.

ਜਿਮ ਗੁਰ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਬੰਦ ਬੰਦ ਹਿਲਾਯਾ, ਤਿਮ ਤੁਮ ਬੰਦ ਬੰਦ ਹੋਗ ਕਟਾਯਾ। ਸਿਖ ਸੰਗਤ ਇਮ ਦੀਨੋ ਸ੍ਰਾਪ, ਮਨੀ ਸਿੰਘ ਸੋ ਲਾਗਯੋ ਪਾਪ

In the above pangti, we can conclude that Sikh Sangat was not satisfied with Bhai Sahibs decision.
Sikh Sangat is stated instead of Panj Pyaarey because Panj are selected by Sikh sangat so whenever a decision is on behalf of Panj the decision in reality is actually made by Panj Pyaarey.

So the sum everything up I dont have any quarrels with the following Sakhi. To me it teaches that everyone besides Guru Sahibs is subject to mistake and the only way to fix our mistake is through Guru Sahib via Panj Pyaarey. Again I dont take such historical texts as literal when Panj Pyaarey said he too should be unbinded I dont think this was literal. Lets not forget this historical account it written in poetic form and described by a poet we cant take everything as literal we have to read in between the lines and take out the good teachings from such points and disregard things that dont line up with Gurmat.There are things in this story that I dont accept for example Singhs celebrating Diwali at Harmandir Sahib does not seem right but there are things in this story that dont violate principles of GUrmat that I do accept.

Sukhdeep Singh Ji, you did not address my points but instead presented what Panth Parkash says without explaining why you believe this particular account is true. This story has so many holes that it cannot be held authentic in any sense. Please provide names of Panj Pyare who were appointed? System of Panj Pyare was not followed after martyrdom of Baba Banda Singh. Nawab Kapoor Singh was the jathedar of the Panth not Panj Pyare and he discussed matters with Darbar Sahib, Charat Singh and other Sikhs. Please provide references to show that Panj were the jathedar of the panth in 18th century? Also provide more details about the bir and explain how could Bhai Sahib intermingle with the Sikhs for 11 years without completing the tankhah? Who remained the jathedar and head granthi for those years? History provides names of jathedars of Akal Takhat and head granthis of Darbar Sahib but I could not find a single source that lists names of Panj Pyare. If sangat means Panj Pyare then please ponder upon the role of Panj first. Do Panj Pyare give “shraap” (curse) or tankhah? Since when did giving shraap become Gurmat? The same story is described differently in earlier sources.

I agree everyone can make mistakes but that doesn’t mean Bhai Mani Singh made this particular mistake. This way we can blame anything on any one. It doesn’t justify the story. Perhaps you are making a mistake by believing in this story. How do you know Bhangu didn’t make a mistake by writing this false story? Your argument that since no Gurmat principle is violated it has to be true is also not logical. Gurmat principles are also not contradicted or violated by saying that Guru Sahib never visited Mecca and sakhi of Panja Sahib is fabricated. No Gurmat principle is violated by saying that Baba Deep Singh did not fight with his head on his palm. I understand the point you made by using this story as an example. I also understand that you are not in any way trying to insult Bhai Sahib. We do learn something good out of it but my contention is on the authenticity of this false story. Learning something good from a story doesn’t make it true or authentic. I hope you understand that I am not trying to have a “behas” with you. Guru Rakha

Here is a comment from Bhai Sahib Randhir SIngh Ji's Book "Jot Vigass", regarding the Sakhi of Bhai Mani Singh Ji.

Editor's note:
ਗੁਰਬਾਣੀ ਦੇ ਅਦਬ ਸਨਮਾਨ ਦਾ ਧੁਰਵਾ ਬੰਨਣ ਹੇਤ ਸਿਰੀ ਭਾਈ ਮਨੀ ਜੀ ਦਾ ਅੰਗ ਅੰਗ ਜੁਦਾ ਕਰਾਉਣ ਵਾਲਾ ਸਾਕਾ

ਅੰਗ ਅੰਗ ਕਟਾ ਲਏ ਮਨੀ ਸਿੰਘ ਜੀ, ਧੁਰਵਾ ਬੰਨਿ੍ ਗੁਰ ਗਰੰਥ ਅਦਬੋਲਿਆਂ ਦਾ ||

ਵੱਡ ਵਰਤਾਇ ਸਾਕਾ ਸਾਡੇ ਕੰਨ ਖੋਲੇ੍, ਵੱਡ ਦਰਿਸ਼ਟਾਂਤ ਭਾਣਾ ਸਿਖਸ਼ੋਲਿਆਂ ਦਾ ||

Bhai Bijla Singh Ji,

Im sorry that you were not satisfied with my previous response. I thought I addressed each question you asked. This time I will answer each question separately.

"Please provide names of Panj Pyare who were appointed? System of Panj Pyare was not followed after martyrdom of Baba Banda Singh. Nawab Kapoor Singh was the jathedar of the Panth not Panj Pyare and he discussed matters with Darbar Sahib, Charat Singh and other Sikhs. Please provide references to show that Panj were the jathedar of the panth in 18th century? Also provide more details about the bir and explain how could Bhai Sahib intermingle with the Sikhs for 11 years without completing the tankhah? Who remained the jathedar and head granthi for those years? History provides names of jathedars of Akal Takhat and head granthis of Darbar Sahib but I could not find a single source that lists names of Panj Pyare"

It is an oral tradition well known that Guru Sahib gave political authority to the Panj.I believe in the exact words of Dasmi Paatshah. Guru Sahib says as long as his khalsa remains distinct he will give them his power in the form of 5 and they will rule. For this reason we can only conclude that whenever Khalsa has ruled it has been through Guru Sahibs blessing in the form of Panj Pyaarey. We know through history that Khalsa fell under the poor leadership of Ranjit Singh who did not obey commands of Panj. Had the Panj been in charge this would have not been the case.

Bhai Sahib my humble benti is that please do not read Sikh History so literally. Most of our Sikh history has been scribed in poetic form; thus, we must take this into consideration when reading historical texts. In the West, historians write history with detail and irrefutable logic. When writing historians make sure that skeptics cannot find any holes in their narration. They view history in a linear progression. In Sikhi, history is not written in similar terms. History is not written for the skeptic instead it is written for the seeker. In Sikhi history is circular and linear , meaning the facts are relevant for the present moment. In this style of narrating history in poetic prose it becomes more important to eloquently illustrate history by illuminating key values; thus, small intricate details are not as important.

Sikh History is for the purpose of praising Guru Sahib and highlighting Gurmat Values. If you want to have a better understanding of this style of writing history refer to Bachitar Natak. In this bani, Guru Sahib records the beginning of life and man in poetic form there is not much emphasis on small details. None of the events in this bani are to be taken literal. Much of it is symbolic. Writing history in poetic format has many advantages it allows the reader to have more of an intimate experience of that even with the present moment. Unfortunately , there are disadvantages, one being much details of the actual historical incidents are left out.


For a Gursikh historical details are not as important as the message (idea/values etc) The world and its events are only temporary the only thing that is important to remember is Gods message. Bhangu wrote in poetic form for this reason many of the intricate details were left out. This is why the name of the Panj Pyaarey are left out. This is also why the full details of the "paap" are also left out.


If sangat means Panj Pyare then please ponder upon the role of Panj first. Do Panj Pyare give “shraap” (curse) or tankhah? Since when did giving shraap become Gurmat? The same story is described differently in earlier sources.

Parsidh-Panthic Scholar Bhai Kahn Singh Ji has acknowledged this Sakhi to be true. He mentions Bhai Sahib changed the format of Gurbani and was given "shraap" by the panth. He actually states shraap and not tankhah. You are right shraap is not Gurmat but tankhah is. However, the word " shraap" which symbolically means tankah has been used instead of tankhah for poetic reasons.


If Bhai Sahib stated:

" ਸਿਖ ਸੰਗਤ ਇਮ ਦੀਨੋ ਤਨਖਾਹ,ਮਨੀ ਸਿੰਘ ਸੋ ਲਾਗਯੋ ਪਾਪ"
this would not rhyme compared to

"ਸਿਖ ਸੰਗਤ ਇਮ ਦੀਨੋ ਸ੍ਰਾਪ, ਮਨੀ ਸਿੰਘ ਸੋ ਲਾਗਯੋ ਪਾਪ"

Because this has been narrated in poetic reason much of the sakhi seems harsh and anti- Gurmat. Thus, we must read between the lines.We dont know for sure from this poetic narration we can only conjure what the actual details of this event are. Perhaps Panj Pyaarey did not give this punishment , but instead Bhai Sahib volunteered to take this punishment as a means to remove the guilt of " cutting" the angs of Guru Sahib in which he considered it to be following GUru Sahibs Hukum. When Bhai Lehna Singh Ji was asked to eat a corpse he took the Hukum literal and went to please Guru Sahib.


"I agree everyone can make mistakes but that doesn’t mean Bhai Mani Singh made this particular mistake. This way we can blame anything on any one. It doesn’t justify the story. Perhaps you are making a mistake by believing in this story. How do you know Bhangu didn’t make a mistake by writing this false story? "

I am full of mistakes and Im sure Bhangu was capable of mistakes as well. But if Gurmukh Scholars like Bhai Kahn Singh Ji and Bhai Randhir Singh Ji acknowledge this sakhi then there is no reason to question its validity .Again, I have no attachment to the minute( small) details of this event. They are not important to me. What is important is the Gurmat Values and virtues we can learn from this event. Bhai Sahibs leadership character is illuminated in this Sakhi. I also believe there is no particular reason for BHangu to fabricate this story to ruin the reputation of Bhai Sahib because in the beginning of the story he praises the character of BHai Sahib.


"Your argument that since no Gurmat principle is violated it has to be true is also not logical. Gurmat principles are also not contradicted or violated by saying that Guru Sahib never visited Mecca and sakhi of Panja Sahib is fabricated. No Gurmat principle is violated by saying that Baba Deep Singh did not fight with his head on his palm"

The stories you have mentioned are some of my most favorite. They have no Gurmat contradictions. It is contradicting Gurmat to disclaim these stories since some of them have been recorded by Bhai Gurdas Ji. Bhai Gurdas Jis writing are pure GUrmat if we disregard these writing then stating Guru Sahib did not go to Mecca is manmat.There is nothing in the world that Sri Akal Baba Nanak and his Fauj cant do . They defy all the laws of nature. I made the statement ".There are things in this story that I dont accept for example Singhs celebrating Diwali at Harmandir Sahib does not seem right but there are things in this story that dont violate principles of GUrmat that I do accept."

meaning that if a sakhi is highlighting a Gurmat principle then I will take the good from it and disregard that which contradicts Gurmat. Im not attached to the linear evens of history im only concerned with the present time ( this moment, and Guru Sahibs happiness). Sikhi and Guru Sahib is not history .Guru Sahib is forever new in the present moment.

ਸਾਚ ਕੀ ਮਤਿ ਸਦਾ ਨਉਤਨ ਸਬਦਿ ਨੇਹੁ ਨਵੇਲਓ ॥

Sorry if I did not address your questions accordingly. This is all I know according to my simple understanding. Im not a research scholar Im just a simple person who likes to learn the conduct and virtues of Gursikh through reading history and Gurbani.Im sorry If in anyway if I have offended you are anyone else on the forum in mentioning Bhai Sahibs shaheedi. To me it is an inspiration how Bhai Sahib became joti jot by accepting BaNa ( Hukum). In reality, ordinary people like myself and Bhangu cannot fully narrrate the glory of how those Gurmukhs become joti jot.

ਤਿਨ ਕੀ ਸੋਭਾ ਕਿਆ ਗਣੀ ਜਿ ਸਾਹਿਬਿ ਮੇਲੜੀਆਹ ॥

ps- Im sorry if I dont respond to your next message. Im leaving the country Wednesday morning and I might not come back. Tomorrow evening after work is the last free time , I have to pack before leaving so I might not have time to respond. In the new country I will no longer be posting on GUrmatBIbek.com so forgive me for not responding. Also, thanks for your wonderful insights. I have learned much from this thread.

Also going back to the original question and leaving all controversies aside. Its never right to cut the fateh. If we did so during Amrit Sanchar then Panj Pyaarey would not give us Amrit. Knowing this is not accepted by the Panj ( GUru Sahib) why would we cut it then.

Exactly that was the main purpose of starting this thread.

Piaareo we need to do Parchar of this. This is a very big mistake or let's say Paap, which i think almost the maximum amount of Panth is doing.
So, from now on we should make it a habit that everytime we hear anyone say wae khalsa wahe fateh or wa khalsa fateh or anything similar to that we should humbly request him or her to not cut away the rest.

Daas started off with this in my family. Now daas willl request all others daas knows.

Bhul chuk maaf kardenaa jio.

! ! ! ! ! Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh ! ! ! ! !

Sukhdeep Singh Ji, I agree that Guru Sahib rules through Panj Pyare but this has not happened since the martyrdom of Baba Banda Singh. When Mir Mannu sent nawabi to Khalsa, it wasn’t given to Panj but to Kapoor Singh. Nawab Kapoor Singh was the only jathedar of the Panth (a very good one) and after him it was Sardar Jassa Singh Ahluwalia. Panth was divided into five groups first and each had its own jathedar. Then came Buddha and Tarna Dal and each had one jathedar. Nawab Kapoor Singh was jathedar of Buddha Dal and of the entire Khalsa. Then came 12 misls. Not a single misl or dal had Panj Pyare as leaders. Sikhs fought bravely and took over Punjab but then they started fighting each other for their own territorial gains. This is well documented in 18th century sources. Due to internal fights, Sikhs became so weak that they could not stand against grandson of Abdali. Ranjit Singh slowly eliminated misls and united the Panth. He was much better leader than late 18th century ones. Sure, he made mistakes but he wasn’t a poor but rather very strong and far sighted leader. Even Sardar Jassa Singh Ahluwalia could not keep the panth together and took one side. He joined one of the misls to drive out Sardar Jassa Singh Raamgarhia just for personal enmity. Each ruler had its own territory and fought another misl chief for more. Please go through historical sources of 18th and 19th century for more details.

Panj never ruled which means Guru Sahib never ruled and events of 18th century such as internal fights, not being able to form one country, disunity and trying to seek allegiance with Abdali’s grandson (Shah Zaman) and finally losing all of the occupied area show that panth did not follow the leadership of Panj Pyare. Had this been the case the rule would’ve grown instead of vanishing into the thin air. Again, history provides names of all Akal Takhat jathedars and head granthis of Darbar Sahib but not names of Panj Pyare because the Panth did not follow this system in political struggle but limited it to purely religious.

I understand history is written in poetic form but that doesn’t mean details are left out. Look at Chandi Di Vaar and how Guru Sahib has described details of war and warriors. Also look through Chrittars. All Chrittars that are war related give so much detail that the entire scene is painted in one’s mind. Guru Sahib even provided the dates and places of where each composition was finished. He did not leave anything out while writing Zafarnama. Gurbilas Pt 10 even describes the color of clothes Sahibzadas were wearing. Siri Gur Katha gives every little detail of how Amrit was prepared in 1699. So writing something in poetry doesn’t mean details will be left out. Tankhah and Shraap have two different meanings and Bhangu could’ve found another work to rhyme with Tankhah. Bhangu wrote what he had heard. Neither did he fully know the story nor did he spend time in going through its weeds. Each person will interpret the text differently. One scholar says Bhai Mani Singh was Kambo, another says he was Multani while another says he was Dulatt. The fact is that most of Sikh historians did not spend much time in researching about Bhai Mani Singh and when Guru Sahib allows I will show that in a separate topic. There have been two Bhai Mani Singh at the same time and our historians have mixed them up so much that even they are getting confused over who’s who and who did what.

Bhai Randhir Singh’s Jot Vigaas is not a historic work and he used this story the same way you did, to illustrate a point and exemplify the sacrifice of Bhai Sahib Singh Ji. The moral of the story is that a true Sikh accepts being cut down to pieces for the sanctity of Gurbani. I don’t think Bhai Randhir Singh is writing history or confirming the authenticity of the story. Mahan Kosh is a dictionary not a historic document. I believe he wrote the story because it was popular and well known in the Panth as it is today but still doesn’t make it true. Bhai Kahan Singh and Bhai Randhir Singh were great scholars and I respect them very much but I do not agree with them on this point. I believe if we started discussing poetry, 18th century history, misls etc we will further go off topic and each one in its own is a separate topic. You have a nice trip.
I apologize for taking this thread off topic. I believe Fateh should be said in full the way Panj Pyare teach us during Amrit Sanchaar. Guru Rakha

Thanks Gurmukho!

Im looking forward to reading and learning from the separate topic of Shaheed Bhai Mani Singh Ji.

Guru Rakha