Sikh Reformism vs Nihang Traditions/Jhatka/Sukha Etc.

[Taj Gill]

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh,

Currently I am a University of Toronto Mississauga student, and for the first time ever in the school's history, a course named "Introduction to Sikhism" was offered. Being a student with a Sikh background (I'm Sahajdhari) and considerable knowledge of the religion, I decided to take the course.

What I learned was a completely different and new insight into our great religion: Reformism and Traditionalism, which has been largely ignored due to reformists completely taking over Sikhi.

I know that this may be a very controversial topic to some, but I want to know what everyone's thoughts are. And I'll straight up say that like it or not, I am mostly completely on the traditionalist side now. Some of you may or may not know what I am going to discuss in this thread, or some of you might straight out reject it, but I want a healthy, potentially respectful debate.

For those who don't know, a little background history of how Sikh Reformism took place. It is mostly a twofold process. British came to India and started bringing their Democratic and Christian beliefs to Indian society. This directly affected Sikhi because Sikhs wanted to have a separate identity from other religions.

The second lead up to reformism were the Udasi Sikhs' management of the Gurdwaras. Contrary to strong reformist belief that Udasi was a sect made by Baba Sri Chand, Guru Nanak's son, due to the fact that he couldn't obtain Guruship after his father, traditionalists believe that Baba Sri Chand wanted to create a schismatic community that complemented the main body of sikhs as missionaries and educators of the sikh panth. This is also historically linked to Guru Hargobind's son, Baba Gurditta taking over the Udasis after Baba Sri Chand and made four main Sampradayas, which went in different directions to spread the word of Sikhi. Furthermore, in the Bachittar Nitak, one of the "chapters" of another work that some reformists question its legitimacy, the Sri Dasam Granth, written by Guru Gobind Singh Ji, speaks of an Udasi Mahant, Kirpal Chand, who fought bravely alongside the Khalsa against the Mughals. Historically, Udasi Sikhs were not persecuted by the Mughal Empire due to them being Sahajdhari Sikhs, so the Khalsa used them as spies. Udasis also managed Gurdwaras before the era of reformism, but the problem started when they began to let corrupt people into their order, which led to events such as the Nankana Sahib Massacre, and the general Reformist belief that Udasis were "Hindufying" the Sikh faith. This, coupled with the threat of Christianity from the British, led to Sikh Reformism being started in the late 19th Century and picking up steam in the early 20th Century, with Singh Sabha Movements and Akali Movements which led to the Gurdwara Reform Act. The Gurdwara Reform Act drove Udasi Mahants out of Gurdwaras, and went as far as even removing Nihang Singhs from certain Takhts.

Firstly, I want to discuss Religious Authority for Traditionalists and Reformists. Before the creation of the SGPC for reformists Sikhs, the highest religious authority for the Sikh Population was the Tat Khalsa, created by Akali Baba Binod Singh, after the disappearance of Guru Gobind Singh Ji, who declared the Granth and the Panth as being the next Guru. Akali Baba Binod Singh was appointed by Guru Gobind Singh Ji before he disappeared as the leader of the Panth. The Tat Khalsa was created in response to Banda Singh Bahadur, another reformist "Hero" who started drifting away from the Guru's authority and went as far as almost declaring himself the 11th Guru, and the people that followed him and believed that are called the Bandai Khalsa. After Akali Baba Binod Singh passed the leadership of the Panth/Jathedar to Akali Baba Darbara Singh and Akali Baba Niwab Kapoor Singh, they split the Tat Khalsa into two parts, the BUDHA DAL (for "veteran" Nihang Khalsa Warriors), and the TARNA DAL (for the younger warriors). The Budha Dal and the leader of the Jathedar commanded the most respect and was the highest authority for Sikhs until Reformism came into power, an example of evidence of the extent of the Budha Dal's power was Maharaja Ranjit Singh having to report himself to the Jathedar at the time, Akali Baba Phula Singh, for having relations with a prostitute. The Budha Dal is a hierarchical institution, with the head Akali Baba of the Jathedar assigning roles for each Baba and he chooses his successor, there is absolutely no Democratic system due to the lineage going directly back to the Gurus.

The reformist high authority is the SGPC and the Sikh Rehat Maryada that they created. It is a fully Democratic system, and it has absolutely zero lineage to the Gurus. Because of this, offshoot institutions can become created like the AKJ. Traditionalists strongly oppose the SGPC as the high authority, in fact, Akali Baba Nihal Singh of the Tarna Dal was asked by the SGPC to be the head of the Jathedar of the Akal Takht, he said no because the true Jathedar of the Akal Takht is the Budha Dal which was driven out by the SGPC, and the Budha Dal's leader, and current leader to this day, Akali Baba Joginder Singh.

Religious canon for Traditionalists and Reformists vary as well. For Traditionalists, the Guru is the Granth and the Panth. The Guru Granth Sahib for Traditionalists is consisted of 5 main works, the Adi Granth, the Dasam Granth, the Sarbloh Granth, hymns of Bhai Gurdas and Bhai Anand Lal. This is meant to balance out the Spiritual and Warrior sides to a Sikh. This is evident in two of the few Traditionalist controlled Takhts, the Hazur Sahib, in which the Dasam Granth is installed parallel to the Adi Granth, creating the Guru Granth, and Patna Sahib where both the Dasam Granth and Sarbloh Granth are placed on left and right side of the Adi Granth, to create the Guru Granth.

For Reformists, the Panth is not significantly mentioned and the Guru Granth is composed of the Adi Granth, hymns of Bhai Gurdas and Bhai Anand Lal and SOME of Guru Gobind Singh Ji's Bani such as Jaap Sahib. The Dasam Granth's legitimacy is questioned by some Reformists due to some of the Banis discussing eroticism, cannabis, opium and wine, which some reformists believing a religious figurehead, like Guru Gobind Singh Ji, would not discuss such controversial topics. That and it is evident that the Sarbloh Granth isn't even known to exist to some reformists and effort has been taken by the SGPC to keep it under wraps due to its intense military theme.

Now this is where it gets interesting, religious beliefs and traditions for Traditionalists and Reformists. Traditionalists have three Amrit ceremonies. The first, for Sahajdhari Sikhs, Charan Da Amrit, is where the Guru's feet is dipped in the Amrit, or now the Guru Granth Sahib is dipped in Amrit, and this Amrit is usually done for Udasis, or Sahajdhari Sikhs who want to go down the "easy path". The second type is Kirpan Da Amrit, which is done for Keshdhari Children at Birth, and for Keshdhari women, where certain banis are read, and the Amrit is stirred with the curved blade, the Kirpan. The Final Amrit is Khande Amrit, for men that are going to be initiated into the Khalsa. The Panj Pyare are CHOSEN by the Jathedar of the Budha Dal, and the Amrit is stirred by both a Kirpan and Khanda (Straight Sword) simultaneously. The Raag system is employed by traditionalists for Gurbani and Kirtan, due to certain verses or pauris requiring certain beats, instruments, and tone/pitch of voice. The Harmonium is rarely used by traditionalist Sikhs. Aarti Kirtan is always performed after Rehras Sahib at night for traditionalists, which is meant to be soothing. A thaal (tray of candles and incense) is lit and is held before the Guru Granth Sahib, and bells and flowers are thrown while the Aarti Kirtan is being performed (this is one of the few traditionalist views I somewhat oppose).

The next two traditionalist traditions deserve their own paragraph: Jhatka and Shaheedi Degh. Jhatka is performed and should be performed by Amritdhari Nihang Khalsa Sikhs ONLY. Jhatka is the slaughter of a MALE animal, usually a goat, to be consumed after. What makes meat Jhatka meat is that the animal has to be bathed first, Japji Sahib and Chandi Di Var have to be recited, and the animal is killed with one swift blow to the head. The blood is taken to mark the weapons and the meat can be served as Mahaprashad. This is a practice done by Nihangs since the time of Guru Gobind Singh Ji. Jhatka meat is not meat that has been killed by a random butcher on the street, you have to perform Jhatka yourself to be able to eat meat, and be a Amritdhari Nihang Sikh. Shaheedi Degh is a Cannabis based Tea that Nihangs also consume in order to aid with meditation and serve as a pain killer/adrenaline booster while fighting.

Finally, Traditionalist Sikhs historically got married by walking around the Haavan (fire) counterclockwise while Laavan Kirtan is recited.

Reformists have only one version of the Amrit ceremony for Men, Women and Children, which is a modified version of Khande Amrit, where only the straight blade is used to stir the Amrit, and the Panj Pyare are ELECTED. The Raag system is not employed by Reformists, as Kirtan and Gurbani is done usually with a tabla and two harmonium players doing kirtan to the tune they see fit. Aarti Kirtan is rarely done in reformist Gurdwaras, and if it is performed, theres no lighting of the Thaal or bells ringing or flowers thrown, due to it being a Hindu tradition. Jhatka is allowed in the Sikh Rehat Maryada for Reformist Sikhs, but the general performance of Jhatka is frowned upon by most reformists, especially when it is done at Hazoor Sahib where there is always an uproar of opposition each year. Also Shaheedi Degh is considered to be Bhang by Reformists and it does nothing but intoxicate you, as opposed to it being a tradition. Finally Reformists get married using the Anand Karaj ceremony mostly used by many Gurdwaras to this day, where the couple walks around the Guru Granth Sahib clockwise while Laavan Kirtan is recited (another Reformist tradition I agree with).

These are mostly the main differences between Reformism and Traditionalism in Sikhi, there are a few other minor things like traditional Gurdwaras, the Sri Guru Granth Sahib is in the middle of the hall as opposed to the end of the hall. But it is interesting to see how our religion has evolved and the traditionalist views have been so far kept under wraps pretty tightly. The reason my professor taught us this, is because he actually lived as a Nihang Sikh for 8 years of his life, and learned about how reformist movements became so radical and basically drove Nihangs out of Authority. I think it should be more aware how traditionalist practices are for Sikhs all over the world, so we can actually go back to the roots of the Gurus, if we choose to do so. This post may have a traditionalist bias towards it, but that is because I can sympathize with the traditionalists. It can be compared to Catholics vs Protestants, difference is, Traditionalists have so far been eliminated. I am not trying to start an anti reformist movement, due to the fact that they kept traditionalist views suppressed, but I believe that traditionalist views should become more common again, or even make a "hybrid" version of the two, if you want to go even further.

Again, I do not mean to offend anyone, this is what was taught by a professor who lived as a Nihang Sikh, and his Ph.D thesis was about traditional Sikhi and his information.

Your thoughts?

[AS Khalsa]

Modern Sikhi is indeed the brain-child of Puritan-influenced Sikh intellectuals, who sought to expunge Sikhi of perceived Hindu associations. It is no coincidence that Takht Sri Hazur Sahib and Takht Sri Patna Sahib do Parkash of all three Granth Sahibs and practice Shastar Pooja, Jhatka, and Sukha. That disgraceful reform movement, which left Sikhi in the hands of politicians, was limited to the Punjab alone.

Though I will not call the Sikhi of old 'Sanatan' [a word that has become too intimately associated with certain people who insist that Sikhism is simply a Hindu sect, an idea which the Budha Dal Jathedar Akali Baba Joginder Singh himself disagrees] the Sikhism of our forebears was a very paradoxical and diverse thing. There was no one code of living, indeed there was no single definition of what constituted a Sikh. One could be an Udaasi, Sewa-panthi, Nanakshahi, Akali Nihang, Nirmala, Taksali, all of whom had totally different practices. And yet they were all Sikh, and considered one another brothers in faith.

All of the earliest accounts written by European observers in the Punjab indicate the practices described above were well entrenched:

"Each zamindar... from the Attock... to the gates of Delhi lets his beard grow, cries Wah Gorow, eats pork, wears an iron bracelet, abominates the smoking of tobacco... sets up immediately for a Seik Sardar" - Major Polier to Colonel Ironside [1776]

"...They consider Halali meat as... forbidden... and eat the jhatka meat, that is the meat of any animals slaughtered by the sword" - James Skinner, Tashrihu'l Aqwan, 1825, quoted in Sikh history from Persian sources, p.218

"The Akalee is a grim and truly formidable looking person... partly [due] to the habitual use of intoxicating drugs [Sukha]" - J.F. Watson, The People of India [1868-75]

We simply cannot ignore such well-substantiated historical evidence by continuing to assert that jhatka or sukha, and such practices, are lies and Hindu corruptions of Sikhi. Anyone who insists otherwise is ignoring historical fact.

The Akali Nihangs were highly esteemed in the old days, and were indeed the Panjvah Takht, the mobile Fifth Takht of Sikhism. Takht Sri Damdama Sahib was only declared the fifth throne recently.

"These were the Akalis, a priveleged sect and too powerful and too numerous to be restrained by the government of the King of Lahore... no one dares to touch them" - A. Soltykoff, Voyages dans I'Inde [1858]

"These demoniacs possess an awful influence over the people, being regarded as demi-gods, and when any public emergency arises, a convocation of Akalees is held at Umritsur, what ever they decree is... acted upon with universal enthusiasm" - James Coley Journal of the Sutlej Campaign of 1845-6, p.104

The Revered James Coley then goes on to make an almost prophetic statement about the future of the Akalis:
"But I imagine there is an end of them now, and that these holy synods will only be spoken of in the past tense'

His prediction did indeed come true. Before the British arrived, the Akali Nihang Singh Khalsa had always occupied the seat of Akaal Takhat. The Jathedar of the Shiromani Budha Dal was the highest authority in the Sikh world. None had authority over him, not even Ranjit Singh, who was sentenced to a hundred lashes on the back by Akali Phoola Singh for marrying Moran, a Muslim dancing girl. Now they have been ousted from it, and exiled to the margins of Sikh society by Puritan reformists. The Akalis are the original form of Khalsa Panth, the Khalsa as it should be.

[singhbj]

Waheguru ji ka khalsa
Waheguru ji ki fateh

There are two aspects of Religion.
One Spiritual other Temporal.

Your study is focused entirely on worldly affairs & history.
Start reading & contemplating Gurbani, then you will know what is Gurmat & Manmat.

There are many loop holes & cover ups in each version of history.
That is why Sgpc has decided to rewrite the whole thing.

Take some time, think what you want to achieve & what you will by this course.

Waheguru ji ka khalsa
Waheguru ji ki fateh

[icedragon]

Hi taj,
You made some valid points . I agree that many of the traditional customs and traditions have now been sidelined by reformists because of them being perceived as "Hindu". It is also true that many sikhs look down upon sects like udaisis , nirmalays and personalities like baba Sri chand ji because to them again they are "hindu". They completely ignore the history that you have mentioned in your article. Majority of the sikhs in the past and even now in punjab who follow traditional sikhi- who have not been affected by the reformist movement, absolutely respect and pay their homage to all the above mentioned sects and personalities. I would also like to add that there seems to be somewhat of a Hindu phobia amongst sikhs at present. They want to distance themselves from everything and anything that is even remotely perceived as Hindu. Some of the present day scholars ,especially in the west, are even trying to reform some parts of sikh history such as denying the fact that some sikh gurus practised polygamy. Guru gobind singh Ji had more than 1 wife and it is evident from 2 different "smads" present in anandpur sahib and Delhi. But the modern day scholars want to conform sikhi with their idea of modern day values. I also know that many sikhs in the past , even in the British era practised polygamy. I'm not condoning polygamy here but merely stating a fact. My great-great grandfather was the Vice President of Khalsa diwan in 1905 and he had 3 wives. I'm curious how he was made the Vice President of such as important sikh organisation of those days? Perhaps polygamy was acceptable by average sikhs in that era? .

But I do not agree with jhatka being a practise promoted by the gurus.As far as I know guru sahib only allowed his sikhs to do jhatka when there is nothing else available to eat and only when their lives are important to the panth .All sikhs must be vegetarians at all other times. Sikh gurus never condoned meat eating. I also do not agree on the kirpan Amrit part. Amrit was prepared the same way originally as it is done now. But all in all, you have started a good debate. I'm keen on hearing from other posters on this issue.

P.s - Although some guru sahibs practised polygamy and hunted animals. I believe,sikhs of the guru must never equate themselves to the gurus and should never try to imitate them.Only the gurus could do that and they did these for spiritual reasons far above the comprehension of mere mortals like us. These spiritual events are explained in some puritanical sources.

[lakwinder singh]

The Tat Khalsa was created in response to Banda Singh Bahadur, another reformist "Hero" who started drifting away from the Guru's authority and went as far as almost declaring himself the 11th Guru, and the people that followed him and believed that are called the Bandai Khalsa. After Akali Baba Binod Singh passed the leadership of the Panth/Jathedar to Akali Baba Darbara Singh and Akali Baba Niwab Kapoor Singh

It shows that traditional sikhism goes to Guru sahib period. Sikhism, unlike western religions, is a shabad pardhan ( shabad supreme) religion. Hence our traditions are our proud heritage and should not be allowed to be diluted by new missionary sects who openly call Naam simran as Tota rutten ( parroting).

To quote on role MAHANT kirpal Dass ji's contribution in battle of Bhangani, it is noteworthy to remember that that there were many udasis present at Paonta sahib before battle began.But Udasi Kirpal Chand remained with Guru sahib even though not trained in war art. He showed himself as a great fighter and killed Moghal head with a mace.Guru sahib writes about it in Dasam Granth sahib

ਕ੍ਰਿਪਾਲ ਕੋਪਿਯੰ ਕੁਤਕੋ ਸੰਭਾਰੀ ॥ ਹਠੀ ਖਾਨ ਹਯਾਤ ਕੇ ਸੀਸ ਝਾਰੀ ॥
क्रिपाल कोपियं कुतको स्मभारी ॥ हठी खान हयात के सीस झारी ॥
Kirpal in rage, rushed with his mace and struck it on the head of the tenacious Hayaat Khan.

ਉੱਠੀ ਛਿਛਿ ਇਛੰ ਕਢਾ ਮੇਝ ਜੋਰੰ ॥ ਮਨੋ ਮਾਖਨੰ ਮਟਕੀ ਕਾਨ੍ਹ ਫੋਰੰ ॥੭॥
उठी छिछि इछं कढा मेझ जोरं ॥ मनो माखनं मटकी कान्ह फोरं ॥७॥
With all his might, he caused the marrow flow out of his head, which splashed like the butter spattering out of the pitcher of butter broken by lord Krishan.7.

Bachitra Natak, Dasam Granth sahib

Udasis took care of our Gurudwaras when khalsa had taken to forests for survival. With time many of them became greedy AND MISUSED funds for their personal ends. That does not make all udasis as villians.Nirmalas have contributed immensely for sikhism in field of preaching and literature. SANT Attar singh ji was a Nirmala.How can anyone name call such a great mahapurakh?

We should respect contribution made by these sects and should not brand everyone as evil.

[Taj Gill]

Modern Sikhi is indeed the brain-child of Puritan-influenced Sikh intellectuals, who sought to expunge Sikhi of perceived Hindu associations. It is no coincidence that Takht Sri Hazur Sahib and Takht Sri Patna Sahib do Parkash of all three Granth Sahibs and practice Shastar Pooja, Jhatka, and Sukha. That disgraceful reform movement, which left Sikhi in the hands of politicians, was limited to the Punjab alone.

Though I will not call the Sikhi of old 'Sanatan' [a word that has become too intimately associated with certain people who insist that Sikhism is simply a Hindu sect, an idea which the Budha Dal Jathedar Akali Baba Joginder Singh himself disagrees] the Sikhism of our forebears was a very paradoxical and diverse thing. There was no one code of living, indeed there was no single definition of what constituted a Sikh. One could be an Udaasi, Sewa-panthi, Nanakshahi, Akali Nihang, Nirmala, Taksali, all of whom had totally different practices. And yet they were all Sikh, and considered one another brothers in faith.

All of the earliest accounts written by European observers in the Punjab indicate the practices described above were well entrenched:

"Each zamindar... from the Attock... to the gates of Delhi lets his beard grow, cries Wah Gorow, eats pork, wears an iron bracelet, abominates the smoking of tobacco... sets up immediately for a Seik Sardar" - Major Polier to Colonel Ironside [1776]

"...They consider Halali meat as... forbidden... and eat the jhatka meat, that is the meat of any animals slaughtered by the sword" - James Skinner, Tashrihu'l Aqwan, 1825, quoted in Sikh history from Persian sources, p.218

"The Akalee is a grim and truly formidable looking person... partly [due] to the habitual use of intoxicating drugs [Sukha]" - J.F. Watson, The People of India [1868-75]

We simply cannot ignore such well-substantiated historical evidence by continuing to assert that jhatka or sukha, and such practices, are lies and Hindu corruptions of Sikhi. Anyone who insists otherwise is ignoring historical fact.

The Akali Nihangs were highly esteemed in the old days, and were indeed the Panjvah Takht, the mobile Fifth Takht of Sikhism. Takht Sri Damdama Sahib was only declared the fifth throne recently.

"These were the Akalis, a priveleged sect and too powerful and too numerous to be restrained by the government of the King of Lahore... no one dares to touch them" - A. Soltykoff, Voyages dans I'Inde [1858]

"These demoniacs possess an awful influence over the people, being regarded as demi-gods, and when any public emergency arises, a convocation of Akalees is held at Umritsur, what ever they decree is... acted upon with universal enthusiasm" - James Coley Journal of the Sutlej Campaign of 1845-6, p.104

The Revered James Coley then goes on to make an almost prophetic statement about the future of the Akalis:
"But I imagine there is an end of them now, and that these holy synods will only be spoken of in the past tense'

His prediction did indeed come true. Before the British arrived, the Akali Nihang Singh Khalsa had always occupied the seat of Akaal Takhat. The Jathedar of the Shiromani Budha Dal was the highest authority in the Sikh world. None had authority over him, not even Ranjit Singh, who was sentenced to a hundred lashes on the back by Akali Phoola Singh for marrying Moran, a Muslim dancing girl. Now they have been ousted from it, and exiled to the margins of Sikh society by Puritan reformists. The Akalis are the original form of Khalsa Panth, the Khalsa as it should be.

Amazing post Brother, you included various historical evidence that supports my claims, as well as added some more that I forgot to put into my original post. The SGPC is intending to rewrite history. Their goal is all good and well, because I do believe that more needs to be done for the modern world to differentiate us from Hindus, but to ignore certain practices and claim some practices are false is not the way it should be done. Like I said, there are some Traditionalist practices that I disagree with because yes, it is too reminiscent of Hinduism (full Aarti Kirtan, Anand Karaj walking around the Haavan), but there are going to be aspects of Sikhi that are absolutely, undeniably derived from Hinduism.

It is unfortunate that the SGPC has also branded Sahajdhari Sikhs as people who are yet to be "adopted into the full aspects of Sikhism". Udasis were Sahajdhari Sikhs and were just as helpful to the Akali Nihangs when fighting to the Mughals and to Sikhism as a whole as any other Amritdhari Sikh, and they did take Amrit, but Charan Da Amrit instead of Khande Amrit. It is also unfortunate that the entire "sect" was branded as traitors because of corrupt Mahants, and effort was not made until the 1970's with the Anandpur Sahib Resolution, officially "welcoming them back as Sikhs", when they were forced to identify themselves as Hindus by the Reformist movements.

Waheguru ji ka khalsa
Waheguru ji ki fateh

There are two aspects of Religion.
One Spiritual other Temporal.

Your study is focused entirely on worldly affairs & history.
Start reading & contemplating Gurbani, then you will know what is Gurmat & Manmat.

There are many loop holes & cover ups in each version of history.
That is why Sgpc has decided to rewrite the whole thing.

Take some time, think what you want to achieve & what you will by this course.

Waheguru ji ka khalsa
Waheguru ji ki fateh

I am not discounting the fact that Gurbani is the greatest source of truth in Sikhism, I'm discussing the historical fact of traditions and practices. This debate is in no way telling people how to be a Sikh, but rather acknowledging the practices that Sikhs did as a whole. Sure there are a bunch of loopholes, but to rewrite history and leaving important information up because it is decided not to "suit the religion" as the SGPC does is plain wrong. It distorts what people view of Sikhi because believe it or not, people are not just going to do Gurbani and base their beliefs off of that, they're also going to view history and historical practices.

Hi taj,
You made some valid points . I agree that many of the traditional customs and traditions have now been sidelined by reformists because of them being perceived as "Hindu". It is also true that many sikhs look down upon sects like udaisis , nirmalays and personalities like baba Sri chand ji because to them again they are "hindu". They completely ignore the history that you have mentioned in your article. Majority of the sikhs in the past and even now in punjab who follow traditional sikhi- who have not been affected by the reformist movement, absolutely respect and pay their homage to all the above mentioned sects and personalities. I would also like to add that there seems to be somewhat of a Hindu phobia amongst sikhs at present. They want to distance themselves from everything and anything that is even remotely perceived as Hindu. Some of the present day scholars ,especially in the west, are even trying to reform some parts of sikh history such as denying the fact that some sikh gurus practised polygamy. Guru gobind singh Ji had more than 1 wife and it is evident from 2 different "smads" present in anandpur sahib and Delhi. But the modern day scholars want to conform sikhi with their idea of modern day values. I also know that many sikhs in the past , even in the British era practised polygamy. I'm not condoning polygamy here but merely stating a fact. My great-great grandfather was the Vice President of Khalsa diwan in 1905 and he had 3 wives. I'm curious how he was made the Vice President of such as important sikh organisation of those days? Perhaps polygamy was acceptable by average sikhs in that era? .

But I do not agree with jhatka being a practise promoted by the gurus.As far as I know guru sahib only allowed his sikhs to do jhatka when there is nothing else available to eat and only when their lives are important to the panth .All sikhs must be vegetarians at all other times. Sikh gurus never condoned meat eating. I also do not agree on the kirpan Amrit part. Amrit was prepared the same way originally as it is done now. But all in all, you have started a good debate. I'm keen on hearing from other posters on this issue.

P.s - Although some guru sahibs practised polygamy and hunted animals. I believe,sikhs of the guru must never equate themselves to the gurus and should never try to imitate them.Only the gurus could do that and they did these for spiritual reasons far above the comprehension of mere mortals like us. These spiritual events are explained in some puritanical sources.

Polygamy is also a good topic in which the reformists love to deny. As you said, Guru Gobind Singh Ji had more than one wife, and apparently, even the third which is being debated by reformists as "something he was forced to do" is not the case and he willfully chose to have a third wife as well. To be honest, I don't see anything wrong with this, the fact that historical evidence is out there for this kind of stuff is what makes Sikhism great because it is a religion based off of practicality, and of the customs and traditions of the time. And that's really interesting to hear about your Great-Great-Grandfather, he must've enjoyed life!

Like I said in my post, Jhatka should only be done by Nihang Amritdhari Sikhs. There is no secret that the Khalsa Akali Nihang Warriors ate Jhatka meat in their battles against the Mughals, therefore I don't see anything wrong for them to eat it to this day, as their lineage and Budha Dal's lineage in general goes all the way back to Guru Gobind Singh Ji himself. In terms of Amrit, Charan Da Amrit was historically done by the earlier Sikh Gurus before the Khalsa was formed, Kirpan Da Amrit was historically for the Akali Nihang Singhs' wives, the ones that were not Jathedars, as not all of them were warriors.

Thank you all for your positive feedback so far, I was scared that I was going to be shunned with this article, but I felt I had to discuss this because before I took this course, I honestly believed that everything the SGPC and Sikh Rehat Maryada contained was pure Sikhi and I never knew a reformist movement even took place.

[Romesh Kumar]

There are two aspects of Religion.
One Spiritual other Temporal.

There are many loop holes & cover ups in each version of history.
That is why Sgpc has decided to rewrite the whole thing.

That is where and how diversion of a topic starts from because SGPC itself is an history re-written.
Topic/initial post itself and other posts/replies are really thoughtful, educative and enlightening while more are expected and awaited.
Thanks.

[singhbj]

I am not discounting the fact that Gurbani is the greatest source of truth in Sikhism, I'm discussing the historical fact of traditions and practices. This debate is in no way telling people how to be a Sikh, but rather acknowledging the practices that Sikhs did as a whole. Sure there are a bunch of loopholes, but to rewrite history and leaving important information up because it is decided not to "suit the religion" as the SGPC does is plain wrong. It distorts what people view of Sikhi because believe it or not, people are not just going to do Gurbani and base their beliefs off of that, they're also going to view history and historical practices

There is no way to know which version is authentic.
Traditions and practices too have evolved with time.
The roles that we perform are no longer dictated by our caste, birth, class & gender.
So how relevant are these traditions & practices in the Modern world ?

[AS Khalsa]

There is no way to know which version is authentic.

Singh Bj Ji,

If one version is heavily-documented and ever-present in the very oldest accounts of early Sikhs right back to the early 1700s, and the other version never once appears in any historical accounts until the very late 1800s/early 1900s,
then surely the logical thing to do is to accept the former as, if not authentic, then more authentic than the latter?

So how relevant are these traditions & practices in the Modern world ?

We cannot nitpick our Sikh traditions brother. Others may just as easily question how relevant the traditions of Khande Di Pahul or keeping Kes are. If we're being perfectly honest, these traditions do put Sikhs at a disadvantage, hair and beards aren't exactly good for prospective jobseekers, Kirpans and dastaars make travel difficult at best. If the merit of a tradition is its utility, why have we not got rid of those? Why are Jhatka and Sukha irrelevant in the modern world, but Kes and Amrit are not?

Discard one tradition because it is inconvenient and irrelevant, and it is inevitable than another shall follow, and another, then another, until everyone in the world embraces a single, modern, bland, albeit 'relevant' tradition/culture. It is inevitable. If you've ever been to Mumbai, one of the metropolitan centres of India, you may have noticed how modern life has removed young Indians from their culture and traditions. Modernism is anathema to all traditions, as modern life is about practicality, and most traditions are not practical in this day and age.

[AS Khalsa]

The SGPC is intending to rewrite history.

Veerji, I'd say they've already succeeded in rewriting history. True heroes like Akali Baba Binod Singh, Nawab Kapur Singh, whom you mentioned, the Nihang Singhs who forged the first Sikh nation, have been erased, and all credit for their achievement given to Banda Singh Bahadur. Most children educated in the Sikhi of the SGPC are unaware that Banda Singh Bahadur reverted to his Vaishnavism after Guru Gobind Singh's death.

Ironically, he attempted to drag Sikhi back into the Hindu fold using many of the same means as these modern Sikhs who are desperate to distance themselves from Hinduism. For instance by his condemnation of Jhatka and the intoxicating Sukha, as well as his trying to replace the neela-bana of the Khalsa with the ochre robes of his Bairagi sect.

Why have such momentous details been left out by all the SGPC publications? Because to include this episode of Banda's life will authenticate the traditions of Sukha and Jhatka. That is how obsessed reformist Sikhi is with purging elements of Sikh history it doesn't like. In order to remove a single mention of a tradition with which it does not agree, it is willingly to entirely rewrite somebody's life.

Jhatka and Sukha do not make us Hindu, rather, they set us apart from Hinduism.

Their goal is all good and well, because I do believe that more needs to be done for the modern world to differentiate us from Hindus

That is an interesting point. What do you think should be done to distinguish Sikhs from Hindus?

Moderator Note: The last two messages appear to reject kesh and dastaar (they must not help distinguish us), and they appear to dwell on the Nihang traditions, repeatedly promoting use of marijuana and meat in the diet. Do only meat and marijuana comprise the Nihang traditions? Are these, according to gurmat, worthy issues? Do these represent all the salient items under this scholarly discussion?