A Response to Dr. Jasbir S Mann's doubts on Sri Dasam Granth
Dr. Harbhajan Singh
Project Director, Dr Balbir Singh Sahitya Kendra, Dehradun (Punjabi University Patiala)
(translated by Bhai Prabhjot Singh from the writeup in Punjabi)
A California based writer Dr. Jasbir Singh ‘Mann’ (orthopaedic doctor by profession) and some writers under his leadership have been casting doubts in minds of the Sikhs regarding objectives of Sri Dasam Granth by spreading baseless rumours. With an ill-intention of propagating his groundless assumptions, he has once again launched a vicious attack with a 50-odd pages article named "Guru Granth Sahib; as the only Sikh canon (Presently Published Sri Dasam Granth and British Connection) REJOINDER TO “Sri Dasam Granth Sahib; the Second Canon of the Sikhs”. There is absolutely nothing new in Dr. Mann’s article. It is not even appropriate to say that it is an ‘old wine in new bottle’. Rather, it is ‘oldest of wines in oldest of bottles’. The sole objective behind writing this article is to keep lying repeatedly so that it could finally appear to be the truth. Perhaps Dr. Mann is incapable of concocting new rumours, that is why he is repeating the same falsehood in desperate attempt to give some credibility to it. Although he gives the illusion of being unbiased in his writings, it is said that he is bribing people to write against Sri Dasam Granth. In order to conceal his true identity under the mask, he writes, “Two viewpoints have been circulating in Panthic and Sikh studies circles about Dasam Granth. One view gives total acceptance and agrees that Guru Gobind Singh Ji wrote all compositions present in the Published Granth. 2nd view point is of total rejection of this Granth. Present author disagrees with both view points..”. Dr. Mann is of the belief that Sri Dasam Granth in its entirety is a creation of the British. Nowhere in the article does he prove that the British made additions of so-and-so compositions in Sri Dasam Granth; instead, he keeps repeating that there no Granth called ‘Sri Dasam Granth’ existed in 18th Century, that the British got it prepared in the beginning of 19th Century. He also does not mention that so-and-so compositions have been added and how the British political system of the time or Christianity could profit by creating these fake compositions. It is surprising that although I have already refuted his allegations in my published book, but instead of providing answers to any of my work, he has once again attempted to cover his baseless hypothesis with the cloak of truth. I will attempt to uncover this stubborn falsehood of Dr. Mann in the following pages.
In an attempt to mislead the Sikh Sangat, the adversaries of Sri Dasam Granth are repeatedly creating terror waves by alleging that there is danger from Sri Dasam Granth to the Guruship of Sri Guru Granth Sahib. Following this malicious intent of creating scare in hearts and minds of the Sikhs, Dr. Mann has titled his baseless article as ‘Guru Granth Sahib; as the only Sikh canon’. I have not met even a single supporter of Sri Dasam Granth that considers Sri Dasam Granth to be bigger and more important than Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Every Gursikh, from times of Bhai Kesar Singh Chibber to the present-day Sikhs, has considered and respected Sri Dasam Granth as the smaller Granth. However, I can also say with absolute conviction that I have not met any adversary of Sri Dasam Granth that has full faith in completeness of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. They have doubts on Ragmala, Bani of the Bhatts, Bhagat Banis, and objections against compositions of Bhai Gurdas Ji. They are determined to malign the names of members of the Guru’s family, Bhai Nand Lal Ji and many other great personalities. Thus, there is a real danger to the Guruship of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji from Dr. Mann and his team of critics. Can Dr. Mann tell the name of any one supporter of Sri Dasam Granth, including those who do Parkash of this Granth, that has ever doubted the completeness of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji? I also strongly object to his use of the word ‘Cannon’ for Sri Granth Sahib Ji, because it does not translate to ‘Guru Granth’ at all. I had provided the dictionary meaning and description of the principle behind using this word but Dr. Mann did not provide any answers although he has surely hurt the Sikh sentiments by repeated use of the word associated with Western culture. [Translator's note: This is what appears in Dr. Harbhajan Singh's book regarding the word 'Cannon': "The Random House Dictionary of the English Language' has given the following meaning of this word: 1. an ecclesiastical rule or law enacted by a council or other competent authority and, in the Roman Catholic Church, approved by the pope. 2. the body of ecclesiastical law 3. the body of rules, principles, or standards accepted a axiomatic and universally binding in a field of study or art. 4. a fundamental principle or general rule. 5. a standard; criterion. 6. the books of the Bible recognized by any Christian church as genuine and inspired. 7. any officially recognized set of sacred books. 8. any comprehensive list of books within a field 9. Literature, the works of an author...]. Dr. Mann has written a lot of irrelevant stuff from here and there, but I want to focus myself on the questions raised by him. He argues that two fundamental questions need to be resolved regarding the objectives of Sri Dasam Granth:
Question 1: Based on Academic Benchmarks:
a. When was this Granth written.
b. The history of this Granth.
c. Who was its writer?
d. The internal consistency of this Granth.
Question 2: The Granth that Malcolm reported in 1810 A.D. and later rectified and edited by the ‘Sodhak Committee’: Was there any Granth named ‘Dasami Patshahi Da Granth’, associated with Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji and with all the compositions, available in the 18th Century, whose Parkash used to take place in Gurdwaras of Punjab and Delhi? The academic proofs of participation of British in the the preparation, order and propagation of this Granth cannot be neglected, therefore any committee concerned with the verification of authenticity claims should keep this in mind.
After elaborating on the above doubts, Dr. Mann presents the following ‘Table of Knowledge’:
1. Does any literary resource informs us of any debate regarding Sri Dasam Granth Sahib in the 18th Century?
2. Academic issues regarding Bhai Mani Singh’s Bir, Patna Bir and Anandpuri Bir?
3. Is it true that Dasam Granth appeared in the 19th Century? Was Dasam Granth present in Punjab, Delhi and neighbouring areas in the 18th Century?
4. Is it right that Dasam Granth in its present published form was mentioned for the first time in 1810 A.D. in Malcolm’s book, “Sketch of the Sikhs”?
5. Is it a historical fact that the British propagated and established the Banis of Dasam Granth in order to weaken the Sikhs and the Sikh rule?
6. The dates within Dasam Granth?
7. Did the British popularised recitation of presently parkash’d Bir in order to destroy independent existence of the Sikh faith?
8. Did Atma Ram Nirmala of Calcutta had any associations with the Nimala Mahants of Patna?
9. The relationship between Tribhangi Chhand of Akal Ustat and Atma Ram?
10. Proofs of the establishment of superiority of ‘Bachittar Natak’ over Sri Guru Granth Sahib by the British during the end of 18th Century?
11. Proofs of involvement of British Govt. in the composition of Dasam Granth (Devnagri) in 1847?
12. The analysis of academic issues regarding ‘Khaas Daskhati Patrey’?
13. Sikh Code of Conduct and Dasam Granth in 1925 A.D?
14. The Guruship given by Guru Gobind Singh Ji to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji? (Guru Granth is the sole Canon of the Sikhs.)
15. Sodhak Committee and Dasam Granth?
16. The debate regarding the authenticity of Dasam Granth in 18th Century?
17. The Hukamnama issued by Akal Takht on 6th June, 2008?
The following are replies to the above contrivances by Dr. Mann:
1. Does any literary resource informs us that there was any debate regarding Sri Dasam Granth Sahib in the 18th Century?
In answer to this question, Dr. Mann writes that according to Bhai Kahn Singh ‘Nabha’, debate on Dasam Granth started immediately after preparation of its Bir by Bhai Mani Singh in 1726 A.D. However, this Dasam Granth Bir survived its original form because Bhai Mehtab Singh fulfilled his oath to kill Massa Rangad. Dr. Mann is unhappy that by doing so, an individual pledge took over the principles of Tenth Guruji. It would have been better if some collective decision was taken regarding this issue. The writer further says that just like Bhai Mani Singh had cancelled the Bir of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji that was prepared by the compiler, similarly Banis like Charitropakhyan and Hikayats should have been kept separated when he compiled Dasam Granth. It is Dr. Mann’s opinion that although we consider Bhai Mani Singh as Panth-Rattan because of him being a Gursikh, still he has committed grave sin (by compiling Dasam Granth) which has done immense damage of the Sikh Panth. The writer believes that the Bir prepared by him is not available at all. The Bir attributed to him appears in 1818 A.D, and is presently in Delhi. The writer raises a question – By the end of 1740 A.D, Mata Sundri Ji and Mata Sahib Kaur Ji had given all weapons of Sixth and Tenth Guruji to the Sikhs (Currently on display at Rakabganj Sahib) then why they
did not give any Bir of Dasam Granth, Khas Patar or any picture to the Sikhs? Dr. Mann further says it is a historical fact that Baba Banda Singh, Nawab Kapur Singh, S. Jassa Singh Ahluwalia and other Misl leaders gave no respect to the Granth of Dasavi Patshahi. The writer has following doubts regarding this Bir:
a. How can Bhai Mani Singh, who compiled the Paath of Aad Granth in 1706 A.D, scribe the Paath of Banno Bir 20 years later?
b. Where was this Bir from 1713 A.D to 1818 A.D?
c. Does this Bir contain Swayiye (33), Shabad Hazare, Khalsa Mehma and Zafarnama in Persian only?
d. Some chhands in this Bir are either omitted or added as compared to the Parkash’d Bir.
Answer: In regards to Dr. Mann’s question: ‘Does any literary resource informs us that there was any debate regarding Sri Dasam Granth Sahib in the 18th Century?’, I would like to say that if Dr. Mann had even an ounce of honesty, truthfulness and honesty in him towards Sikh Panth, the question should have been like this: ‘Is there any literary resource available FROM 18th Century that informs there was any debate regarding Sri Dasam Granth in that century’. If Dr. Mann insists on proofs from the 18th Century regarding the naming and compilation of Sri Dasam, how can he then accept ‘Mahan Kosh’ published in 1930 as the literary proof, when it is absolutely clear that Bhai Kahn Singh ‘Nabha’ has not talked about its source anywhere? If Dr. Mann refuses to accept evidence by Bhai Kesar Singh ‘Chibber’ in ‘Bansavali Nama Dassan Patshahian Ka’ (1769 A.D) as a concrete proof, then why I should believe a Granth composed in 1930 as a proof? And even though Bhai Kahn Singh ‘Nabha’ has not committed this sin, Dr. Mann is still trying to falsely accuse him with his heinous lies, and by doing so, is soiling the name of such a highly respected person of the Panth. By giving proper references to Bhai Kahn Singh ‘Nabha’s’ ‘Mahankosh’ in my book ‘Sri Dasam Granth-Karta Sambhandhi Vevad Di Punar Sameekheya’, I have made it absolutely clear that his name is being falsely attached to this lie. Same stance is against Gyani Gyan Singh and similar slanderous attitude has been adopted against Malcolm’s writings. If there was any truth in Dr. Mann’s claims, he would give answers to my comments. Why did he not muster courage to do so? I am forced to give a strong ‘No’ to the above question because Bhai Kesar Singh Chibber clearly writes that the debate was regarding the reordering of Banis and separation of Bhagat Banis from Sri Guru Granth Sahib; it was not concerning the compilation of Sri Dasam Granth.
Honest readers can judge the level of reasoning and morality of Dr. Mann just from this: On one hand, Dr. Mann says that Malcolm got Sri Dasam Granth composed from Atma Ram Nirmala around 1810 A.D. and that in 18th Century, this Granth was not present anywhere in Punjab, Delhi and nearby areas, and on the other hand he is stressing that ‘debate started on Dasam Granth immediately after preparation of its Bir by Bhai Mani Singh in 1726 A.D’. If this Granth was not present till the end of 18th Century, If Bhai Mani Singh never prepared such a Bir, then how can debate regarding it happen in 1740 A.D? And which Bir survived in its original form after Mehtab Singh was able to fulfil his oath? Dr. Mann slams serious allegation against Bhai Mani Singh and Khalsa Panth of the time by saying that Bhai Mani Singh caused damage to the Panth by preparing this Bir and by making a unanimous decision based on an individual oath proved detrimental to the Panth. The following becomes clear from these words of Dr. Mann:
a. The first Bir of Sri Dasam Granth was scribed by Bhai Mani Singh.
b. Sri Dasam Granth existed in 1740 A.D. c. The entire Khalsa Panth of the time had no awareness of Gurmat. Bhai Mani Singh caused massive damage to the Panth.
The above words of Dr. Mann prove that he considers himself superior not only to Sikhs under the guidance of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji but to the entire Panth too. Dr. Mann. also accepts that Panth Khalsa had rejected Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji’s Bir prepared by Bhai Mani Singh, but made a mistake by not rejecting his Dasam Granth Bir. This belief of Dr. Mann has uprooted the basis of all his theories. In claiming so, he has accepted that: 1. Bhai Mani Singh is the compiler of Sri Dasam Granth. 2. The difference of opinion in Sikh Panth was regarding the reordering of Bani of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. 3. Sri Dasam Granth was accepted in its original form i.e. Panth unanimously accepted it as Guruji’s composition. I accept all three claims with open arms because my beliefs are exactly the same too. The above three points are the principle reasons for my belief that Sri Dasam Granth is Guruji’s composition. It is definite that its compilation was done by Bhai Mani Singh. The dispute within the Panth was concerning reorder of Banis of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and the theory regarding Bhai Mehtab Singh Ji’s oath is principally wrong because Panth did not accept Bhai Mani Singh Ji’s work in its original form; instead, as Dr. Mann. says, the reordering of Banis as done by Bhai Mani Singh was rejected by the Panth after a lengthy and thoughtful discussion. The only reason why Sri Dasam Granth Sahib was not rejected was because the entire Panth unanimously accepted it to be the work of Guruji and there was absolutely no doubt regarding its Banis in anyone’s mind.
Dr. Mann and other adversaries of Sri Dasam Granth have been repeatedly pushing ahead the argument that the history of above-mentioned Bir by Bhai Mani Singh can be traced till 1818 A.D., therefore it cannot be regarded as Bhai Mani Singh’s Bir? Can Dr. Mann. tell who had the possession of Kartarpuri Bir and at what times? Can he tell which particular Bir did Guru Gobind Singh Ji gave Guruship to? Can he tell where has the Bir prepared by Guruji at Damdama Sahib gone? In this manner, tomorrow someone can reject the Guruship of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, just because the Bir to whom Guruship was bestowed is not available. In reality, Sikhs had lost the possession of Bhai Mani Singh’s Bir during Vadda Ghalughara, and later came back in Panth’s possession via some Muslim. This Bir has all the characteristics as that of Bhai Mani Singh’s Bir. The Grandson of Bhai Mehtab Singh, who received the history of Sikh affairs as part of family heritage, gives us the following important information in ‘Panth Parkash’ regarding the loss of Birs during Vadda Ghalughara:
ਜ਼ੋਰ ਪਾਇ ਸਿੰਘ ਬਹੀਰ ਨਿਕਾਰੀ। ਘੇਰਯੋ ਬਹੀਰ ਬਹੁ ਤੁੰਮਣ ਭਾਰੀ।
ਤਿਨ ਮੈਂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਤੁਰਤ ਥੇ ਦੋਇ। ਇਕ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤਸਰੀਏ ਦਮਦਮੀਏ ਜੋਇ।
ਘੇਰ ਲਯੋ ਤਿਨ ਅਗਯੋਂ ਆਇ। ਜੁਦੈ ਜੁਦੈ ਤੇ ਦਏ ਕਰਾਇ।
ਧਰ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਤਹਿਂ ਲੜੇ ਮਝੈਲ। ਰਖਤ ਹੁਤੇ ਥੇ ਸ਼ਸਤਰ ਗੈਲ।
ਘੜੀ ਕੁ ਲੜੇ ਫਿਰ ਲੀਨੇ ਮਾਰ। ਫਿਰ ਦਮਦੀਅਨੁ ਪਰ ਧਰੀ ਤਲਵਾਰ।
ਪਾਉ ਘੜੀ ਤਹਿਂ ਤੇਊ ਲੜੇ। ਬਿਨ ਹਥੀਆਰ ਹੁਤ ਕਯਾ ਕਰੇ। (ਪਦ 111-12)
It is important to carefully understand the above lines by ‘Bhangu’. He says that two Granths always accompanied the ‘Khalsa Dal’. One was Amritsariye and other was Damdamiye. Both separately got under siege because enemy forces were much greater in number. After placing the Granth on the ground, security forces of Majha Region fought bravely with the enemy for some time, but all got killed in the end. After that Damdamiya got attacked. Being unarmed, they fought for a little while. This way, both Granths fell into enemy hands in the battlefield. These two Granths cannot be two saroops of Sri Aad Granth. With critical reasoning one can know the implied meaning of Damdamiya and Amritsariya. Some consider these two as Granths, but from the martyrdom of Majhail and Damdamiya forces they appear as two separate groups of the Sikhs. Actually, Damdama Sahib has been a Nihang Cantonment right from the time of arrival of Guru Gobind Singh Ji at that place. Gyani Gyan Singh Ji writes that original Dasam Granth containing the Banis of Guru Gobind Singh Ji (i.e. Bhai Mani Singh’s Dasam Granth Bir) used to be with Buddha Dal but fell into hands of Durrani’s soldiers during Vadda Ghalughara, as:
ਅਸਲ ਦਸਮ ਗੁਰ ਵਾਲਾ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ। ਰਹਿਤ ਬ੍ਰਿਧ ਦਲ ਮੈ ਮਧ ਪੰਥ।
ਘਲੂਘਾਰਾ ਜਬ ਵਡ ਭਯੋ। ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਦੁਰਾਨੀ ਸੋ ਲੀਉ।
Any malicious attempt to prove this Granth as Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is highly condemnable because there was always Parkash of Sri Guru Granth Sahib at Harmandir Sahib and also by numerous Udaasi Sants etc. at Gurdwaras spread all over the country. It is impossible to claim that Aad Granth Ji used to be in Buddha Dal because its Parkash used to take place at numerous Guru Ghars everywhere. There was a Bir with Dhirmaliyas and Banno Vali Bir and its numerous copies were with many Sikhs. How can one say that a Bir, whose Parkash is associated with Sri Harmandir Sahib, Amritsar and its copies established in all four corners of the country, be only in possession of the Buddha Dal? On the other hand, before the efforts of Baba Deep Singh, only Bhai Mani Singh Ji’s Bir was available in the Sikh Panth. The special affection and respect of Nihang Singhs for Sri Dasam Granth is not hidden from anyone. Therefore, the Granth present in Buddha Dal as told by Gyani Gyan Singh can be none other than ‘Sri Dasam Granth’.
The Damdamiya and Amritsayia of ‘Bhangu’ can be identified from the special relationship of Buddha Dal with Damdama Sahib and existence of Sri Dasam Granth in Buddha Dal. Damdamiya can be a special jatha of Nihang Singhs that had the responsibility of sewa and care of Sri Dasam Granth. Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji has had an unbreakable relation with Sri Amritsar Sahib Ji as first Parkash of this Sri Granth took place there. Also, Bhai Mani Singh had established a Taksaal there to teach Gyaanis the paath and meanings of Sri Aad Granth Ji. It seems that in Khalsa Dal, Gyanis from Amritsar used to be in sewa of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji; they would recite paath, Do Kirtan and Katha etc. to the Khalsa and a special unit of Majhails would remain on
guard to protect this Sri Granth. The other Damdamiya jatha was on guard for the protection of Sri Dasam Granth. This way, it becomes absolutely clear from Bhangu’s words that two Birs fell into the hands of Durrani’s forces during Vadda Ghalughara. One Bir was of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and other was Bhai Mani Singh’s Bir which had Banis from both Granths compiled in it. To be stubborn and remaining in denial of history of this Bir is neither rational nor wise.
Dr. Mann, who has got used to making illogical and weird arguments, says that ‘By the end of 1740 A.D, Mata Sundri Ji and Mata Sahib Kaur Ji had given all weapons of Sixth and Tenth Guruji to the Sikhs (Currently on display at Rakabganj Sahib) then why they did not give any Bir of Dasam Granth, Khas Patar or any picture to the Sikhs?’ Can he prove which Birs of Sri Guru Granth Sahib were given by them and to which Sikhs? If Dr. Mann had used a little bit of discretion then this fact would be absolutely clear that the ‘Khas Patars’ that had reached Mata Sundari Ji with Bhai Mani Singh Ji’s efforts were placed carefully at appropriate place in the Bir. What other ‘Khas Patars’ were with Mata Ji that had to reach Dr. Mann via the Sikhs so that he could look at the evidence and give his stamp of approval on Sri Guru Maharaj’s Bani? Dr. Mann writes: ‘it is a historical fact that Baba Banda Singh, Nawab Kapur Singh, S. Jassa Singh Ahluwalia and other Misl leaders gave no respect to the Granth of Dasavi Patshahi.’ I ask Mann sahib this: Banda Singh Bahadur did not have Sri Guru Granth Sahib when left from Hazoor Sahib, we do not have any proof that he had Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji with him during the attack on Samana, Sadhora and Sarhind. Do we infer from this that Banda Singh Bahadur gave no importance to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji? If we believe Dr. Mann’s argument that Sikhs went against principles of Guruji by accepting Sri Dasam Granth in 1740 A.D, can he kindly tells us whether the above-mentioned Sikhs existed at that time or not? Does this semi-educated scholar not even know that Sardar Kapur Singh was Nawab of Sikh Panth from 1733 A.D to 1753 A.D? If there was a debate in 1740 A.D regarding Sri Dasam Granth and it was accepted by the Panth, then it definitely happened under the presidency of S. Kapur Singh. S. Jassa Singh Ahluwalia was about 22 years old at that time and there is every possibility of his presence in that Panthic gathering also. Making false accusations that these individuals did not respect Sri Dasam Granth, despite knowing that a unanimous decision was taken by entire Panth in the presence of S. Ahluwalia and under the leadership of S.Kapur Singh, is indeed a grave and heinous crime.
‘Mann Sahib’ has studied Malcolm’s work in detail, in fact in such incredible detail that whatever is not written on any page of his book, he has been able to extract out from the book’s soul. Please read these words from the book: “When the chiefs and principal leaders are seated, the Adi Granth and Dasama Padshah ka Grant’h are placed before them. They all bend their heads before these scriptures, and exclaim, Wa ! Guruji ka Khalsa ! Wa ! Guruji ka Fateh !”
2. Regarding Bhai Mani Singh’s Bir, Dr. Mann. expresses this doubt: a. How can Bhai Mani Singh, who compiled the Paath of Aad Granth in 1706 A.D, scribe the paath of Banno Bir 20 years later? b. Where was this Bir from 1713 A.D to 1818 A.D? c. Does this Bir contain Swayiye (33), Shabad Hazare, Khalsa Mehma and Zafarnama in Persian only? d. Some chhands in this Bir are either omitted or added as compared to the Parkash’d Bir.
Our belief: a. The Bir that Guru Gobind Singh Ji got scribed by Bhai Mani Sahib must have reached Sri Hazoor Sahib and Guruship must have been bestowed to it. There is no possibility of another copy of it in Bhai Mani Singh’s possession. The copies of Sri Aad Granth that were easily available in the Panth were taken from Banno Vali Bir. Unlike Sri Guruji, Bhai Mani Singh did not possess the knowledge of all three worlds that he could remember the entire Bir by heart after scribing it just once. Thus, there is nothing unusual about him scribing paath from Banno Vali Bir. How can Dr. Mann, who on one hand is calling him a forgetful Sikh who caused great damage to the Panth, expect him to be equipped with spiritual powers of Sri Guruji that could not make a single mistake?
b. The answer has been given above.
c. If Bhai Mani Singh could not find some Banis at that time, or if Zafarnama appears in Persian, then these facts establish the antiquity of that Bir. The Janam Sakhi associated with Guru Nanak Dev is brief as compared to other Janam Sakhis. It is with time that Sakhis got diversified. Similarly, the original and brief saroop of Sri Dasam Granth Sahib must be associated with Bhai Mani Sahib. If that saroop had more Banis in it than the saroops written later, only then it would be imperative to doubt its oldness. The oldest form of Zafarnama should also be in Persian because it is absolutely impossible that Aurangzeb or members of his court could read Gurmukhi script. The Gurmukhi script of Zafarnama is definitely added later for those Sikhs who could not read Persian. It is highly surprising that the pseudo-scholars of Sri Dasam Granth are calling the original Zafarnama irrelevant and giving more importance to its Gurmukhi transliteration instead. Therefore, the missing Banis and Zafarnama in Persian script are proofs of its antiquity, the denial of this is a sure sign of lack of ability to reason.
d. If some Chhands are incomplete then why don’t Dr. Mann present suggestions before the Panth regarding completion of paath? Why is he bent on reducing the paath instead? He presents Bhai Kahn Singh ‘Nabha’’s views, but Bhai Sahib has only told to locate more verses of Akal Ustat but has said nothing about reducing anything. I will sincerely support Dr. Mann if he presents before the Panth the suggestion that we should complete those verses that are removed from the published Bir. Dr. Mann should also pay attention to the fact that whatever characteristics have been described by Kesar Singh Chibber in his ‘Bansavalinama’ regarding Bhai Mani Singh’s Bir, they all match the Bir that is popular in the name of Bhai Mani Singh. Despite this, even if some stubborn people of Dr. Mann’s mindset reject this Bir as Bhai Mani Singh’s, it is proved that this Bir would be a copy of the original Bhai Mani Singh’s Bir.
In respect to Patna Bir, Dr. Mann. is of the opinion that there is no history associated with it – there is no information about its writer etc. and its history cannot be traced beyond Sukha Singh.
a. If this Bir was present in Patna till the end of 18th Century, then why could not Colebrooke locate a copy of it as that area was under British rule?
b. Since there are additional compositions in this Bir as compared to the Granth in possession of Colebrooke, therefore it is a later work than the Dasam Granth With Colebrooke (1783 A.D.)?
c. The year of compilation of this Bir has been given as 1698 A.D. inits table of contents, while ‘Zafarnama’, a composition of 1706 A.D, has been scribed by the original writer.
d. Gyani Gyan gives 1775 A.D. as its year of compilation.
e. There are extra Banis in this Bir.
Answers and Solutions to Dr. Mann’s doubts:
a. One cannot be in denial of the existence of this Bir even if we keep in consideration Mann’s contrivance that there is no history associated with it. Either Dr. Mann should research its history or follow the prevalent tradition. The third way is to get its ink, paper scientifically tested. There are many precious literary resources all around the world that have no history associated with them. Despite that, they are respected by scholars. It is not appropriate to say that it has got no history. The writer has himself given appropriate dates along with each and every composition and more than once in compositions like Krishnavtar. What is any need of asking its history when one knows that the original writer had finished writing all compositions by 1698 A.D. The dates to compositions as given by this writer match those of other Birs. The writer of this Bir is Bhai Sukha Singh who was a granthi Singh at Sri Patna Sahib and it has been compiled at Patna Sahib. If no other proof is acceptable then at least Gyani Gyan Singh’s date of 1775 A.D. should be accepted. If everything mentioned above is true, which other historical detail is needed? Dates of compositions are known, name of compiler is known, place of compilation is known, writer is known, time-period of composition is also known. What other concrete proof does Dr. Mann need that could complete the history of this Bir? Therefore, we are of the opinion that even this argument of Dr. Mann is neither factual nor properly constructed. b. Dr. Mann says that ‘If this Bir was present in Patna till the end of 18th Century, then why could not Colebrooke locate a copy of it as that area was under British rule?’ I challenge Dr. Mann to present before the Sangat any order of the British Govt. of that time which says that any Englishman could take possession of any literary text from any place of worship. First things first, Dr. Mann should prove whether Colebrooke stayed sufficiently long enough at Patna Sahib to get such a massive Granth copied? It is plausible that maybe there was no other copy of this Granth of Dasam Pita at Patna Sahib, and priests could not give away the only Bir available with them. Therefore, to say that because Colebrooke was not given the Granth, it cannot be there at all is a totally wrong and deceiving statement to make. c. Dr. Mann is of the opinion that ‘Since there are additional compositions in this Bir as compared to the Granth in possession of Colebrooke, therefore it is a later work than the Dasam Granth With Colebrooke (1783 A.D.)’. If we accept this logic of Dr. Mann, then the Bir associated with Bhai Mani Singh’s name is proved to be the oldest. The existence of extra Banis in Patna Vali Bir does not mean it was written much later. In fact, there were many other compositions popular in the name of Guru Gobind Singh Ji that were not in Bhai Mani Singh’s Bir. Gyani Gyan Singh has written the following in this context:
ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਗੁਰੂ ਥੇ ਬਹੁ ਬਨਵਾਏ। ਜਾਨੌ ਜਿਤਿਕ ਨਾਮ ਦਿਹੁੰ ਗਾਏ। 73 ।
ਪਰਬ ਅਠਾਰਾਂ ਭਾਰਥ ਕੇਰੇ। ਭਾਖਾ ਕਰੇ ਗੁਰੂ ਬਿਨੁ ਦੇਰੇ।
ਤਿਨ ਮੈਂ ਸੇ ਹੈਂ ਦਸ ਪ੍ਰਸਿਧੈਂ। ਆਠ ਲੋਪ ਹੋਏ ਕਿਸਿ ਬਿਧੈਂ। 74 ।
ਜੋ ਪਟਲੇਸ਼੍ਵਰ ਅਬਿ ਬਨਵਾਏ। ਕਰੇ ਅਠਾਰਾਂ ਪੂਰੇ ਸਾਏ।
ਪੁਨ ਗੁਰੁ ਸਰਬ ਲੋਹ ਇਕ ਕਥਾ। ਪ੍ਰੇਮ ਸੁਮਾਰਗ ਔਰੈਂ ਤਥਾ। 75 ।
ਨੀਤੀ ਸਾਗਰ ਥਾ ਪ੍ਰਕਾਸ਼ਾ। ਉਪਨਿਸ਼ਦਾਂ ਕੀਨੀ ਥੀਂ ਭਾਸ਼ਾ।
ਗੋਬਿੰਦ ਗੀਤਾ ਔਰ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਖੀ। ਯਹਿ ਸਭਿ ਸੁਨੀ ਵਡਨ ਤੈ ਸਾਖੀ। 76 ।
ਗੁਰੁ ਕੇ ਰਚੇ ਸਿਖ ਬਹੁ ਭਾਨੈਂ। ਸਾਚ ਝੂਠ ਸਭਿ ਗੁਰੁ ਹੀ ਜਾਨੈ।
ਇਤ੍ਯਾਦਿਕ ਬਹੁ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਰਚਾਏ। ਥੇ ਸਤਿਗੁਰੁ ਹਮ ਸੁਨਯੋ ਮਹਾਂਏ। 77 ।
Therefore, Bhai Sukha Singh did not add extra Banis in Sri Dasam Granth with any malicious intention; the common Sikhs were of the belief that are many more compositions of Sri Guru Gobind Singh. Gyani Gyan Singh, who is Dr. Mann’s trusted author, writes he had heard from elders that there were many other compositions by Guru Gobind Singh Ji which are not available in prevalent Birs of Sri Dasam Granth. Sodhak Committee did extensive analysis and corrected the paaths, reordered and validated the Banis. c. Dr. Mann also doubts the Patna Sahib Bir because the year of compilation of this Bir in its table of contents has been given as 1698 A.D., while ‘Zafarnama’, a composition of 1706 A.D, has been scribed by the original writer. My belief is the Vikrami Samvat 1755 given in the table of contents of this Bir is not its compilation period; rather, it denotes the first completion of Sri Dasam Granth, which is proved by the completion of composition ‘Ramavtar’ by 1755 Samvat. All other Banis have been composed prior to this composition. It is abolutely clear from the photocopy of this Bir’s table of contents provided by Dr. Mann that this Samvat denotes the completion of ‘Ramavtar’. The following is written at the beginning of this Bir’s Table of Contents:
“< ਸ੍ਰੀ ਵਾਹਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕੀ ਫਤਿਹ। ਸ੍ਰੀ ਭਗਉਤੀ ਜੂ ਸਹਾਇ। ਤਤਕਰਾ ਸੂਚੇ ਪੱਤ੍ਰ ਸ੍ਰੀ
ਗ੍ਰਿੰਥ ਜੂ ਕਾ ਬਾਣੀ ਪਾਤਿਸਾਹ ਦਸਵੇਂ ਜੂ ਕੇ ਗ੍ਰਿੰਥ ਕਾ ਸੰਬਤ 1755 ਮਿਤੀ ਅਸਾੜ
ਬਦੀ 1 ਕੋ ਗ੍ਰਿੰਥ ਲਿਖਿਆ।”
There is absolutely no doubt left regarding this Samvat when we compare it to the following lines of ‘Ramavtar’:
ਸੰਮਤ ਸਤ੍ਰਹ ਸਹਸ ਪਚਾਵਨ। ਹਾੜ ਵਦੀ ਪ੍ਰਿਥਮਿ ਸੁਖ ਦਾਵਨ।
ਤ੍ਵਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ ਕਰਿ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸੁਧਾਰਾ। ਭੂਲ ਪਰੀ ਲਹੁ ਲੇਹੁ ਸੁਧਾਰਾ। (ਰਾਮਾਵਤਾਰ 860)
Therefore, it is definite that the Samvat given in table of contents denotes completion of all Banis (excluding ‘Zafarnama’) of Sri Dasam Granth and not the date of compilation of this Bir. In the absence of any of the above evidences, we can say that the date 1755 A.D. as given by Gyani Gyan Singh can be right and Dr. Mann’s claim that British got Sri Dasam Granth Sahib prepared in the beginning of 19th Century proves to be absolutely baseless. It is also important to mention that this Samvat of ‘Ramavatar’ is the last of all the Samvats. Bhai Kesar Singh Chibber has also determined it to be the Samvat of Sri Dasam Granth Sahib’s completion. The Samvat given in the table of contents in Patna Sahib Bir verifies it. When there is evidence available within this Bir regarding its completion by Sri Guruji and two other early evidences are also available that prove Sri Guruji completed it in 1755 Samvat, How can Dr. Mann then serve lies upon lies in front of the Panth by blatantly ignoring these proofs? Not only the ending section provides the above Samvat regarding this Bani’s completion, the writer has also clearly described the completion at its end:
ਸਾਧ ਅਸਾਧ ਜਾਨੋ ਨਹੀ ਬਾਦ ਸੁਬਾਦ ਬਿਬਾਦ।
ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਕਲ ਪੂਰਣ ਕੀਯੋ ਭਗਵਤਿ ਕ੍ਰਿਪਾ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ। (ਰਾਮਾਵਤਾਰ 861)
The fact that date of completion in table of contents is associated with a Bir completed in 1755 A.D. during Guruji’s time makes it clear that the writer of Patna Sahib Bir must have had access to extremely important and puratan pothis of Dasam Guruji’s Bani. Thus, the importance of this Bir increases even more.
As far as the issue of inclusion of ‘Zafarnama’ composed in 1706 A.D by Sri Guruji is concerned, this question fails to hold its merit when the above discussion is kept in mind. The argument, that its completion cannot be accepted because ‘Zafarnama’ a composition of 1706 A.D. is included in it, is nothing but a superfluous objection. The first completion of Sri Aad Granth took place in 1604 A.D. Afterwords, Sri Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji’s Bani was added. Sri Aad Granth was completed in 1604 A.D as well as in 1706 A.D. After all, no one doubts the completeness of Sri Aad Granth which were Parkash at Sri Harmandir Sahib in 1604 A.D. Even then, the Sikhs had reverently sung in the praise of the all-complete Sri Granth:
ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਜਲੁ ਛਾਇਆ ਪੂਰਨ ਸਾਜੁ ਕਰਾਇਆ ਸਗਲ ਮਨੋਰਥ ਪੂਰੇ ॥
3. Dr. Mann’s third question is: Did Dasam Granth appeared in 19th Century and was this Granth available in the areas of Punjab and Delhi in the 18th Century? My answer in reply to this question is Dr. Mann should be aware that this Granth did not appear in the 19th Century. Dr. Mann’s own words state that Colebrooke had obtained a copy of it in 1783 A.D. Has Colebrooke, Malcom or any other scholar written anywhere that that Granth (in the possession of Colebrooke) was written in 1783 A.D. too? Colebrooke had only obtained a copy of it in that year. If Colebrooke had obtained a Bir of this Granth in 1783 A.D., then there is absolutely no possibility of it being written by Atma Ram Nirmala or any other Nirmala under the conspiracy of Malcom in 1810 A.D. If Dr. Mann is really that interested in becoming a scholar of Dharma-Shastars, he should hand over the responsibility of checking patients to some other bone specialist and search for Colebrooke’s Granth instead. Then he should get its paper, ink and handwriting analysed to confirm its exact date of compilation. And only after collecting all the relevant facts he should claim that it was created in 19th Century instead of 1783 A.D. If this Granth was not available anywhere in Punjab or Delhi then why did Malcom write that Colebrooke was more fortunate than me because he was able to obtain Birs of both two Granths, while I could only obtain Sri Aad Granth’s Bir? Dr. Mann knows full well that the Granth for which he
curses Bhai Mani Singh was written in Delhi only. What is the credibility of Dr. Mann’s argument when the whole history of the compilation of this Granth is associated with Delhi?
4. The next question of Dr. Mann is: Is it right that Dasam Granth in its present published form was mentioned for the first time in 1810 A.D. in Malcolm’s book, “Sketch of the Sikhs”? Firstly, the writer cleverly tries every trick in the book to deceive the average reader, but reality is he is not clever enough to put scholars and intellectuals in any doubts. I say, what is the need of raising issues regarding published or unpublished Bis when the discussion is clearly focussed upon whether Banis of the Sri Dasam Granth are Sri Guruji’s compositions or not. I am hereby presenting before the reader Dr. Mann’s question as it appears in his article: ‘Is it correct that Presently published Dasam Granth was first introduced in Literature by Malcolm in 1810 AD in his book titled ‘Sketch of the Sikhs ?’ It is important to request to the readers that the mistake of writing first capital letters of words ‘Presently’ and ‘Literature’ is not mine. I have written many times before that adversaries of Sri Dasam Granth are rather interested in writing articles but most of them have no idea about the art of writing. At least this is the impression one gets upon reading Dr. Mann’s strange English. While he has not been able to master the correct use of upper case and lower case letters, he has surely received lessons from someone on how to slander great works of highly respected personalities. Returning back to the main question: Can Dr. Mann tell the readers how could a Granth that was carefully revised and reordered by the Sodhak Committee in 1897 A.D. find its mention in any work prior to Malcolm’s book written in 1810 A.D? Malcolm has not presented the order of Banis of Sri Dasam Granth either which could be tallied with the order accepted by Sodhak Committee. Seems like Dr. Mann is caught up in his own web of tricky questions. His question should have been: Does any discussion regarding the Bani of Sri Dasam Granth and its sources appear in any literary sources prior to Malcolm? Dr. Mann knows well the discussion of this Bani appears in Granths like Sri Guru Sobha, Gur Bilas Patshashi 10 (both), Mahima Parkash etc. and that Kesar Singh Chibber has also described its compilation in detail. He had absolutely no scope of asking whether the Bani of Sri Dasam Granth was discussed by anyone else before Malcolm or not. So he devised this method to confuse and perplex Sangat instead. Dr. Mann should make clear first whether he is opposing the Banis of Sri Dasam Granth, or the reordering done by the Sodhak Committee?
5. Dr. Mann’s next question is: Is it a historical fact that the British propagated and established the Banis of Dasam Granth in order to weaken the Sikhs and the Sikh rule? is nothing but another cock-and-bull story. Rulers with devious intentions are against the warrior spirit of a particular sect, and not saint aspects of it. The naam simran and kirtan of the Sikhs was no threat to the British Govt. Instead, they were terrified by their fondness of weapons and their warrior form. They had no threat from the Bani of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, albeit they would have surely been weary of commitment of the Sikhs for ‘ShastarNaam Mala’. Continuous Jaaps of ‘ਛਤ੍ਰੀ ਕੳੋ ਪੂਤ ਹੌਂ ਬਾਮ੍ਹਣ ਕੋ ਨਾਹੀ, ਅਤਿ ਹੀ ਰਣ ਮਹਿ ਤਬ ਜੂਝ ਮਰੌਂ, ਅਸਿ ਕ੍ਰਿਪਾਣਿ ਖੰਡੋ ਖੜਗ’ etc. and paaths of ‘Chandi Di Vaar’ could also be cause of concern for them. A philosophy like ‘Raj Karega Khalsa’ could be a potential challenge to their rule and not ‘Guru Maaneo Granth’. How could a politically advance race like the British encourage Sikhs to recite ‘ਖਗ ਖੰਡ ਬਿਹੰਡੰ ਖਲ ਦਲ ਖੰਡੰ’ and cause destruction of its enemy? How could they encourage Sikhs to recite the name of weapon-carrying Sarbloh form of Kaal Purakh? It is absolutely clear that no race can let its enemy recite Banis that would invoke the warrior spirit to fight and die for one’s faith. Till Malcolm’s time, the British had such little knowledge of Sikh faith that were incapable of injecting any corruption in it. Malcolm does not even know what's the difference between first and second Bhai Gurdas. Rattan Singh Bhangu also tells us that English at that time were trying to gain knowledge of fundamentals of Sikh faith from outsiders like Boote Shah that had absolutely no knowledge about the Sikhs. They also had no idea about the relations between Sikhs and Muslims of the time. They were not even aware of the sort of injustice a Muslim writer would do to Sikh history in his writings. How could a race that had negligible knowledge of the Sikhs at the time compose such a diverse Granth and popularise it amongst the Sikhs? Dr. Mann has accused Bhai Mani Singh of making a big mistake by compiling this Granth. If this entire effort is that of the British then the relations between Bhai Mani Singh and the British will have to be explained instead. Thus, Dr. Mann should know the historical truths. It is not appropriate to accept baseless theories and fact-less arguments to be historical facts. If we consider this Granth to be written by the British just because Malcolm discusses a few verses of Sri Dasam Granth, then what about Sri Aad Granth whom he quoted and discussed extensively? Do we also take this Sri Granth to be devised by the British as part of some political plan? Just have a look at the crudeness of Dr. Mann’s work: He illustrates the missionary policy of the British by mentioning an article written by some missionary in 1814 A.D. This article is neither written by Wilkins, nor by Malcolm. There is also no mention of ‘Dasam Granth’ anywhere in the article. The raise question against the authenticity of a Granth that Colebrooke had obtained in 1783 A.D, he should give proofs of any British conspiracy from period prior to1783 A.D and not some evidence after that date. The lines quoted from this article by Dr. Mann do not reflect any ill-feelings of that missionary or the British towards the Sikhs. Dr. Mann has given the following lines as an example: “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.” In reality, the writer wishes propagation of Christianity in those areas of Hindu faith where the feeling of nationality is missing. He warns other missionaries against propagation attempts in nationalist factions like the Sikhs and that Christianity may appear smaller in front of them. He also makes it clear that the doctrines we look forward to spread with Christianity are already firmly established within Sikh faith, perhaps even more strongly than in Christianity. We should be content in knowing that the Sikhs share the Christian concept of Universality and there is no purpose of preaching Christianity if a race has already got good qualities that it stands for? With above lines, Dr. Mann’s lie in this self-constructed theory has laid itself bare.
Dr. Mann has presented some comments of Warren Hastings regarding the nature of the Sikhs, but there is nothing anti-Sikh about them. He writes that Sikhs are good candidates for military recruitment but could not develop to their full potential mainly because of their carefree nature and internal feuds. However, they do get get together as one whenever they sense any common threat. Dr. Mann coats these words of Warren Hastings with his lies need to be examined carefully. He says, 'The British knew full well that Sikhs constantly fight amongst each other, but they do get together whenever they see a common threat, this is because of their carefree nature and faith on Sri Guru Granth Sahib'. Nowhere has Hastings mentioned Guru Granth Sahib, or Sri Dasam Granth, or Guru Granth Sahib Ji as the reason of unity amongst the Sikhs. Dr. Mann has stubbornly tried countless times to make his rubbish lies walk on the path of truth. The following argument of Dr. Mann is a complete lie too: 'Majority of Sri Dasam Granth Birs have been found in PEPSU (Predominately Malwa area of Punjab) because this area fell under the political influence of the British first, and as such they could get Dasam Granth propagated and preached in this area by the Nirmalas and Shaheeds who were under their control but could not get it parkash'd in Harmandir Sahib.' The reality, however, is Sri Dasam Granth was already available at Patna Sahib before the advent of British in Punjab. Can Dr. Mann tell that if the British could get this Granth immediately parkash'd at all the Gurdwaras in this region upon their entry, then why they were able to get Sri Dasam Granth parkash'd at Harmandir Sahib even after ruling on Amritsar for more than 100 years? In reality, affairs at Sri Harmandir Sahib follow their traditional Maryada. Whilst Sangat gathers after parkash in other Gurdwaras, they assemble before parkash at Sri Harmandir Sahib, then Parkash takes place approximately at the same time when Sri Guru Arjan Dev Ji would come in the Sangat. Nobody gives out 'Jaikara', 'Agya Bhayaee Akaal Ki... Bache Sharan Jo Hoe' Dohra is also not read. Have the British introduced these customs too? Sri Dasam Granth had more influence in areas which had high concentration of Nihang Cantonments.It is absolutely illogical and wrong to forcefully associate British with the presence of high volumes of Sri Dasam Granth in that area, because Damdama Sahib was the centre of Nihang Singhs during that period.
The self-contradictory claims of Dr. Mann are more than enough to illustrate his lack of knowledge. On one hand Dr. Mann says Malcolm is an important figure who has tried to present Dasam Granth to to of more importance than Sri Guru Granth Sahib. On the other hand, he uproots this theory himself by saying "Malcolm gives clear message that Guru Granth Sahib Ji is the only canon." If Malcolm is the creator and preacher of Dasam Granth, then why he is giving so much importance to Guru Granth Sahib? Actually, it is not Malcolm's fault, Dr. Mann has deviously tried to falsely make Malcolm the creator of Sri Dasam Granth. Dr. Mann's unstable mind and intellect works in weird way. He gives evidences to Malcolm's words from credible and trustworthy sources. However, in the same breath he criticises his book by changing its title to 'unreliable Sketch of Sikh'. Dr. Mann should explain to the readers why 'you have trusted' this unreliable and infamous book. Earlier this perplexed Dr. Mann had said - Malcolm had got Sri Dasam Granth prepared from 'Atma Ram Nirmala'. Now he writes: "Britishers assisted in creating, compiling and then, popularizing ‘Dasami Patshahi Ka Granth’ through Nirmala, Shahid Taxals and Acalis which was transliterated from a document called ‘Nanak Panthi Kabhya. probably with the help of Atma Ram at Calcutta." According to Dr. Mann, the British got Sri Dasam Granth prepared with the help of Nirmalas, Shaheed Taksaals, and Nihang jathas, meaning the entire panth was conspiring against the Sikhs. Poor Malcolm has said that he could not find anyone in Punjab who could explain Sikh philosophy, history and Gurbani in a proper way. But Dr. Mann, a staunch adversary of Sri Dasam Granth in totality, has used his false logic to portray as if every Sikh Samprada of the time was conspiring with Malcolm for the total destruction of the Sikh Panth. By using these false arguments, Dr. Mann is trying to prove that Malcolm caused divisions amongst the Panth. Dr. Mann has got no concrete evidence nor any solid argument to justify his claims. He is operating on the basis that innocent Sikhs can join his Guru-Slanderer camp by constant lies, and by bribing some with travels to foreign countries and getting them to speak against Guruji.
6. Another very weak logic of Dr. Mann is that if Sri Dasam Granth was indeed written by one person, then all Samvats in the Bir would appear in the a chronological order but that did not happen in its current published form. 1698 A.D. is on page 254, 1688 A.D. on page 354, 1687 A.D. on page 386, 1688 A.D on page 579 and 1696 A.D. is on page 1388. It is his own understanding that is the cause of this illusion. If the Banis were ordered according to their period of composition, then 'Birha Natak' of Krishnavtar composed in 1687 A.D would have appeared first, then first part 'Raas Leela' of Krishnavtar and then the concluding part of this composition would have appeared. After reading Krishnavtar, it becomes absolutely clear that it was composed in fragments. That is why, the composer has called 'Birha Natak' a Granth in itself, and not a chapter of a Granth, as:
ਸਤ੍ਰਹ ਸੈ ਚਵਤਾਲ ਮੈ ਸਾਵਨ ਸੁਦਿ ਬੁਧਵਾਰ॥
ਨਗਰ ਪਾਂਵਟਾ ਮੋ ਤੁਮੋ ਰਚਿਯੋ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸੁਧਾਰ॥
ਖੜਗ ਪਾਨ ਕੀ ਕ੍ਰਿਪਾ ਤੇ ਪੋਥੀ ਰਚੀ ਬਿਚਾਰ॥
ਭੂਲ ਹੋਇ ਜਹਂ ਤਿਹਂ ਸੁ ਕਬਿ ਪੜੀਯਹੁ ਸਭੈ ਸੁਧਾਰ॥ (Krishnavtar 983-84)
There is no mention of 'Dasam Sakandh' of 'Bhagwat Puraan' in the above line because the writer of Sri Dasam Granth had to write concluding part of 'Raas leela' in order to complete 'Dasam Sakandh'. If Krishnavtar was written systematically in one go, then writer would have informed us the ending of a katha or chapter like in 'Raas leela':
ਸੱਤ੍ਰਹ ਸੈ ਪੈਤਾਲ ਮੈ ਕੀਨੀ ਕਥਾ ਸੁਧਾਰ॥
ਚੂਕ ਹੋਇ ਜਹ ਤਹ ਸੁ ਕਬਿ ਲੀਜਹੁ ਸਕਲ ਸੁਧਾਰ॥ (Krishnavtar 755)
We are informed of completion of 'Dasam Sakandh' katha at the end of 'Krishnavtar', something that was not done when writing the Samvat of 'Raas Leela' or 'Birha Natak', as:
ਸਤ੍ਰਹ ਸੈ ਪੈਤਾਲ ਮਹਿ ਸਾਵਨ ਸੁਦਿ ਥਿਤਿ ਦੀਪ॥
ਨਗਰ ਪਾਵਟਾ ਸੁਭ ਕਰਨ ਜਮਨਾ ਬਹੈ ਸਮੀਪ॥
ਦਸਮ ਕਥਾ ਭਗੌਤ ਕੀ ਭਾਖਾ ਕਰੀ ਬਨਾਇ॥
The entire situation is now in front of you. If Dr. Mann's ordering had been followed then first 'Birha Natak' would appear, then 'Raas Leela' and 'Judh Prabandh' next. Anyone who would read such a jumbled up composition would curse the writer for lack of knowledge. Maybe Dr. Mann would have like that but slandering of their Gurus is never appealing to wise Gursikhs. That is why, the sections written during different time periods have been arranged in a logical order. If Dr. Mann's suggestion was to be followed, then 'Charitropakhyan' of 1696 A.D. would appear after 'Krishnavtar' and 'Ramavatar' after that. Which would violate the period of the birth of Ram and Krishan and the actual sequence of 'Krishnavtar' would get broken because 'Birha Natak' would have appeared even before the birth of Krishna. And 'Charitropakhyan', which was a separate pothi before would have entered in the stories of Avtars and spoiled the plotline. But of course, all this would satisfy Dr. Mann because he would get many other arguments to make. By the way, Dr. Mann has said nothing about ordering of Banis that do not have period of composition mentioned? Dr. Mann, just dare to apply this same formula on Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Instead of Japp, there would be Jaidev, and Farid Ji instead of Rehras. Banis of many bhagats would have appeared before Guru Sahibs' Bani and Swavaiye of Bhatts would have been before the bani of Guru Teg Bahadur Ji. And in 'Sidh Gost'we would have to research just which Padds were said at which Sumer Mountain and which Gorakh Deras by Guru Nanak Dev Ji. Sikhs would have given a totally different shape to 'Sidh Gost'. So Dr. Mann can keep his destructive sources of knowledge to himself because wise Sikhs will never accept them. Actually, these foolish theories of Dr. Mann will expose entire anti 'Sri Dasam Granth' camp in front of the 'Khalsa Panth', everyone will find out their bad intentions.
7. Dr. Mann's next question is - Did the British popularised recitation of presently parkash’d Bir in order to destroy independent existence of the Sikh faith?
We are in total disagreement with this argument because Sri Dasam Granth is the source of unique identity of the Sikh Panth. If there is no threat to the Sikh Panth when Guru Nanak Dev Ji s called 'ਤੂ ਤਾ ਜਨਿਕ ਰਾਜਾ ਅਉਤਾਰੁ' in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji; if Panth has not converted into worshipper of Ram by repeatedly doing paath of 'ਜਸਰਥ ਰਾਇ ਨੰਦੁ ਰਾਜਾ ਮੇਰਾ ਰਾਮ ਚੰਦ' ; then how can Sikh be slave of any other ideology if he reads 'ਰਾਮ ਰਹੀਮ ਪੁਰਾਨ ਕੁਰਾਨ ਅਨੇਕ ਕਹੈਂ ਮਤ ਏਕ ਨਾ ਮਾਨਿਯੋ' ? If Sikh's faith on Akaal Purakh has stayed strong even by singing 'ਧਨਿ ਧਨਿ ਤੂ ਮਾਤਾ ਦੇਵਕੀ ॥ ਜਿਹ ਗ੍ਰਿਹ ਰਮਈਆ ਕਵਲਾਪਤੀ', then how can he get buried under the weight of Shaastars by recitations of‘ਕਿਸਨ ਬਿਸਨ ਕਬਹੂ ਨਾ ਧਿਆਊਂ’? If Sikh has remained a Sikh after reciting names like Murari, Govardhan, Gobind, Saaringdhar, Saaringpaan, etc. from Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji on daily basis, then how can a Sikh sink into Snaatanvaad if he becomes Kharag Singh who can grab Krishna by hair and make all Devtas of Hindu faith follow him? Hindus (especially Punjabis) give a lot of respect to Sri Guru Granth Sahib's Bani but they have not acknowledged and respected Sri Dasam Granth as some Granth that eulogises Devi-Devtas. And they just cannot give such respect anyway, as Ram in Sri Dasam Granth is not a God but a mere human that keeps doubting the character of his virtuous wife. Sri Krishan Ji suffers from evils like drinking,etc. It is understandable if Hindus object but why would British be scared of uniqueness of Sikhs? It was in the self-interest of the British to divide locals on the basis of caste and religion so that they could establish and secure their foreign rule. How could they shoot themselves in the foot by strengthening their enemy themselves, the vast Hindu nation? To even think of that about shrewd British politicians is sheer ignorance. The British had kept their army units separate according to their race so that they could not unite as one against the British. Therefore, the theory that British made efforts to diffuse Hindu ideology into Sikh religion is also meaningless and devoid of any factual information.
8. Dr. Mann asks: Did Atma Ram Nirmala of Calcutta had any associations with the Nimala Mahants of Patna? Dr. Mann is a strange scholar - he asks one question and gives completely different answers altogether. Without answering the above question, he constructs another question asking why Atma Ram has given wrong information regarding the date of Amrit Sanchar and establishment of Khalsa. In reality, it is Malcolm who has wrongly presented the above information and not Atma Ram, Dr. Mann is forcibly trying to accuse Atma Ram of committing this crime. He says: Agreeably to this author (Probably Atma Ram as Malcom was consulting him). For Dr. Mann, it is this 'probability' that is concrete evidence, basis of critical analysis and unbreakable logic. With this 'probability', Dr. Mann can refute the descent of Guruji Maharaj, and I can also say that 'probably' a person with the name of Dr. Jasbir Singh Mann does not exist on this earth. To convert impossibility into possibility in this crude manner cannot be called research for it is nothing more than ramblings of a stubborn mind. Atma Ram did not do proofreading of Malcolm's work, how can we consider him guilty? Nowhere has Malcolm written that he has heard or read everything he has written from Atma Ram. Malcolm has just written in the foreword that upon reaching Calcutta, he has been able to gain understanding of Sri Aad Granth and some other tracts from a Sikh called Atma Ram Nirmala. Malcolm must have asked about Sikhs from many people and it is inappropriate to think there was some conspiracy behind his limited knowledge. Dr. Mann has once again associated Malcolm's inaccurate statement, that Bhai Gurdas Bhalla has called Sri Guru Gobind Singh the 19th Avtar, with Atma Ram instead. Even if Atma Ram has discussed Bhai Gurdas Ji, how is Atma Ram responsible for this confusion? This was Malcolm's mistake that he could not realise there are two Bhai Gurdas Ji. And how could he when Panth is still printing Bhai Gurdas II's Vaar as the 41st Vaar with original 40 Vaars of Bhai Gurdas Ji I to this date? If Sikh Panth is not aware of this mistake, thus it is neither Malcolm's fault nor there is scope of any conspiracy by Atma Ram Nirmala. The fact that Malcolm's had just surface-level knowledge of Sikh faith becomes clear after reading his work. Dr. Mann favours works of western writers over those of Sikh writer and considers them to be superior piece of evidence. The fundamental basis of our argument is we have more faith on the works of Sikh writers than on writer of any other race. Therefore, it is limited knowledge of Malcolm that is responsible; one cannot deduce that a scholar like Atma Ram would knowingly pass wrong information. Of course, it would be a different matter if Malcolm had cited Atma Ram as a reference in his writings.
The argument that Nirmala Sants have held their control on Takht Patna Sahib is also flawed. The Sikh tradition at Patna Sahib starts from times of Guru Nanak Dev Ji. The sewa of this Takht is with local Sikhs to this date. Nirmala Sants have never had influence on Hazoor Sahib or Patna Sahib. If Dr. Mann thinks otherwise, then he should bring concrete evidences forward instead of saying things like, probably Atma ram stayed at Calcutta, probably he had associations with priests of Patna Sahib, probably Patna Sahib was under the control of Nirmalas. Such flights of fancy cannot be called scientific research, although it can surely turn the research into a joke. Even if Nirmala Mahatma have done sewa of this Takht, then what is wrong with that? Are they haters of the Panth? Dr. Mann forgets that Gyani Gyan Singh Ji, whom he quotes as evidence at various places, was a Nirmala scholar himself.
9. Dr. Mann considers Atma Ram to be the writer of some verses of Tribhangi Chhand of Akal Ustat. I would like to humbly inform readers that I have extensively clarified this doubt on pages 69-79 of my book, ਸ਼੍ਰੀ ਦਸਮ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ-ਕਰਤਾ ਸੰਬੰਧੀ ਵਿਵਾਦ ਦੀ ਪੁਨਰ-ਸਮੀਖਿਆ'. Dr. Mann should have used his logic and reasoning to reply to my analysis instead of repeating his baseless theories again. Instead of considering his stubborn arguments as supreme, he should read my above-mentioned book instead and carry the debate forward.
10. Dr. Mann writes: There are proofs of the establishment of superiority of ‘Bachittar Natak’ over Sri Guru Granth Sahib by the British during the end of 18th Century? The main basis of his argument is Malcolm's book, 'Sketch of the Sikhs'. This argument of Dr. Mann is completely baseless and false. Actually, In the 3rd chapter of his book, Malcolm has talked about Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji's teachings first and the philosophy of Guru Gobind Singh Ji later. It is not surprising if a non-Sikh finds difference between weapons-clad Guru Gobind Singh Ji and Guru Nanak Dev Ji. Despite that, Malcolm's not completely unaware of the continuity and common goals between the two. From pages 97 to 110 of this chapter, Malcolm discusses the philosophy of Guru Nanak Dev Ji with Sri Aad Granth as its basis. And from page 111-114, he discusses the behaviour of Sri Guru Gobind Sahib Ji with Sri Dasam Granth as the basis. The discussion on Sri Aad Granth and Guru Nanak Dev Ji covers 12-13 pages while Dasam Granth is discussed on 3-4 pages only, then how is Dasam Granth given more importance in this work? There is not even a single line which could suggest more importance is given to the ideas in Dasam Granth over the philosophy of Sri Aad Granth. In fact, Malcolm clearly states that Puranic stories in Dasam Granth are associated with Hindu faith, but he also clarifies that the philosophy of Guru Gobind Singh Ji is completely different from that of Hindus. Following are few extracts from his book: "Its author has borrowed largely from the Sastras of the Brahmens, and the Koran." (Page 120)..."Guru Govind has separated his followers for ever from the Hindus.." (Page 121).."-the destruction of the distinction of casts, the admission of proselytes, and the rendering the pursuit of arms not only admissible, but the religious duty of all his followers. Whereas, among the Hindus, agreeable to the Dherma Sastra, (one of the most revered of their sacred writings,) carrying arms on all occa- sions, as an occupation, is only lawful to the Cshatriya or military tribe." (Page 121).. "Courage is thoughout this work, placed above every other virtue. (P. 121)Thus, at once founding the sect of Siks, he struck the whole world with awe : overturning temples and sacred places, tombs and mosques, he levelled them all with the plain : rejecting the Vedas, the six Sastras and the Koran, he abolished the cry of Namaz and slew the Sultans ; reducing the Mirs and Pirs to silence.. the Brahmins, the Pandits, and the Jotishis had acquired a relish for worldly things ; they worshiped stones and forgot Supreme. Thus, the Muhammedan and Hindu, remained involved in delusion and ignorance, when the third sect of the Khalsa originated in purity" (Pages 123-124). The above words of Malcolm are enough to strip naked the lies propagated by Dr. Mann. If any Atma Ram has indeed taught such things to Malcolm, then we salute his love for the Sikhi.
Actually, the British had made efforts to get both Granths translated because they had clearly seen Sikhs hold both these Granths in high esteem and that the Granth is the axis of their faith. If they were trying to propagate Dasam Granth, then Trumpp would have translated Dasam Granth first and not Sri Aad Granth, but situation is actually the opposite. Therefore, Dr. Mann's theories have no factual credibility and are based on complete lies.
Dr. Mann also claims that Malcolm has divided Sikh Panth into Khalsa Panthis and Nanak Panthis. Malcolm has no bad intention nor ignorance in implying this. There were many factions after the creation of Khalsa that kept undying faith on Guruji and Gurbani without adopting the Khalsa Saroop. Nirmalas, Muslim Ragis, Nirmalas, Sevapanthis and many Sehajdhari Sikhs are examples of this. Sehajdhari Sikhs were considered inseparable part of the Panth till the advent of Singh Sabha Lehar. The Siklighars and Vanjaras, who have not taken the Sikhi Saroop, are still counted amongst Nanakpanthis and not in Amritdhari Khalsa. Therefore, calling Malcolm as enemy of the Panth is inappropriate.
11. Dr. Mann's next doubt is: After Sikhs lost to English in 1846 A.D., which individual wrote Dasam Granth in Devnagri script in 1847 A.D on the orders of British Governor General of India? Actually, there is a handwritten copy of Sri Dasam Granth in Devnagri script available in the Punjabi-Sindhi handwritten section of India Office Library, London. According to the information attached, this Bir was written by Pandit Radha Kishan, and was presented to Paris Exhibition Society at Imperial Exhibition organised in 1855 A.D. Pandit Radha Kishan's father and grandfather were both members of Maharaja Ranjit Singh's court. Sanskrit scholar Radha Kishan was the teacher of Raja Hira and Dalip Singh. The following words in English can be seen written on the Bir:
sent to the Imperial Exhibition at Paris for works of arts and Industry by the Punjab committee Lahore. (following this, there are signatures of Commissioner and Superintendent, and 1856 A.D is given underneath)
The following are doubts raised by Dr. Mann:
a. The Imperial exhibition was organised from 15th May to 15th November in 1855 A.D., how could this Bir, sent from India in 1856 A.D., be included into this exhibition?
b. If this Bir was written for the purpose of including it in the Imperial Exhibition, then why was it not exhibited in the Imperial Exhibition held in London in 1851 A.D.?
c. Following Governor General's order, why was it written on the Bir that Guru Gobind Singh as the founder of Sikh Panth? Why did a scholar like Pandit Radha Kishan gave permission for this?
On casual glance, the above doubts of Dr. Mann appear to be genuine, but on closer inspection they are just as empty, full of ignorance and baseless as his other questions. Following are the replies to his questions:
a. There is no doubt that the above exhibition was held in 1855 A.D. but owing to lack of intellect, Dr. Mann is incapable of understanding why 1856 A.D is written on the Bir. In reality, this label must have been etched on the Bir for identification after it was brought back from the exhibition to be placed in the library. Maybe Dr. Mann is not aware of the difference between 'sent' and 'sending'. "ਜੇ 1856 ਈ. ਵਿਚ ਭੇਜੀ ਜਾਂਦੀ ਤਾਂ ਲਿਖਿਆ ਜਾਣੀ ਸੀ sending. sent ਦਾ ਅਰਥ ਹੈ ਭੇਜੀ ਗਈ ਸੀ।". Dr. Mann is able to identify the Commissioner and Superintendent mentioned on the label. They think these are those officials of the British Government who would have signed to allow the Bir to be sent from India, whereas reality is he was the officer of 'Imperial Commission' who had organised the above exhibition. Dr. Mann can verify on the internet that there was such commission, and it had a commissioner and there were rules and guidelines of the commission too. Actually, Dr. Mann has not been able to understand the label that was attached to the Bir after completion of the exhibition that's why he is knowingly concocting facts.
b. The next question: If this Bir was written for the purpose of including it in the Imperial Exhibition, then why was it not exhibited in the Imperial Exhibition held in London in 1851 A.D.? Firstly, Radha Kishan did not write this Bir on the orders of Governor General. The following is information given on it:
In conformity to the orders of the Governor General of India, this volume named “The Granth Sahib” published by Gooroo Gobind Singh the founder of the Sikh faith, is hereby presented to the Paris Exhibition Society by
Pundit Raddha Kishan
A footnote is given at the word 'The Granth Sahib': “A work of the same name is published by Gooroo Nanuck, it may not therefoe be taken to be the same”
After the capture of Punjab, the curiosity of learning more about Sikhism definitely increased among western scholars. That's why they sent any relevant material they came across to such exhibitions. Was it necessary that the British had to exhibit it in 1851 A.D only? And if they did, what is the guarantee that Dr. Mann would not ask question that why was it exhibited in Britain in 1851 A.D. and not in the exhibition held in Paris in 1855 A.D.? He would have surely seen British conspiracy behind this. Therefore, in my opinion, it is not a concrete basis of argument but due to his lack to knowledge, Dr. Mann is under the belief that it was sent under the orders of Governor General of India.
* Dr. Mann's next allegation is not appropriate either: Following Governor General's order, why was it written on the Bir that Guru Gobind Singh as the founder of Sikh Panth? Why did a scholar like Pandit Radha Kishan gave permission for this? Actually, the British had the Khalsa Saroop of the Sikhs in front of them, the saroop that considers Guru Gobind Singh Ji to be its father. If even to this day an Amrit taking Sikh pledges that he will consider Guru Gobind Singh Ji as his spiritual father, and the entire Panth considers Guru Gobind Singh Ji to be the founder of Khalsa, and Vaisakhi to be day of establishment of the Khalsa, then what big blunder did the British of the time commit if they called Guru Gobind Singh Ji to be founder of Sikhism due to lack of knowledge? This way, someone like Dr. Mann can get up and start asking why Guru Gobind Singh Ji is the creator of Khalsa and not Guru Nanak Dev Ji? They will then start thinking of conspiracies behind it and in the end it will Dasam Patshah Da Granth as the main culprit once again. I fail to understand why Dr. Mann is so irritated by Guru Gobind Singh Ji's name and his Bani. Is the Sikh Saroop given by the Tenth Guruji not acceptable to him or that he finds it hard to follow the Maryada as given by Guru Gobind Singh Ji.
12. Dr. Mann doubts the authenticity of 'Khaas Daskhati Patrey'. There is nothing new in his arguments regarding this. He repeatedly brings forward the old questions raised by Dr. Ratan Singh Jaggi, and I have given detailed critical analysis to this question in my published book already. In brief however, I would just like to say that the by making Dr. Jaggi's argument as the base, Dr. Mann's argument that these 'Pattars' have been created with the conspiracy of Sukha Singh/Charrat Singh is absolutely baseless because there is no 'Khas Pattar' in Sukha Singh Bir, only copies of 16 Pattars has been attached. The Khas Pattars must have been in Patna Sahib Bir if Sukha Singh had indeed conspired against the Panth. I have already made clear in my book that Moti Bagh Bir, which has 7 Khas Pattars in it, cannot be the one which Gyani Gyan Singh talks about because he mentions 5 Khas Pattars while this Bir has gone 7 Pattars. The facts, like the presence of these Pattars in Bir compiled by Bhai Mani Singh, the verification of it by Bhai Kesar Singh Chibber, the concrete tradition regarding such Pattars and the commonality between writing of Hukamnamas and Khas Pattars, present solid evidence regarding the authenticity of these Pattars. In no way these Pattars would be available in Bhai Mani Singh Bir had they been created by Sukha Singh/Charrat Singh because Bhai Mani Singh Bir was not present in front of the scribe of Patna Sahib Bir, a fact that is proven by the different order in these two Birs. Kesar Singh Chibbers writes that a Sikh of Lahore had possession of the 7 Khas Pattars identical to the ones he had seen in Delhi. The adversaries of Sri Dasam Granth can never prove that Patna Sahib Bir and Moti Bagh Bir were both scribed by one writer or by Sukha Singh/Charrat Singh, because the sequence of Banis in these two Birs is totally different from each other. For the sake of proof, the Banis in Moti Bagh Bir have the following order: Jaap, Bachittar Natak, Chandi Charitar (Ukat Bilas), Chandi Charitar 2, Chaubis Avtar, Brahmavtar, Rudravtar, Paarasnath, Shastarnammala, Akaal Ustat, Gyan Prabodh, Vaar Durga Ki, Charitropakhyan, Asfotak Kabit, Swaviye, Bisanpadey, Sadd, Zafarnama (Gurmukhi), Zafarnama (Persian). The Patna Sahib Bir has the following order: Jaap, Akal Ustat, Swaviye, Bachittar Natak, Chaubis Avtar, Chandi Charitar (Ukat Bilas_, Brahmavtar, Gyan Prabodh, Chandi Charitar 2, Rudravtar, Bisanpadey, Chakka Bhagauti Ju Ka, Shastarnammala, Vaar Durga Ki, Charitropakhyan, Asfotak Kabit, Bhagwant Gita, Sansaahar Sukhmana, Shabad (in Raags), Vaar Maalkos Ki, Vaar Durga Ki, Vaar Bhagwati Ji Ki and Zafarname (Gurmukhi). Such huge differences in the Banis and the difference in their order and cannot have been done by writers of the same family. Another important fact to remember is if Sukha Singh had got the Patna Sahib Bir scribed and his son Charrat Singh had got the Moti Bagh Bir prepared, then the latter Bir would have additional Banis in it, but the situation is quite the opposite. Therefore, it is impossible that these two Birs were scribed by members of the same family. Thus, all the false theories created against 'Khaas Patars' prove absolutely baseless and nothing more than fragments of imagination.
13. Dr. Mann has used the Panth-accepted Gurdwara Act of 1925 A.D. and the 'Sikh Rehat Maryada' as base to criticise Sri Dasam Granth. Any replies to his pathetic argument means one will have to lower own standards of intellect. I am just going to present the definition of a Sikh as per the 'Sikh Rehat Maryada': "Any woman or man keeps faith in one Akaal Purakh, Ten Guru Sahiban, Sri Guru Granth Sahib and the Bani and teachings of ten Guru Sahibs, believes in Amrit of Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji and does not believe in any other religion, is a Sikh." And: "Gurbani Katha: Katha can be done..the Bani of Ten Guru Sahibs, Bhai Gurdas Ji, and Bhai Nand Lal Ji." Further: "The lifestyle of Gursikh: a. Consider only Ten Guru Guru Sahibs, Sri Guru Granth Sahib and Bani of Ten Gurus to be the emancipator". We can clearly see that 'Sikh Rehat Maryada' specifically stresses on having faith on Bani of Guru Sahibs, it is not restricted to the Bani in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji alone. The opposition is deliberately trying to mislead the Sikhs.
14. Dr. Mann writes that Guru Gobind Singh Ji gave Guruship to Guru Granth Sahib Ji only. The whole Panth is in unanimous agreement with this fact, nobody has even an ounce of doubt regarding this fact. There is no other Granth that is equal to him, and neither do Sikhs give the same respect given to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji to any other Granth. Bhai Kesar Singh Chibber has expressed the viewpoint of the Panth by saying: Both Granths are GurBhai. The bigger brother is Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. He has been blessed with the Tikka of Guruship. Dasam Granth Ji are smaller brother to them.
There can be no doubt regarding the Guruship of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Yes, one can rightly doubt that, like Sri Dasam Granth, critics can start doubting Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji also. I have to say I have not come across any Hukamnama by Guru Gobind Singh Ji that issues the order of burning all other Granths after giving Guruship to Guru Granth Sahib Ji. The Guruship of Guru Granth Sahib Ji means the Shabad is the Guru, the Shabad gets the respect, and Shabad is supreme. Anyone who has established this in their hearts respects the knowledge, he respects and sings praises of every type of knowledge present in this source, he keep every religious Granth in high regard and does not disrespect them. How can such a person disrespect the Granths of his own religion? In contrast, the enemy of the Shabad and the literature cannot be a true Sikh of Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Guru Gobind Singh Ji had created a big movement to take the Shabad-dependent Sikhi to its peak. He had decorated his court with knowledgeable poets of unique mindsets. There was complete freedom in his court to write essays on Upnishads, Gita, Mahabharat, Ramayana, etc. Compositions like Singhasan Bateesee got respect too. Religious Granths, literary works, and folklores all got respect in his court, because it was all for the Shabad. If he gave Guruship to the Shabad, then he also did darshan of Brahm in His various manifestations. The enemy of the Shabad cannot understand the concept of Shabad-Guru, then how can they claim to the followers of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji?
15. The allegations regarding the Sodhak Committee are absolutely baseless, I do not consider it is important to give replies to them.
16. The answer to the 16th question of Dr. Mann is again the same, the answer to which has been provided above.
17. Dr. Mann attempts to forcibly assign Gyani Gyan Singh's evidence against Sri Dasam Granth. He presents the following lines to prove that 'Dasam Guru Ji Vaala Granth' refers to the Bir of Sri Aad Granth that Guruji got compiled at Sri Damdama Sahib:
ਅਸਲ ਦਸਮ ਗੁਰ ਵਾਲਾ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ। ਰਹਿਤ ਬ੍ਰਿਧ ਦਲ ਮੈਂ ਮਧ ਪੰਥ।
ਘਲੂਘਾਰਾ ਜਬ ਵਡ ਭਯੋ। ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਦੁਰਾਨੀ ਸੋ ਲੀਉ।
ਅਬ ਸੋ ਕਾਬਲ ਮਧ ਜਾਨੋ। ਬੜੀ ਧਰਮਸ਼ਾਲਾ ਮੈ ਮਾਨੋ।
Dr. Mann would not have misunderstood if he had carefully read the above sentence without any bias (which he claims to be). How can it be that Sri Guru Granth Sahib is established in 'Buddha Dal'? Sri Guru Granth Sahib has been Parkaash at Sri Harmandir Sahib well before any organised gallant warrior Dal was properly formed in the Panth. If Gyani Gyan Singh had to refer to Guru Granth Sahib, he would have surely written ‘ਰਹਿਤ ਹਰਿਮੰਦਿਰ ਮਹਿ ਮਧ ਪੰਥ'. The absurd claim that the Parkaash of Guru Granth Sahib Ji only took place in Buddha Dal cannot be that of Gyani Gyan Singh; the adversaries of Sri Dasam Granth have become habitual of making such statements. If Dr. Mann is still adamant, then we are also free to present before the readers the following lines of Gyani Gyan Singh:
ਜੋ ਅਬਿ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਦਸਮ ਗੁਰੁ ਕੇਰਾ। ਕਹਿਲਾਵਤ ਮਧ ਪੰਥ ਉਚੇਰਾ।
ਸਤ੍ਰਾਂ ਸੈ ਅਠਤ੍ਰੇ ਸਾਲੈਂ। ਰਚੀ ਬੀੜ ਇਸ ਕੇਰ ਬਿਸਾਲੈਂ। 80 ।
ਤਾ ਕਾ ਭੋਗ ਹਕਾਯਤ ਪਰ ਹੈ। ਜਾਨਤ ਸਿਖ ਗੁਰੂ ਕੇ ਬਰ ਹੈਂ।
The readers can compare these to the lines above. The above lines are definitely referring to Sri Dasam Granth. Under no circumstances it can be the 'Sri Aad Granth' of Guru Gobind Singh Ji because it does not contain even a single verse by him. His Granth can only be that which has exclusively got verses by him only. There is an important fact to note: Gyani Gyan Singh Ji says that the Bhog of highly respected Bir of Guru Gobind Singh's Bani (compiled in 1778 Samvat) is at Hikayats, the eminent Sikhs of Guruji know this fact. Now Dr. Mann can decide for himself whether he falls in the eminent Sikh category or deprived Sikhs.
In the end, one has to say that Dr. Jasbir Singh Mann pretends to tread on unbiased path, while the fact is he is the main co-ordinator of anti-Sri Dasam Granth movement. He has observed that Sri Dasam does not promote Brahmanical ideology, that it cannot be a creation of Shaakat poets because there is no mention of the Avtars of Shiv as revered by Shaakats. In desperation, he has tried to adopt gandhian philosophy to exploit the anti-british sentiments of the people by falsely claiming that Sri Dasam Granth is a creation of the British. He is not aware that everyone, be it Hindu Kings, Muslim rulers, or other enemies of Sikh Panth, have been against Guru Gobind Singh Ji because the enemies were afraid of weapon-carrying Khalsa. These adversaries pretend to be respect Guru Nanak Dev Ji, but have been disrespecting our Tenth Master. If the British were against the Sikhs, then they would have surely devised policies against Guru Gobind Singh Ji, his Bani, his Bana, and his weapon-carrying Khalsa; they could never be supportive of Sri Dasam Granth. I speculate that these haters will soon suspect Americans and Russians behind the creation of Sri Dasam Granth. Then countries like China, Korea, Africa, and Japan, etc. would have to wait patiently for their turn. Please accept this Sewa for now, rest some other time.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: