IHRO Must Prove Evidence On So called Dasam Granth Authenticity

Dr. Jasbir Singh Mann

On Jan 7th 2006, Harbans Singh Baltimore, USA wrote in his GLZ post IHRO's stand on Dasam Granth brings a question to mind should IHRO's stand on other issues that it deals with be taken seriously.

Respected, D.S.Gill Ji Chairman IHRO

I completely agree with Harbans Singh Noor Ji and support my contention with the following academic evidence.

A.) In IHRO resolution, number 7 dated Dec 23rd, it was reported That the so-called controversy about the Dasam Granth was finally resolved in 1931 when the entire issue was reviewed under the aegis of The Darbar Sahib Committee of the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) which vindicated the earlier conclusions that the Dasam Granth was entirely the work (Bani) of Guru Gobind Singh.

Can IHRO give any written evidence on this Darbar Sahib committee, who were the members? What were the findings of the committee? When ( day, date & resolution #) above issue of authenticity of Dasam Granth was finally resolved & approved by the SGPC & Sri Akal Takhat?

If the source of IHRO information is online encyclopedia (Wikipedia). Then forum members must know that this encyclopedia can be edited by anyone. It has no "editorial board", and its articles are written by volunteers around the world. Unlike with other encyclopedias, the volunteer authors of Wikipedia articles don't have to be experts or scholars. They can be anyone, including you! Volunteers do not need any formal training before creating a new article or editing an existing article.

Can IHRO write details of their evidence used in resolution #7?

B.)Did By Mani Singh wrote Sikhan di Bhagatmala?. Mani singh as its author is doubted by bhai Vir Singh in the introduction of book when he edited it 1921, Dr Surindar Singh Kohli & Dr. Tarlochan Singh Bedi. See below

Any how (Sakhi 128) in the book talks about Mian jamal came under care of Guru Hargoibnd and not about Guru Gobind Singh. It appears by giving the wrong serial # of the Sakhi IHRO is misrepresenting the fact and trying to include this sakhi under the eleventh var teeka of Bhai Gurdas. There are many manuscripts of the Sikhan Di Bhagat Mala, and in all of them the teeka of eleventh var of Bhai Gurdas ends at Sakhi Number 152 and in one at 139. The Sakhi reported by IHRO comes after the finishing of the end of 11th var of Bhai Gurdas in the Twelve extra Sakhis written in some manuscripts. The correct number of the Sakhi is 158. For the information of forum members, Sikhan di Bhagat Mala in literature is also called, Bhagat Ratna Wali. It was first edited by Bhai Veer Singh in 1921 and name Sikhan di Bhagatmala was changed by him from an old manuscript which has only one thirty nine sakhis. Then in the second edition, in the introduction Bhai Vir Singh writes that he found other manuscripts of this Sikh Bhagat Mala where after the end of eleventh var teeka, there were additional twelve sakhis written by somebody else.

1) Generally it is said that this Sikhan di Bhagat Mala was written by Bhai Mani Singh but Bhai Vir Singh writes in introduction of 2nd edition that he is not sure that this document was written by Bhai Mani Singh. He thinks that somebody else wrote this and gave the name of the document to be written by Bhai Mani Singh.

2)Dr. Surinder Singh Kohli on the chapter of Bhai Mani Singh in the book edited by him, Punjabi University Punjabi Sahit Da Ithas, published by: Punjabi University, 1967,1986 concludes that Bhagat Ratna Wali cannot be the writing of Bhai Mani Singh because the author has made lots of mistakes by writing certain Sakhis which were against Gurmat philosophy.

3)Dr. Tarlochan Singh Bedi (Head Punjabi Dept., Government Brjindra College) wrote the book, Sikhan Di Bhagat Mala published by Punjabi University, 1986. He gives the details on the issue of, Sikhan Di Bhagat Mala and talks about four manuscripts of this composition,its structure, language, inconsistencies, authorship and concludes that: 1)Sikhan Di Bhagat Mala is not the writing of Bhai Mani Singh 2) Writer of Sikhan Di Bhagat Mala and writer of Gurbilas Patshahi 6 are the same( evidence given by the author). In his opinion Kavi Sohan is the writer of Sikhan Di Bhagat Mala

I will like forum members to read this book Sikhan di Bhagatmala by Bedi and decide yourself. Please read the comments of Tarlohan singh bedi where he quotes in his introduction many anti-sikh sakhis . For example Sakhi #,s 90&47 are Anti gurmat.Sakhi156 reads Guru gobind singh recommended use of addictive substances for Sikhs. Sakhi 157 reads when Sikhs go to court they should use scissor to trim and level their Beard. This was request #7 from the Sikhs to 10th guru who then put signature on this special order for Sikhs. This sakhi deals with ten clarification which Sikhs asked from 10th Guru Ji.Sakhi 154 reads that guru Teg Bahadur was not martyred by Aurangjeb but 9th guru himself asked one Rajput to cut his head with Sword which Rajput did. How could IHRO imagine that Bhai/Giani/Shahid Mani Singh who scribed GGS in 1706 AD could write sakhis which are anti-Sikh,anti-Gurmat and distort Martyrdom of Guru Teg Bahadur.

In reviewing the British library manuscripts (MSS IOR EUR McKenzie Volume 40 British Library)List of Sikh Compositions Translated by John Layden and Used by Malcolm. Evidence shows that Bhagat Ratanavali composition is actually Teeka of 10th Var from Punjabi account of pious personages starting with stories of Dru, Naradmuni, Prahlada, Rajajanak, Raja Harichandra, Krishna, Dropti, Pandavs, Jaidev, Namdev, Trilochan, Dhana Jat, Kuber, Indra, Robber Valmiki, Gobind Raj, and ending in Krishna.It matches with 10th Var of Bhai Gurdas.(See Page 208 and 220 of the manuscript).This evidence proves that Bhagat Ratan Wali in literature was the Teeka of tenth var of Bhai Gurdas and there was no Bhagat RatanaWali Var eleventh Teeka until the end of eighteenth century when this entry in manuscript was made. Otherwise Dr. Layden would have translated it.This proves the point that Bhagat Ratanavali or/sikhan the Bhagatmala which is Teeka of Eleventh Var of Bhai Gurdas was written in end of 18th century or early 19th century & to it 12 extra sakhis were added and to make it popular name of Bhai Mani Singh was attributed to it as author. --CAN IHRO share concrete evidence with forum members its authenticity based on academic Parameters?.which means who is the real author of Sikhan Di Bhagat Mala and when was it written,where was the document before it was edited first time by Bhai Vir Singh in 1921AD. So many Internal textual inconsistencies. Who wrote 12 extra sakhis in the document when all initial 152 sakhis are teeka of 11th var of Bhai Gurdas?

C). This is just for the information of forum members that all the Sikh Rehat Namas first time were reported by Pandit Tara Singh in 1884 AD In his book Sri Guru Tirath Sangra, which included list of 21 Rehat Namas. Later on, Bhai Bhagwan Singh who was follower of Baba Sumer Singh who became the Mahant at Sri Patna Sahib in 1882 also wrote Ber Bimal Bibek Baridh Granth which included 37 Rehat Namas.It proves that all Rehatnamas which appeared in above two Granths of Pandit Tara Singh & Bhai Bhagwan Singh are late 18th century or 19th th centry writings.

IHRO reports on the Rehat Nama of Bhai Desa Singh but fails to mention the dating of this manuscript by academic parameters. Per Piara Singh Padam, Desa Singh could be son of Mani Singh or could be any other Desa Singh. There are four Bhai Mani Singh reported in literature as follows and IHRO must provide the evidence that this Bhai Desa Singh was son of which Giani /shahid Mani Singh who scribed GGS in 1706AD? Bhatwahi,s of all must be traced and other academic parameters must be followed to prove the real identity of Desa Singh who from the internal evidence of this Rehatnama seem to be an opium addict personality as he recommends that Sikhs can take opium and bhang per sikh code of conduct chhand 32. 1) Bhai Mani Singh of Alipur (Multan) 2) Bhai Mani Singh Kambo 3) Bhai Mani Singh Dulat, Jat of Kambowal 4) Bhai Mani Singh, a resident of Kaney kachay.

The IHRO failed to share the internal evidence of Rehatnama itself that it was written in the end of 18th century as the chaand number, 126 (in the autobiography) Desa Singh confesses that he first lived in Morali Bunga in Amritsar where one time Jassa Singh Kalal lived. Please note Jassa Singh Kalal (Ahluwalia) died in 1783 AD. The IHRO concealed the fact that chaand number 32 of this rehat nama also states Sikhs can take opium and bhang per sikh code of conduct. And in chaand 45 this rehat nama also includes the use of alcoholic drinks by the Sikhs per code of conduct( this Anti Gurmat internal evidence makes this rehatnama doubtful) Desa Singh reports also in the autobiography of this Rehatnama that from Amritsar he goes to Patna Sahib where he sees in his dream Guru Gobind Singh Ji who tells him about the various compositions of Dasam Granth.IF IHRO believes that DG was compiled by bhai Mani singh in early 1700,s then why Desa singh has to see it in dream ?. Desa Singh Rehat Nama written in the end of 18th century and its internal evidence to be written in Patna supports my opinion on Dasam granth that this was compiled by Nirmalas at Patna and Desa Singh must be listening to such stories when he went to Patna Sahib, Britishers gave opium to the Nirmalas of Patna which has been recorded in the documents as published in the book by Dr Ved Parkash Sikhs of Bihar.Thats why Desa singh writes opium, Bhang use as a part of code of conduct by Sikhs. -CAN IHRO share with forum members dating of Bhai Desa Singh Rehatnama except name appearing in Bhatwahi. Even Piara Singh Padam says it could be some other Desa Singh. What is the IHRO concrete proof that he was son of Giani /shahid Mani Singh who scribed GGS in 1706AD?who will recommend Opium,Bhang & alcohlicdrinks as a part of sikh code of conduct for the khalsa?

D) Can IHRO share any evidence with forum members that where was 1428 pages Granth as corrected by sodhak committee in 1897 AD with the title Dasmi Patshahi Ka Granth associated with Guru Gobind Singh in Punjab or Delhi areas in 18th century as Malcolm could find none when he came to Punjab in early 1800,s. Budha dal organization ,s Sri Sarbloh Granth Ji, Published by Singh Sahib Baba Santa Singh Ji at Budha dal Printing Press Lower Mal Patiala, Editor and Writer Jathedar Dyal Singh Year 2000 writes in Introduction page Khakha of volume one that “ Sarbloh Granth and Dasam Granth came to Punjab in Samat 1860(1803AD) - Will IHRO verify the above fact and share with forum members if Budha Dal who is part of their team, why their published writings indicate no Dasam granth or Sarabloh Granth in Punjab until Samat 1860(1803AD). Can IHRO provide any evidence that this 1428 pages Dasam Granth was present in Punjab or Delhi sikh institutions in 18th century?

The debate on Dasam Granth is not new.IHRO is just a new entry.I hope IHRO will provide their answers raised in A,B,C,D paragraphs above. Academicaly One authentic version of text must be established first.In my opinion IHRO scholars should publish their opinion Paper on History,text and one authentic version of DG they believe in detail with academic parameters based evidence. If they fail to give any evidence based study ,then their stand on DG & other issues that it deals with will not be taken seriously by the forum members as suggested by Harbans Singh Noor. Resolutions alone do not make any evidence.

In my opinion lot of misrepresentation and misinterpretation is being posted on Internet. I will request the forum members to stay alert and in this case please read the following sources yourself and make personal final opinion: 1) SGPC 50 SALAN DA(years) Ithas, published by SGPC Sikh Ithas Research Board, written by Shamsher Singh Ashok, 1982 and 1998. Please note that this book contains the most important meetings and resolutions of the first 50 years of SGPC . Review of this book shows that no such resolution was passed on Dasam Granth as noted in IHRO resolution #7.

2) Sikhan Di Bhagat Mala, Edited by Tarlochan Singh Bedi and Foreword by Rattan Singh Jaggi and Vice Chancellor S.S. Johal. Published by Punjabi University, 1986. discusses the Text, authorship& other issues

3) Punjabi University Punjabi Sahit Da Ithas, Edited by Surinder Singh Kohli. See chapter on Bhai Mani Singh, pages 207-248, Volume Two, Published by Punjab University Chandigarh, 1967 and 1986.Discusses the issues of “Sikhan Di Bhagat Mala

4) Bhai Mani Singh Jeevan and Rachana by Dr. Surinder Singh Kohli, page 18. Relation betwween Sikhan Di Bhagat Mala and Gurbilas Patshahi 6

5) Rehat Namay, Edited by Piara Singh Padam. Published by Chattar Singh and Jeevan Singh. 1974 and 1989.

6) Budha dal organization ,s Sri Sarbloh Granth Ji, Published by Singh Sahib Baba Santa Singh Ji at Budha dal Printing Press Lower Mal Patiala, Editor and Writer Jathedar Dyal Singh Year 2000. Please See Introduction.

For my opinion on various issues of history, text,authorship, authenticity, and comments on the various authors who have done research on the authenticity of Dasam Granth in past, please click on http://www.globalsikhstudies.net.

I agree with Giani Gian Singh as he wrote in Panth Parkash 1880AD that The Granth that is now known as that of the 10th Guru. There was no Bir of this Granth during the time of the Guru. Banis remained separated here and there.Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha 1931AD writes ignorant and Manmauji writers has written many Birs of Dasam Granth who have made them meaningless. He lamented that no Guru Premi tried to do any corrective remedy so far. The authenticity of the presently published Dasam Granth as corrected & compiled by Sodhak Committee in 1897 needs a thorough Gurmat based independent inquiry in light of presently available historical and Textual evidence. I will request that Jathedar Sri Akal Takhat to constitute a committee of Panthic scholars of all shades under the guidance of SGPC and Sri Akal takhat to act as soon as possible on this important issue which is producing so many Panthic divisions.

Gurus Instructions to the Sikhs: In 1708AD before his death 10th guru sanctified Bani in Sri G.G.S. as spiritual guru and guru panth represented by five khalsas as a physical guru.He also declared that Bani of Guru Granth Sahib is sole Guru for the Sikhs and a sole cannon to accept any idea, concept, suggestion and any writing. Third guru was very clear from the beginning about such issues. Therefore recommended Aao Sikh Satgur Kay Piaryo, Gavoh, Sachi Bani in Anand Sahib. Final seal of AGGS Mundavani M5 discusses use of Sach, Santokh, and Vichar on issues. In Sikhism, victory always belongs to Waheguru. Let all of us follow Gurus Instructions as outlined above, work together and create one consensual panthic opinion on this issue which will save the Sikh Community from Panthic Divisions.