Dasam Granth/ Bachitar Natak

There is suffiicient research around already that shoots down the bogey of DG and it’s brigade.It is preposterous to say all that is contained in Dasam Granth is the results of Guru Gobind Singh’s own penmanship. Such assertions coming from the anti-Sikh forces can be expected but I feel sorry and offended to go through the pronouncements of such ardent Sikhs as Piara Singh Padam, other self declared Taksalis etc .

They have bent over backward to prove that all those were the original creations of Guruji who had chosen to write under the pen-names of Ram and Siam. If they stress that those are the conceptions of Guruji then why do they plead for their publication in a separate volume? Could Guru Gobind Singh write such stories and such stanzas which the readers would find in Chritropakhyan (Female Attributes) 2 to 20, 402, and some of the Hikayat (Fables) rendered into English by the writer of this article? Not only the Attributes and the Fables, some parts in many other Chapters, such as Krishna Avatar are equally erotic. Could readers sit down with their wives, sisters, mothers and children and read aloud these tales? Most of them are epitome of degradation to womanhood. They are as pornographic as the present day adult movies.

Apart from the obscene substance, there is lot of material, which is quite contrary and offensive to the philosophy of Guru Gobind Singh and the Sikhism as promoted by first nine Masters.
The Akal Takhat has decided already upon the DG as far back as 1931.For a number of reason they did not come up with a decisive assertion and advised the panth to leave the matter alone.Unfortunately, since about 2006/7 some fringe groups in the Panth have started pushing the DG rather aggressively causing counter response.This group has been riding high on the shahidi of Bhindrawala and saw this as an opportunity to push their fringe views rather forcefully upon the agreed panthic stand.It is causing rather a slur upon the Guru sahib and philosophy commenced by the One jot Guru Nanak ji.If one compares the definition of God and creation between the dasam book & Guru Granth sahib-there is vast contradiction.The definition in DG is totally mythological and is as according to that subscribed in hindu mythology markandiya Puran,Shive Puran and Srimad puran.DG appears as a carbon copy of these earlier hindu books.Hindi scholars too have confirmed that as well.

Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha writes in ‘Gurmat Martand’ where he clearly disagrees with the method of deciding whether the so called Mani Singh Bir should have been kept intact or split up into different Pothis.

He says “This decision (to keep the Mani Singh Bir intact) was taken in opposition to the traditions established by Dashmesh Pita for taking decisions. What should have happened was that a Gurmatta be agreed with the unanimous approval of the Diwan and that in the same way that the Panth had rejected (Mani Singh’s) fourth bir, the panth should have agreed to split the Bir into separate volumes”

He then very tellingly says (and those who bandy around Sant Bhindranwale’s name in support of the Dasam Granth should take note of this) “We recognise Bhai Mani Singh as ‘Panth Rattan’ and as our brother in faith but despite this we do not hesitate in saying that Bhai Shaib Mani Singh Ji has committed such an error (in creating the Bir) that has caused untold damage already and we fear will cause great damage in the future”. Never were more prophetic words uttered by anyone.

(Gurmat Martand, Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha – Vol 2 pages 569/70)

A couple more gems from Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha’s Gurmat Martand are as follows:

Firstly of interest is the introduction to Gurmat Martand. Read from beginning up to page 5 and section on Istri (woman). It is clear from this that Bhai Sahib did NOT see Chritropakhayan as writing of Guru Ji but as diametrically opposed to Gurmat teaching.

But an even more fascinating insight is a footnote to his entries on Amrit Sanskar and Amrit Bania’n. The footnote number is 4 on page 80 when he refers to Amrit Bania’n where he says that these 5 Bania’n (Jap Ji, Jaap, Sawayye, Chaupai and Anand) have NOW been agreed by the Panth and there should NOT be any debate on this. This indicates that the 5 Bania’n used for Amrit Sanskar were only agreed around the time of Bhai Sahib i.e. early 1900s.There is no evidence at all as claimed by the proponents of DG that these banis were indeed what was recited during the first amrit sanskar in 1699.None of the five rehatnamas agree on the same banis or mention the whole five together in any one.

The SGPC has issued a circular 36672 on 3/8/73 that says ..kabiowach benti //chaupee..is found in trya chariter is part of Pakhayan Chariter.Triya chariter is on pages 809 to pages 1388 in form of 404 chariters.The Chaupee is triya chariter 404 on page 1386 and is bandd 377 ;according to the current SGPC ruling it’s path begins from bandd 377 [hamri karo haath de rashha to bandd 401 dusht dokh te laho bechaii.The SGPC circular states clearly that the triya chariter are NOT the writings/rachna of Guru Gobind Singh ji.

If we look further into it, there is a vast world of difference over shreshti between Guru Granth Sahib and the bogeyman DG.

According to Guru Grantrh sahib -Ek’onkar sat nam karta purak nivair akal moorat ajuni saib bhang gurparsad//—– there is ONE Creator(“The Truth” is – The Creator, Sustainer, and Destroyer.

There are no other gods or beings but the One.
All beings, All forces, good, evil, order, chaos, serve the Will of One God,
All are born and die playing their role in God’s Play

According to the Bogey DG -the Creator is NOT as described in the Guru Granth sahib.Throughout the DG not a single time is the defining Manglacharan mentioned. So how could Guru Gobind Singh ji go against the basic tenet of Guru Nanak ji’s message, if he indeed wrote this book.

The writers of this book claim their creator is living and is refered to as Mahakaal, Kalka, sarabkaal sarbloh, Chandi, Durga bhagauti etc.It defines very clearly that Sri Kalka is visible, as it says that he/she has long thick and bushy beard,and large white teeeth which he chews millions of the worldy humans-whiuch indicates their God is in visible form.

”maha darr darr so apaar//jihne charbiye jiv jagya hazar//”

Then it says it has four arms, a knot of hair on the head,and holds a big knobbed club & sickle

chatur bahn char//nijunt sudhar//gdha paas sohn//jam maan mohn//

I can go on but this one contradiction is good enough.

Then there is contradiction over how the creation was created.

Guru Granth says,

sache te pavna bhaiya, pavne te jal hoye//
jal te tribhavan sajiya, ghta ghta jot smoye//

Bachittaer natak[DG] says

ek sarwan te mell nikara//tate mdho kitab tan dhara//
dutiya kaan te mel nikari/ta te bhyee sharest eh sari//
tin ko kaal bahoh badh kra//tin ke medh samund mah pra//
chikantaas jal par ter rahi//medha naam tabe te kahee//

It says kaldhuj dug out some wax fdrom one ear, who he named ‘mdho’ and ‘kitab’, who took the shape of demons.When he dug his other ear , the creation emerged or was created.Kaal Dev killed Mdho & Kitab with great difficulty and threw their remain/skin into the sea, which dried up to become Land.

What a great imaginative writer this person must have been who wrote this DG.

Hindi scholars have given evidence that most of the writings in this bogey DG are direct carbon copies of stries found in the old Hindu Purans,i.e. Sri Markandiya, Srimad Puran, and Shivji Puran.

Is this not infering/belittling Guru Gobind Singh-that he copied from other sources?Would Guru Gobidn Singh ji whose philosophy totally and clearly contradicts the brahman rites,now seek the brahman purans, and that too copy from them?

It is amazing the proponents of the dG cannot seem to get this through their brains.They offer no proper evidence apart from saying it is …Gurus or that read and understand like ‘us’-I wonder how do they read and understand that is different from others.When asked this they go silent, or start heaping abuse.

DG ji is certainly NOT wholly the penship of Guru Gobind Singh Ji.

Mr Rawel Singh, the nitnem banis should have been questioned since the day it was printed. All Sikhs should read Gurbani contained in Guru Granth Sahib ji – continuously, day and night. There is no fixed time. Many misinterpret Amrit vela as a fixed morning time. My question to the learned individuals- which bani did Sikhs read during Guru Nanak time?