Summary

S. Karan Bir Singh Sidhu Ji uses Bhagat Kabir Ji’s Shabad to support his praise of the Ram Mandir at Ayodhya. He has written that Raam in Gurbani can mean God, present in all. Yet he joins that meaning to Ramchandra of Ayodhya without showing that the Shabad supports the connection. His reply accepted that my point was valid. The claim before readers remains unchanged. [1, 4]

Introduction

His article, “O Lord Ram, resolve this one paradox for me”: Bhagat Kabir, appeared on 23 January 2024, the day after the Ayodhya temple’s consecration ceremony. The June 2026 repost marks Kabir Jayanti, Bhagat Kabir Ji’s birth anniversary, but keeps the temple conclusion. I wrote to him after that repost to question it. [1, 4, 5]

1. What Sidhu Ji claims

His subtitle says the verses “present to the Almighty a simple yet deeply profound query”. The ending then turns to Ayodhya:

“This perspective is particularly relevant when gazing at the imposing grandeur of the Ram Mandir at Ayodhya. More than its physical splendor, the temple symbolizes a collective devotion and a spiritual awakening, mirroring the deeper truths that Kabir Ji’s hymns encapsulate. Thus, the Ram Mandir, in its essence, is not just a monumental structure but a testament to Lord Ram’s greater presence, resonating with the spiritual journey towards enlightenment and understanding of the devotee as well as of the entire civilization.” [1]

He is saying that the temple expresses the truth Bhagat Kabir Ji teaches. That is the claim he must prove from the Shabad.

His New Year 2024 article says the verses have “universal appeal, regardless of how one views Lord Ram”. He names the Prince of Ayodhya and an avatar of Vishnu, then adds “or, more profoundly, another name for Akal Purakh, the omniscient God”. Akal Purakh means the Timeless One. [1]

Sidhu Ji has therefore written that there are different meanings. The question is why he treats them as grounds for the same temple conclusion. Gurbani must decide whether that move is valid.

2. Who is Raam in this Shabad?

Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji gives the starting point. The Rahao, the centre of the Shabad, where the reader is asked to pause, says:

ਝਗਰਾ ਏਕੁ ਨਿਬੇਰਹੁ ਰਾਮ ॥
jhagraa ek niberahu raam.

ਜਉ ਤੁਮ ਅਪਨੇ ਜਨ ਸੌ ਕਾਮੁ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
jau tum apne jan sau kaam. Rahao.

O Raam, resolve this one doubt, if You have any use for Your servant.

Gauri, Bani Bhagat Kabir Ji, Shabad 42, Panna 331. These are the complete opening Rahao lines; the Shabad continues. [2]

The first stanza asks:

ਇਹੁ ਮਨੁ ਬਡਾ ਕਿ ਜਾ ਸਉ ਮਨੁ ਮਾਨਿਆ ॥
ih man badaa ki jaa sau man maaniaa.

ਰਾਮੁ ਬਡਾ ਕੈ ਰਾਮਹਿ ਜਾਨਿਆ ॥੧॥
raam badaa kai raameh jaaniaa.

Is this mind greater, or the One in whom it has come to rest? Is Raam greater, or the one who has known Raam?

The complete first stanza of the same Shabad, Panna 331. The Shabad continues. [2]

The next stanza asks whether Brahma or the One who made him is greater, and whether the Veda or the source of its knowledge is greater. Professor Sahib Singh Ji explains Raam here as Prabh, God. The passage does not identify Raam as Dashrath’s son. [2]

Elsewhere, Bhagat Kabir Ji directly addresses the different uses of the name:

ਕਬੀਰ ਰਾਮ ਕਹਨ ਮਹਿ ਭੇਦੁ ਹੈ ਤਾ ਮਹਿ ਏਕੁ ਬਿਚਾਰੁ ॥
kabeer raam kahan meh bhed hai taa meh ek bichaar.

ਸੋਈ ਰਾਮੁ ਸਭੈ ਕਹਹਿ ਸੋਈ ਕਉਤਕਹਾਰ ॥੧੯੦॥
soee raam sabhai kaheh soee kautakhaar.

Kabir, there is a difference in saying Raam; understand this point. Everyone says Raam, and actors in religious plays use the same name.

Salok Bhagat Kabir Ji, Salok 190, Panna 1374. This is the complete Salok. The English sense follows Professor Sahib Singh Ji’s explanation of kautakhaar as performers of religious plays. [3]

The next Salok makes the distinction:

ਕਬੀਰ ਰਾਮੈ ਰਾਮ ਕਹੁ ਕਹਿਬੇ ਮਾਹਿ ਬਿਬੇਕ ॥
kabeer raamai raam kahu kahibe maahi bibek.

ਏਕੁ ਅਨੇਕਹਿ ਮਿਲਿ ਗਇਆ ਏਕ ਸਮਾਨਾ ਏਕ ॥੧੯੧॥
ek anekahi mil gaiaa ek samaanaa ek.

Kabir, keep remembering Raam, but distinguish carefully what you mean. One pervades countless beings; the other was present in one body.

Salok Bhagat Kabir Ji, Salok 191, Panna 1374. This is the complete Salok. The English sense follows Professor Sahib Singh Ji’s explanation. [3]

Bibek means telling one thing from another: knowing the difference. Professor Sahib Singh Ji explains the contrast as God, present in all, and Ramchandra, Dashrath’s son. The instruction is to distinguish them, not to treat the shared name as proof that they mean the same thing. [3]

Raam can refer to Ramchandra elsewhere in Gurbani. Here, the complete Shabad must settle the meaning. Sidhu Ji’s wish to bring traditions together cannot settle it instead.

3. What does the Shabad say about a religious place?

The Shabad ends with a question Sidhu Ji quotes but does not follow:

ਕਹਿ ਕਬੀਰ ਹਉ ਭਇਆ ਉਦਾਸੁ ॥
kahi kabeer hau bhaiaa udaas.

ਤੀਰਥੁ ਬਡਾ ਕਿ ਹਰਿ ਕਾ ਦਾਸੁ ॥੩॥੪੨॥
teerath badaa ki har kaa daas.

Kabir says: I am uncertain. Which is greater, the religious place or Hari’s servant?

Gauri, Bani Bhagat Kabir Ji, Shabad 42, Panna 331. These are the complete closing lines of stanza 3. Stanza 2 is not quoted in this article. [2]

Hari here means God. Professor Sahib Singh Ji explains tirath as a religious place, not only a pilgrimage destination. He explains that the place owes its importance to the devotee associated with it. His account of the whole Shabad points to the Satguru, the True Guru, through whom the seeker comes to know God. [2]

Sidhu Ji recognises that devotion matters more than outward ritual. But he still has to show why the Ayodhya temple meets that test. Public enthusiasm and a grand building do not establish spiritual awakening. His praise supplies the judgement that the teaching was meant to test. [1]

The same question applies to a gurdwara. Size, fame and public support cannot replace hearing and living the Guru’s teaching. Gurbani must be allowed to correct our judgement of a religious place, however much we admire it.

4. What his reply did not correct

In his reply to me, Sidhu Ji agreed that my point was valid. He said he was sharing earlier writing and defended an inclusive approach to religious traditions. He did not expressly accept every objection or promise to change the article. [4]

The earlier writing is relevant, but it does not answer the criticism. All three versions, from January 2024, June 2025 and June 2026, retain the temple conclusion. No correction addressing the objection appears beside it. [1]

Respect between religions does not require us to treat different meanings as the same. Sidhu Ji needs to answer the Shabad’s distinction, not simply state his wish for agreement between traditions.

The reader who opens his article does not see our exchange. That reader still receives his praise of Ayodhya as though Gurbani supports it. His reply to me has not corrected what everyone else is being told.

Conclusion

Sidhu Ji must show why he joins the Raam of this Shabad to Ramchandra of Ayodhya, and how the teaching supports his temple conclusion. Otherwise, he must correct the article. My reading must answer to the complete Shabad too; he can challenge it by showing where it is wrong.

He may praise the Ram Mandir in his own name. He has not established the right to present that praise in Bhagat Kabir Ji’s name.

Agreement is not correction. The correction belongs where the claim was published.

Verify

The quoted Gurmukhi, Panna references and quotation boundaries were checked at SriGranth and in Professor Sahib Singh Ji’s Sri Guru Granth Sahib Darpan. On Panna 331, the complete Rahao, stanza 1 and closing stanza 3 are quoted. Stanza 2 was read but is not quoted. On Panna 1374, Saloks 190 and 191 are quoted in full. [2, 3]

The plain-English renderings follow Darpan. It explains udaas as “undecided”; the article therefore uses “uncertain”, not the “detached” in the translation Sidhu Ji uses. Darpan explains tirath as a religious place and kautakhaar as performers of religious plays. It identifies the Raam who was present in one body in Salok 191 as Dashrath’s son. These are Darpan’s explanations. No name or word has been added to the Gurmukhi. [2, 3]

The English renderings are mine, not quotations from Dr Sant Singh Khalsa Ji’s translation. Sidhu Ji’s words appear in quotation marks; their original spelling is retained.

Cross-check

The text was checked at SriGranth and in Darpan. SearchGurbani links are given for convenience. The Gurmukhi remains primary; the Roman reading lines and English senses are aids.

Correction note

PanthSeva will correct any error in Gurmukhi, Panna references, headings, attribution, Roman reading lines, English sense, quotations, dates or source descriptions publicly, calmly and with a dated note.

Source note

[1] Sidhu Ji’s public articles. The KBS Chronicle: “O Lord Ram, resolve this one paradox for me”: Bhagat Kabir, 23 January 2024; the Kabir Jayanti repost displayed as 28 June 2026; and the earlier Kabir Jayanti repost displayed as 11 June 2025. The June 2026 text is the main article examined. Its displayed date is not used to date the festival itself.

The related New Year piece is “1st January, 2024: Lord Ram in Bhagat Kabir’s Verses in Sri Guru Granth Sahib”. The page displays 31 December 2023; 1 January 2024 is part of its title. It discusses a different Shabad, on Panna 1158. It is cited here for Sidhu Ji’s stated approach to the meanings of Raam, not as the particular earlier article he necessarily meant in his reply.

[2] Shabad 42, Panna 331. SriGranth; Professor Sahib Singh Ji’s Sri Guru Granth Sahib Darpan; and SearchGurbani, Shabad 1171. The complete sequence of questions informs the reading, including the question about Raam and the one who knows Raam.

[3] Saloks 190 and 191, Panna 1374. SriGranth; Professor Sahib Singh Ji’s Sri Guru Granth Sahib Darpan; and SearchGurbani. Both complete Saloks are used, not the name Raam on its own.

[4] Correspondence. Section 4 is my summary of a private email exchange with Sidhu Ji, not a quotation of his email. His agreement that my point was valid is not treated as acceptance of every criticism or as a promise to revise.

[5] Publication setting. The Prime Minister’s Office account of the Ayodhya consecration records the ceremony on 22 January 2024. The date establishes the public setting, not a private motive.

The series title refers to Sidhu Ji’s public roles. This part examines his writing and reply, not his conduct in another role. The judgement remains answerable to Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

Checked to 8 September 2026.

S. Karan Bir Singh Sidhu Ji is invited to reply. If he marks his reply for publication, PanthSeva will publish it in full and unedited.

Strong disagreement is welcome. Contempt is not.

Bhul chuk maaf karni Ji.

Gurjit Singh Sandhu
PanthSeva
London

The Roman line is only a reading aid, not the translation. The English sentence gives the plain meaning.

In Japji Sahib, Guru Nanak Sahib Ji places everyone within Hukam, the Divine command and ordering within which all life exists:

ਹੁਕਮੈ ਅੰਦਰਿ ਸਭੁ ਕੋ ਬਾਹਰਿ ਹੁਕਮ ਨ ਕੋਇ ॥

Simple reading:
Hukmai andar sabh ko baahar hukam na ko-e.

Plain meaning: Everyone is within Hukam; no one is outside Hukam.

Reference: Japji Sahib, Mahalla 1, Guru Nanak Sahib Ji, Panna 1, extract from Pauri 2.

The person who has died and those who remain are within Hukam. The following line connects understanding Hukam with giving up speech governed by haumai, the self-centred sense of “I” and “mine”. Our words do not decide what happens. They can ask Waheguru for grace and for the strength to understand and accept His Will. Prayer leaves the decision with the One to whom we pray.

A prayer for the departed and the family

The Sikh Rehat Maryada allows its model Ardas to be adapted to the occasion, while preserving specified opening and concluding portions.[1]

An SGPC condolence statement of 27 February 2026 records a prayer for the departed and the family.[2] Its request can be expressed in English like this:

Waheguru, grant the departed soul a place at Your feet, and give the family strength to accept Your Will.

Both requests matter. The first entrusts the departed to Waheguru’s grace. The second asks for support for the family. Asking for a place at Waheguru’s feet leaves the outcome with Waheguru. It makes no claim that we know the departed person’s final spiritual state. This is prayer, not a verdict.

Article XIX of the Rehat Maryada directs Gurbani recitation or repetition of Waheguru beside the dying or deceased. It recommends the same remembrance to help the family accept God’s Will and provides for Ardas at several stages of the funeral.[3] These directions concern funeral observance; they do not prescribe every written condolence.

The article also rejects particular rites, including keeping a lamp to light the departed person’s path and piercing the skull in the belief that this secures the soul’s release.[3] Asking Waheguru for grace is different from claiming that a ceremony gives us control over another person’s destiny.

Gurbani also directs our understanding of peace. Guru Ram Das Sahib Ji calls us towards Naam, the Divine Name. In this Shabad, remembering Naam means turning the mind towards Waheguru in love, through the Guru’s teaching:

ਨਾਮੁ ਜਪਹੁ ਮੇਰੇ ਗੁਰਸਿਖ ਮੀਤਾ ॥
ਨਾਮੁ ਜਪਹੁ ਨਾਮੇ ਸੁਖੁ ਪਾਵਹੁ ਨਾਮੁ ਰਖਹੁ ਗੁਰਮਤਿ ਮਨਿ ਚੀਤਾ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥

Simple reading:
Naam japahu mere gursikh meetaa.
Naam japahu naame sukh paavahu naam rakhahu gurmat man cheetaa. ||1|| Rahao.

Plain meaning: My friends, Sikhs of the Guru, meditate on Naam. Meditate on Naam and find peace through Naam; through the Guru’s teaching, keep Naam in your mind.

Reference: Asa, Mahalla 4, Guru Ram Das Sahib Ji, Panna 367. Both lines of the Rahao, the pause for reflection.

The address is affectionate: the Guru speaks to Sikh friends. The Shabad describes a mind that hears Naam and learns love through the Guru’s teaching. This peace belongs to a relationship built while we live. Remembering Naam at a death brings us back to that continuing relationship.

Learning how to die

The Alahania are the Guru’s compositions in the form of funeral laments, turning attention towards remembrance of the Divine. In one of these Shabads, Guru Nanak Sahib Ji calls companions together in remembrance and reminds them that they too must depart. Within it comes this teaching:

ਮਰਣੁ ਨ ਮੰਦਾ ਲੋਕਾ ਆਖੀਐ ਜੇ ਕੋਈ ਮਰਿ ਜਾਣੈ ॥੨॥

Simple reading:
Maran na mandaa lokaa aakheeai je koi mar jaanai. ||2||

Plain meaning: O people, death is not to be called bad, if someone knows how to die.

Reference: Vadhans, Mahalla 1, Guru Nanak Sahib Ji, Panna 579. Closing line of stanza 2; the opening expresses the same teaching in different wording. The complete Shabad continues onto Panna 580.

The condition matters. The surrounding stanza speaks of serving the Divine Master and approaching with the offering of Naam. The teaching turns our attention towards the life through which we approach death. It asks us to learn something now, while there is still time to respond.

Guru Amar Das Sahib Ji develops this further. The following are the last three lines of a five-line Salok. Its opening considers how to die and turns towards keeping the Divine Master in remembrance:

ਮਰਣੈ ਤੇ ਜਗਤੁ ਡਰੈ ਜੀਵਿਆ ਲੋੜੈ ਸਭੁ ਕੋਇ ॥
ਗੁਰ ਪਰਸਾਦੀ ਜੀਵਤੁ ਮਰੈ ਹੁਕਮੈ ਬੂਝੈ ਸੋਇ ॥
ਨਾਨਕ ਐਸੀ ਮਰਨੀ ਜੋ ਮਰੈ ਤਾ ਸਦ ਜੀਵਣੁ ਹੋਇ ॥੨॥

Simple reading:
Maranai te jagat darai jeeviaa lorrai sabh ko-e.
Gur parsaadee jeevat marai hukmai boojhai so-e.
Naanak aisee marnee jo marai taa sad jeevan ho-e. ||2||

Plain meaning: The world fears death; everyone wishes to live. Through the Guru’s grace, one who dies while living understands Hukam. O Nanak, one who dies in this way has enduring life.

Reference: Bihagre ki Var, Salok Mahalla 3, Guru Amar Das Sahib Ji, Panna 555. Last three lines of the five-line Salok numbered 2 before Pauri 17.

Here, dying while living means becoming free from the hold of worldly attachment. The passage places this change within the Guru’s grace and understanding of Hukam. It gives the learner a way forward through fear. Calling ourselves Sikh does not mean that we have already learnt how to die.

Another Shabad of Guru Amar Das Sahib Ji makes the relationship with the Guru explicit:

ਸਬਦਿ ਮਰੈ ਤਿਸੁ ਸਦਾ ਅਨੰਦ ॥
ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਭੇਟੇ ਗੁਰ ਗੋਬਿੰਦ ॥
ਨਾ ਫਿਰਿ ਮਰੈ ਨ ਆਵੈ ਜਾਇ ॥
ਪੂਰੇ ਗੁਰ ਤੇ ਸਾਚਿ ਸਮਾਇ ॥੧॥

Simple reading:
Sabad marai tis sadaa anand.
Satgur bhete gur gobind.
Naa phir marai na aavai jaa-e.
Poore gur te saach samaa-e. ||1||

Plain meaning: One who dies through the Shabad has lasting joy and meets the True Guru, the Divine Guru. Such a person does not die again or come and go, and through the complete Guru merges in the True One.

Reference: Asa, Mahalla 3, Panchpade, Guru Amar Das Sahib Ji, Panna 364. Complete opening stanza. Panchpade identifies Shabads of five stanzas.

The dying here is understood as freedom from worldly attachment through the Shabad, the Guru’s Word. The stanza joins lasting joy and release from coming and going to union through the complete Guru. Its Rahao returns us to Naam and devotion received through the Guru. This is a teaching about a change in life through grace, not merely a description of the body’s death.

The words we choose

“RIP” abbreviates the Latin requiescat in pace, meaning “may he or she rest in peace”.[4] In Catholic usage, it is also a prayer for Divine mercy.[5] We should represent that usage accurately.

A wish for rest after death does not, by itself, express the fuller Sikh understanding developed here. The stanza on Panna 364 speaks of merging in the True One and freedom from coming and going through the complete Guru. In Ardas, we entrust the departed to Waheguru’s grace and ask for strength for the living. The prayer above names the One we ask; the letters “RIP” alone leave that unspoken.

The history of a phrase cannot tell us everything about the beliefs of someone who uses it. This is a question to consider in our own learning, rather than an invitation to correct grieving people at the moment of loss. Nor does it require a compulsory replacement slogan.

A Sikh may simply remember Waheguru, or express the prayer for the departed and the family in plain words. Alongside those words, we can sit with the bereaved, listen and offer practical help. Prayer gives us a way to ask for care; being there is a way to give it.

The Sikh does not need “Rest in Peace” to fill an absence in Sikh prayer. The words already exist, with an understanding that also tells us how to live. Our condolences will be read by people who are grieving. They should offer care.

What will we do with the life that remains?

Verify

Panna 1: Japji Sahib, Guru Nanak Sahib Ji, Pauri 2. Read the complete Pauri, including the closing connection between understanding Hukam and giving up speech governed by haumai. “Mahalla 1” in the article identifies the Guru; it is not presented as a separate printed heading above Japji Sahib. Open Panna 1 on SriGranth⁠ · Read Darpan⁠.

Panna 367: Asa, Mahalla 4, Guru Ram Das Sahib Ji. The Shabad ends ॥੪॥੮॥੬੦॥. Both Rahao lines are quoted. Open Panna 367 on SriGranth⁠ · Read Darpan⁠.

Pannas 579–580: Vadhans, Mahalla 1, Guru Nanak Sahib Ji, second Shabad in the Alahania sequence, ending ॥੪॥੨॥. The quotation is stanza 2’s closing line. Its opening expresses the same teaching but is not word for word identical. Read all four stanzas. Open Panna 579⁠ · Open Panna 580⁠ · Read Darpan’s explanation of the complete Shabad⁠.

Panna 555: Bihagre ki Var, Salok Mahalla 3, Guru Amar Das Sahib Ji. Read the complete five-line Salok numbered 2 immediately before Pauri 17. The article quotes its last three lines. Open Panna 555 on SriGranth⁠ · Read Darpan⁠.

Panna 364: Asa, Mahalla 3, Panchpade, Guru Amar Das Sahib Ji. The Shabad ends ॥੫॥੧੧॥੫੦॥. The article quotes its complete opening stanza. Read the Rahao and remaining stanzas alongside it. Open Panna 364 on SriGranth⁠ · Read Darpan⁠.

Cross-check

Checked to 22 September 2026. The quoted Gurmukhi, locations, headings and numbering were checked against SriGranth. The complete relevant units and Professor Sahib Singh Ji’s Darpan were consulted for context. The Roman reading aids and English meanings were reviewed against the Gurmukhi. These Gurbani checks used digital text, not a printed-page facsimile comparison.

The links under Verify allow readers to open each Panna and its contextual commentary directly.

Correction note

PanthSeva will correct errors in quotation, attribution, reference, reading aid, English meaning or supporting evidence publicly and calmly, with a dated correction note.

Source note

The plain-English meanings draw on the Gurmukhi and Professor Sahib Singh Ji’s Darpan. They are interpretive aids; Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji remains the authority.

[1] Sikh Rehat Maryada, Article IV, 3(a). SGPC’s English publication, printed page 9, footnote 2: adaptation of the model Ardas and preservation of its specified opening and concluding portions. SGPC’s Section One HTML page⁠ · SGPC’s official English download⁠ · Scanned SGPC booklet consulted, PDF page 8⁠.

Article IV, 3(a), was checked in the linked scan of SGPC’s publication. The publisher’s Section One HTML page and official download are also linked for readers.

[2] SGPC, condolence statement on the passing of Bhai Harsimran Singh, 27 February 2026. See the final sentence of the Punjabi statement, which records the prayer before Karta Purakh for the departed and the family. The article’s English prayer renders that request; it is not presented as fixed wording for every Ardas. The original uses rooh, meaning soul. Read the SGPC statement⁠.

[3] Sikh Rehat Maryada, Article XIX(a), (b), (e) and (g). SGPC’s English publication, printed pages 29–31, covering funeral observance. SGPC’s official English download⁠ · Scanned booklet consulted, PDF pages 18–19⁠.

Article XIX was checked in the linked scan of SGPC’s publication. The official download is linked for readers.

[4] Merriam-Webster, “requiescat in pace”. Definition, abbreviation and tombstone usage. Read the dictionary entry⁠.

[5] United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, “Prayers for Death and Dying”. See “Prayers after Death”, particularly “Prayers Immediately after Death”, for the expression within prayers addressed to God. Read the prayers⁠.

Sources [4] and [5] establish the expression’s meaning and prayerful usage. They do not govern the meaning of Gurbani.

Strong disagreement is welcome. Contempt is not.

Bhul chuk maaf karni Ji.

Gurjit Singh Sandhu
PanthSeva
London

What are we saying when we sing the Aarti? Words for incense, lamps and offerings occur in the Shabads, alongside names familiar from Hindu worship. Read on their own, those words can seem to settle what the Bhagats believed. Read within the Shabads, they require much closer attention. The question is how these Shabads should be read when they are used either to challenge Bhagat Bani’s standing or to justify image worship.

This matters for Sikhs because the Bani of the Bhagats is received as Gurbani under the same Guru, Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Its authority is not conditional on a commentator approving the Bhagats’ backgrounds. Nor does its presence make every practice associated with those backgrounds authoritative in Sikhi. Shared vocabulary cannot, by itself, establish that Sikhi is a Hindu tradition. We have to understand what the Guru has given us.

Five Shabads from Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji appear together in the longer Aarti sequences listed by the Guru Granth Sahib Project: those of Guru Nanak Sahib Ji, Bhagat Ravidas Ji, Bhagat Sain Ji, Bhagat Kabir Ji and Bhagat Dhanna Ji. The complete sequences vary and include further compositions. Here the question concerns these five Shabads and the readings attached to them. [1]

Murari, Gopal and Kamala’s Master are names familiar from Hindu worship. Their meaning here must be examined within each complete Shabad.

The Roman line is only a reading aid, not the translation. The English sentence gives the plain meaning.

Bhagat Ravidas Ji gives us a clear starting point:

ਨਾਮੁ ਤੇਰੋ ਆਰਤੀ ਮਜਨੁ ਮੁਰਾਰੇ ॥
ਹਰਿ ਕੇ ਨਾਮ ਬਿਨੁ ਝੂਠੇ ਸਗਲ ਪਾਸਾਰੇ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥

Simple reading: naam tero aartee majan muraare.
har ke naam bin jhoothe sagal paasaare.

Plain meaning: Your Naam is my aarti and my bathing, O Murari. Without the Creator’s Naam, all these displays are false.

Reference: Dhanasari, Bhagat Ravidas Ji, Panna 694. Complete Rahao; read with all four stanzas. [2]

Murari addresses the Creator in the reading followed here. The stanzas explain the Rahao, the pause carrying the central thought. Naam, the Creator’s Name, takes the place of the worshipper’s seat, the stone for grinding sandalwood, the saffron and the water. Naam is the lamp, wick and oil. The Shabad then asks what we can offer the Creator when everything already belongs to Him. Its closing offering is Sat Naam. This is more than advice to add sincere feeling to an otherwise unchanged ceremony. The objects themselves are being replaced in the account of worship.

Guru Nanak Sahib Ji’s Aarti at Panna 663 opens with the sky as the tray and the sun and moon as lamps. It proceeds through the One present throughout creation to the light recognised through the Guru’s teaching, and ends in a prayer for grace. Bhagat Kabir Ji’s Aarti at Panna 1350 likewise makes knowledge the oil, Naam the wick and illumination within the body the lamp. Its Rahao directs us to the Guru and the all-pervading One; its closing stanza speaks of Divine nearness and inward joy. These Shabads give us worship to practise, with understanding and love. [3]

Reading Bhagat Sain Ji in context

Bhagat Sain Ji’s opening can appear to say something different:

ਧੂਪ ਦੀਪ ਘ੍ਰਿਤ ਸਾਜਿ ਆਰਤੀ ॥
ਵਾਰਨੇ ਜਾਉ ਕਮਲਾ ਪਤੀ ॥੧॥

Simple reading: dhoop deep ghrit saaj aartee.
vaarane jaau kamalaa patee.

Plain meaning: O Master of Kamala, I am a sacrifice to You; this is my gathering of incense, lamps and ghee for Your aarti.

Reference: Dhanasari, Bhagat Sain Ji, Panna 695. Complete stanza 1; read with the Rahao and all four stanzas. The relationship expressed by “this is” follows Darpan’s interpretation, explained below. [4]

Ghee is clarified butter. Kamala is a name of Lakshmi. Professor Sahib Singh Ji’s commentary, Darpan, reads the second line as explaining the first: being a sacrifice to the Creator is the aarti. It reads stanza 2 in the same way: the One is the lamp and wick. Niranjan names the One untouched by Maya, the lure of worldly attachments. The Rahao speaks of joy through the Creator’s grace. [4]

Darpan sets out and answers an objection that Bhagat Sain Ji performed aarti before his human Guru Ramanand, was a committed Vaishnav, a devotee of Vishnu, and therefore contradicted Guru Nanak Sahib Ji. Professor Sahib Singh Ji answers that the divine descriptions do not identify a human recipient. He reads Ramanand in stanza 3 as the bliss of union with Ram, and madan in stanza 4 as producing joy, rather than as proof of Vaishnav allegiance. [4]

Readers checking SriGranth’s displayed English will find the opening presented as an offering with incense, lamps and ghee, and Ramanand treated as a person’s name. Darpan instead reads self-offering as the Aarti. I follow Darpan because it explains the sequence from self-offering, through Divine joy and illumination, to remembrance of the One who carries us beyond fear. Even if Ramanand is read as a name, however, that line does not say that Bhagat Sain Ji is performing aarti before him. That is an additional claim, which the interpretation must establish. [4]

The neighbouring Shabads show why these words need to be read in context. Bhagat Peepa Ji places the deity, temple and offerings within the body, then directs the seeker to the One present both within and throughout creation, known through the Guru. Bhagat Trilochan Ji uses stories from the Puranas, Hindu religious texts, about deities and their afflictions to question reliance on them. He closes by turning to the Creator’s Naam. A reference to a familiar religious object or story does not tell us, by itself, whether the Shabad endorses it, challenges it or gives it another use. [5]

What the Guru says about Bhagat Dhanna Ji

The question becomes especially clear across Pannas 487 and 488. Bhagat Dhanna Ji begins with the mind wandering in greed and desire, forgetting the precious Creator. His third stanza describes the Guru giving the wealth of spiritual knowledge, bringing the mind into union with the Creator and fulfilment through loving devotion. He concludes:

ਜੋਤਿ ਸਮਾਇ ਸਮਾਨੀ ਜਾ ਕੈ ਅਛਲੀ ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਪਹਿਚਾਨਿਆ ॥
ਧੰਨੈ ਧਨੁ ਪਾਇਆ ਧਰਣੀਧਰੁ ਮਿਲਿ ਜਨ ਸੰਤ ਸਮਾਨਿਆ ॥੪॥੧॥

Simple reading: jot samaai samaanee jaa kai achhalee prabh pahichaaniaa.
dhannai dhan paaiaa dharaneedhar mil jan sant samaaniaa.

Plain meaning: The one in whom the Divine Light has settled recognises the Creator who cannot be deceived. Dhanna has found the Sustainer of the earth as his wealth; meeting the saintly servants, he has merged in Him.

Reference: Aasa, Bhagat Dhanna Ji, Panna 487. Complete stanza 4; read with the Rahao and all four stanzas. [6]

Immediately afterwards, within this section, stands a Shabad with the separate heading Mahalla 5. It is Guru Arjan Sahib Ji’s composition. Its Rahao describes Bhagat Namdev Ji’s absorption in the Creator, using the image of a poor cloth printer becoming worth lakhs, or hundreds of thousands. The transformation concerns spiritual worth; the Shabad does not promise financial riches. The following stanzas describe Bhagat Kabir Ji’s love for the Creator’s feet and Bhagat Ravidas Ji’s release from attachment to Maya. Then come these two consecutive stanzas:

ਸੈਨੁ ਨਾਈ ਬੁਤਕਾਰੀਆ ਓਹੁ ਘਰਿ ਘਰਿ ਸੁਨਿਆ ॥
ਹਿਰਦੇ ਵਸਿਆ ਪਾਰਬ੍ਰਹਮੁ ਭਗਤਾ ਮਹਿ ਗਨਿਆ ॥੩॥
ਇਹ ਬਿਧਿ ਸੁਨਿ ਕੈ ਜਾਟਰੋ ਉਠਿ ਭਗਤੀ ਲਾਗਾ ॥
ਮਿਲੇ ਪ੍ਰਤਖਿ ਗੁਸਾਈਆ ਧੰਨਾ ਵਡਭਾਗਾ ॥੪॥੨॥

Simple reading: sain naaee butkaareeaa oh ghar ghar suniaa.
hirde vasiaa paarbrahm bhagtaa meh ganiaa.
ih bidh sun kai jaataro uth bhagatee laagaa.
mile pratakh gusaaeeaa dhannaa vadabhaagaa.

Plain meaning: Sain, the barber who did people’s errands, became known from house to house. The Supreme Creator dwelt in his heart, and he was counted among the Bhagats. Hearing of this way, the poor Jat arose and took to devotion. Dhanna met the Master directly and became greatly fortunate.

Reference: Aasa, Mahalla 5, Guru Arjan Sahib Ji, Pannas 487 and 488. Complete consecutive stanzas 3 and 4, respectively; read with the Rahao and stanzas 1 and 2. [6]

Here the Guru names Bhagat Sain Ji as one in whose heart the Creator dwelt. A reader cannot dismiss his Bani as an alien intrusion merely by attaching a religious label to him. The Guru’s testimony must be accounted for. Equally, the account of Bhagat Dhanna Ji’s devotion points to what he heard of these Bhagats and the spiritual life they embodied.

Darpan also answers an objection that identifies the Master encountered by Dhanna Ji as Swami Ramanand. The same objection disputes the authorship indicated by Mahalla 5, on the grounds that the Shabad names the Bhagats through caste descriptions. Professor Sahib Singh Ji answers from the heading and from other Shabads in which the Gurus name Bhagats and their castes. [6]

Read those descriptions with what the Shabad says about these men. The poor cloth printer, weaver, worker handling dead animals and barber are honoured through devotion. The social labels make the transformation visible. They do not establish that the Guru is endorsing caste hierarchy, and they provide no sufficient reason to set aside the heading Mahalla 5.

What the stories can and cannot establish

The stone account cannot simply be dismissed as something found outside Sikh tradition. Bhai Gurdas Ji’s tenth Vaar, pauri 13, tells of a Brahmin giving Dhanna Ji a stone, of Dhanna Ji bathing it and offering food, and of the Master appearing and eating. Its closing line credits innocent love with bringing the devotee to Gobind. [7]

That account requires acknowledgement. It also requires a distinction between a narrative about Divine response to a devotee and a rule authorising image worship for Sikhs. Bhai Gurdas Ji’s Vaar does not replace Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji as the authority governing that question. Nor does the absence of a stone from Panna 487, on its own, settle every historical question about Dhanna Ji’s life.

The teaching about relying on a stone is explicit elsewhere. Guru Arjan Sahib Ji says:

ਜਿਸੁ ਪਾਹਣ ਕਉ ਠਾਕੁਰੁ ਕਹਤਾ ॥
ਓਹੁ ਪਾਹਣੁ ਲੈ ਉਸ ਕਉ ਡੁਬਤਾ ॥੨॥

Simple reading: jis paahan kau thaakur kahataa.
oh paahan lai us kau dubataa.

Plain meaning: The stone he calls his Master sinks, taking him down with it.

Reference: Suhi, Mahalla 5, Guru Arjan Sahib Ji, Panna 739. Complete stanza 2; read with the Rahao and all four stanzas. [8]

The opening describes someone who fails to see the Master within and hangs a stone around his neck. The Rahao compares his labour to churning water. The following stanza names the stone boat that cannot carry him across; the closing stanza turns to knowing the Creator through the Guru and recognising Him throughout water, land and sky. The whole movement challenges reliance on the image as a means of deliverance. A story about Divine compassion cannot overturn that teaching.

Bhagat Namdev Ji’s milk Shabad at Panna 1163 needs the same care. It really does describe milk in a bowl and an appeal to Gobind to drink. Its Rahao includes the fear that the father of the house will otherwise be displeased. The Shabad proceeds through a golden bowl filled with nectar to the Creator’s delight in His devotee and the devotee receiving Divine vision. We should not conceal those details. [9]

Darpan reads the father of the house as the inner self, the golden bowl as the purified heart, and the nectar as Naam. It supports the bowl’s imagery by comparison with Bhagat Namdev Ji’s use of a golden needle in another Shabad. This is an interpretation of the imagery, not a claim that the words for milk and a bowl are absent. Its account preserves the love expressed in offering service and finding peace through the Creator’s response. [9]

Whatever view a reader takes of the event described, the Shabad does not identify a stone image as its recipient. Bhagat Ravidas Ji’s reference to Namdev Ji and the milk at Panna 487 also places the account within the saving power of remembrance. Neither passage gives us a command to feed an image. Rejecting the claim that these passages require feeding an image does not require us to deny the Creator’s care for a devotee. [6, 9]

A further difficulty occurs at Panna 973. Bhagat Namdev Ji weighs austerities, pilgrimage bathing and costly gifts against Naam. The Rahao addresses his own mind, asking it to abandon pretence and remember the Creator continually. Yet the final stanza names Ram Chand as the son of King Dasarath:

ਮਨਹਿ ਨ ਕੀਜੈ ਰੋਸੁ ਜਮਹਿ ਨ ਦੀਜੈ ਦੋਸੁ ਨਿਰਮਲ ਨਿਰਬਾਣ ਪਦੁ ਚੀਨੑਿ ਲੀਜੈ ॥
ਜਸਰਥ ਰਾਇ ਨੰਦੁ ਰਾਜਾ ਮੇਰਾ ਰਾਮ ਚੰਦੁ ਪ੍ਰਣਵੈ ਨਾਮਾ ਤਤੁ ਰਸੁ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤੁ ਪੀਜੈ ॥੪॥੪॥

Simple reading: maneh na keejai ros jameh na deejai dos nirmal nirbaan pad cheenh leejai.
jasrath raai nand raajaa meraa raam chand pranavai naamaa tat ras amrit peejai.

Plain meaning: Harbour no resentment in the mind and do not blame the messenger of death; recognise the pure state free from desire. Namdev prays: drink the nectar of Naam, the essential sweetness; for me, this is King Ram Chand, son of King Dasarath.

Reference: Ramkali Ghar 2, Bhagat Namdev Ji, Panna 973. Complete stanza 4; read with the Rahao and all four stanzas. The English follows Darpan’s interpretation of the final line. [10]

Professor Sahib Singh Ji refuses to erase the difficulty. Naming the father identifies a particular figure; he therefore rejects treating the whole expression as merely another unrestricted name for the Creator. He also rejects “the king of Dasarath’s son”, because the grammar does not supply that possessive relationship. He reads the line as making Naam the devotee’s Ram Chand, continuing the Shabad’s direction away from dependence on religious acts and towards remembrance. [10]

I follow that reading because it accounts for the named figure while keeping the final stanza connected to the Rahao and the preceding argument. It is a reasoned interpretation, open to examination. The name cannot fairly be suppressed, but neither can it be detached from the Shabad and made sufficient proof that image worship governs Sikh practice.

Returning to the prayer we sing

Bhagat Dhanna Ji’s Shabad at Panna 695 brings us back to the Aarti sequence and to a quieter part of the question:

ਗੋਪਾਲ ਤੇਰਾ ਆਰਤਾ ॥
ਜੋ ਜਨ ਤੁਮਰੀ ਭਗਤਿ ਕਰੰਤੇ ਤਿਨ ਕੇ ਕਾਜ ਸਵਾਰਤਾ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥

Simple reading: gopaal teraa aartaa.
jo jan tumree bhagat karante tin ke kaaj savaartaa.

Plain meaning: O Sustainer of the world, I am Your needy petitioner. You bring to fulfilment the affairs of those who practise devotion to You.

Reference: Dhanasari, Bhagat Dhanna Ji, Panna 695. Complete Rahao; read with both stanzas. [11]

SriGranth’s displayed English presents this as lamp-lit worship; Darpan reads aartaa as the needy or distressed person making the requests that follow. These requests concern food, clothing, livestock and household life. Darpan distinguishes aartaa from aartee and explains their association through the resemblance between the words. It also defends asking the Creator for daily needs. [11]

That distinction helps us understand what we sing. It gives no grounds for treating the prayer as an embarrassment or assuming that those who recite it have understood nothing. The Shabad brings dependence on the Creator into ordinary life. Its place in a recited sequence does not turn its requests into a lamp ceremony, and understanding its meaning allows its prayer to be heard more fully.

The practical responsibility belongs with readers and with those who teach and sing Gurbani in Gurdwaras. We should explain the words, read the Rahao with the whole Shabad, and distinguish the text from a commentator’s additions. Where translations differ, the difference should be examined openly.

These passages give no warrant for dismissing Bhagat Bani because of the Bhagats’ backgrounds, or for imposing image worship on Sikhi through vocabulary and stories. They direct us towards Naam, devotion and the Creator’s grace. Darpan helps us examine how that teaching unfolds; its explanations remain answerable to the Shabad, as ours do. Bhagat Bani already stands within the Guru we bow before. Our task is to listen and learn under that authority.

Related work

To follow: Why Sikhi Rejects Worship through Images and Sacred Rivers, the companion discussion of published claims about images, offerings and sacred rivers.

Verify

Quoted passages, in Panna order: Aasa, Bhagat Dhanna Ji, stanza 4, Panna 487; Aasa, Mahalla 5, Guru Arjan Sahib Ji, consecutive stanzas 3 and 4, Pannas 487 and 488; Dhanasari, Bhagat Ravidas Ji, complete Rahao, Panna 694; Dhanasari, Bhagat Sain Ji, stanza 1, Panna 695; Dhanasari, Bhagat Dhanna Ji, complete Rahao, Panna 695; Suhi, Mahalla 5, Guru Arjan Sahib Ji, stanza 2, Panna 739; Ramkali Ghar 2, Bhagat Namdev Ji, stanza 4, Panna 973. Read each complete Shabad.

Additional passages discussed through paraphrase, in Panna order: Aasa, Bhagat Ravidas Ji, the Shabad referring to Namdev Ji and milk, Panna 487; Dhanasari, Mahalla 1, Guru Nanak Sahib Ji’s Aarti, Panna 663; Dhanasari, Bhagat Peepa Ji and Bhagat Trilochan Ji, Panna 695; Bhairau Ghar 1, Bhagat Namdev Ji’s milk Shabad, Panna 1163; Prabhati, Bhagat Kabir Ji’s Aarti, Panna 1350. The remaining stanzas and Rahaos of quoted Shabads are also discussed in English.

“Stanza” means a numbered verse unit. Bhai Gurdas Ji’s Vaar 10, pauri 13, is discussed separately as a narrative source. Gurmukhi remains primary; the Roman readings and English meanings are learning aids.

Cross-check

Checked to 15 September 2026. The complete relevant Shabads were read in SriGranth and Professor Sahib Singh Ji’s Darpan, with the displayed Gurmukhi checked for the quoted passages. The Panna 739 quotation follows the text at its own placement, rather than the differing spelling in Darpan’s quotation within the Panna 487 commentary. The Aarti-sequence details were checked in the Guru Granth Sahib Project. Bhai Gurdas Ji’s complete pauri was read in the online reproduction identified below. No printed-Saroop comparison is claimed.

On 16 September 2026, Darpan’s explanations of butkaareeaa and jaataro were checked again. The Guru Granth Sahib Project and Dekho Ji links were also reopened.

The original publication and identity of the writer quoted by Darpan have not been independently established. This essay examines the objections as Darpan records them. It does not attribute them to a named historical writer or claim to settle the history of the recited Aarti sequence.

Correction note

PanthSeva will correct errors in Gurmukhi, Roman reading, plain meaning, attribution, Panna reference and factual claims publicly, calmly and with a dated note.

Source note

[1] The Aarti sequences. The Guru Granth Sahib Project distinguishes the Amrit Keertan list, citing the Khalsa Brothers edition, Amritsar, 2011, pages 835–838, from a list based on recitation at Sri Darbar Sahib on 15 December 2019. Both contain the five Shabads examined here; both include further passages. The date and manner of the sequence’s development are not established there. Aarti introduction.

[2] Bhagat Ravidas Ji. Dhanasari, Panna 694, complete Shabad. “Murari” is retained as the address in the reading aid and meaning; Darpan explains its use here for the Creator. SriGranth, Panna 694; Darpan, Panna 694.

[3] Guru Nanak Sahib Ji and Bhagat Kabir Ji. The discussion of Guru Nanak Sahib Ji’s Aarti uses its Dhanasari placement at Panna 663. The Shabad also appears at Panna 13; no Gurmukhi from either placement is quoted here. Bhagat Kabir Ji’s complete Prabhati Shabad, including its Rahao and middle stanza, is at Panna 1350. Darpan, Panna 663; SriGranth, Panna 1350; Darpan, Panna 1350.

[4] Bhagat Sain Ji. Darpan’s commentary and appended objection at Panna 695; compare the English displayed by SriGranth, particularly the opening and stanza 3. The adopted English meaning is my rendering informed by Darpan, not a quotation of SriGranth’s translation. Darpan, Panna 695; SriGranth, Panna 695.

[5] Bhagat Peepa Ji and Bhagat Trilochan Ji. Their complete Dhanasari Shabads and Rahaos at Panna 695. SriGranth, Panna 695; Darpan, Panna 695.

[6] Bhagat Dhanna Ji and Guru Arjan Sahib Ji. Read Bhagat Dhanna Ji’s complete Shabad, the following Mahalla 5 Shabad extending to Panna 488, and Bhagat Ravidas Ji’s Shabad referring to Namdev Ji and milk. Darpan records the objection concerning Ramanand, caste descriptions and the Mahalla 5 heading. Its supporting references include Suhi, Mahalla 4, Panna 733; Siri Raag, Mahalla 3, Panna 67; and Siri Raag, Mahalla 5, Panna 74. These additional passages are not quoted in this essay. “Did people’s errands” and “poor Jat” follow Darpan’s explanations of butkaareeaa and jaataro. SriGranth, Panna 487; SriGranth, Panna 488; Darpan, commentary under Panna 487.

[7] Bhai Gurdas Ji. Vaar 10, complete pauri 13, in the Gurmukhi reproduction on Dekho Ji. The narrative is paraphrased here; no claim is made that the site’s English interpretation governs its meaning. The link opens the complete Vaar; scroll to pauri 13. Vaar 10.

[8] The stone and the Master. Suhi, Mahalla 5, Panna 739, the complete Shabad beginning with the Master unseen within the home. SriGranth, Panna 739; Darpan, Panna 739.

[9] Bhagat Namdev Ji’s milk Shabad. Bhairau Ghar 1, Panna 1163, complete four-stanza Shabad and Rahao. Darpan’s explanations of the father, bowl and nectar are interpretive choices and are identified as such in the body. SriGranth, Panna 1163; Darpan, Panna 1163.

[10] Bhagat Namdev Ji’s Ramkali Shabad. Panna 973, all four stanzas and Rahao, including Darpan’s discussion of the final reference to Ram Chand. The English meaning adopts the relationship Darpan explains between Naam and that reference. SriGranth, Panna 973; Darpan, Panna 973.

[11] Bhagat Dhanna Ji’s prayer. Dhanasari, Panna 695, complete two-stanza Shabad and Rahao, with Darpan’s notes on aartaa and prayer for daily needs. SriGranth’s displayed English reads the opening as lamp-lit worship; the difference is discussed in the body. SriGranth, Panna 695; Darpan, Panna 695.

Online sources accessed on 15 September 2026, with the limited rechecks recorded above on 16 September 2026. The plain-English meanings are my learning aids, informed by the cited commentary. Practical applications and arguments in this essay are not additional words in Gurbani.

Strong disagreement is welcome. Contempt is not.

Bhul chuk maaf karni Ji.

Gurjit Singh Sandhu
PanthSeva
London

Suppose a young Sikh in Britain asks an online search service who Guru Nanak Sahib Ji was and receives an answer describing him as a northern Indian religious teacher and reformer. The answer offers a setting and a description of his work. It has not yet explained why Sikhs receive him as Guru, or what he says about the source of Bani.

Historical research is necessary. My own work on Sikh institutions depends on establishing who made decisions, what powers they held and what followed. Reverence cannot supply a missing document or settle a disputed date. But an account of the Gurus’ teaching must also examine the Bani through which that teaching is given.

The Roman line is only a reading aid, not the translation. The English sentence gives the plain meaning.

Guru Nanak Sahib Ji names the source of Bani himself:

ਜੈਸੀ ਮੈ ਆਵੈ ਖਸਮ ਕੀ ਬਾਣੀ ਤੈਸੜਾ ਕਰੀ ਗਿਆਨੁ ਵੇ ਲਾਲੋ ॥

Simple reading: jaisee mai aavai khasam kee baanee taisarraa karee giaan ve laalo.

Plain meaning: As Bani comes to me from the Master, so I make it known, O Lalo.

Tilang, Mahalla 1, Guru Nanak Sahib Ji, Panna 722. Opening line only; the Shabad continues onto Panna 723. [1]

Khasam is the Master, the One. Guru Sahib speaks of receiving Bani from Him and making it known. I receive this as revelation. Whatever a reader believes about revelation, the line is direct evidence of how Guru Nanak Sahib Ji identifies the source of Bani. A historical account cannot replace that evidence with a description of his surroundings and call the source explained. [1]

The next line confronts an invading party arriving from Kabul. The Shabad names the suffering of Muslim and Hindu women and continues in praise of the One amid the destruction. Its account of Divine revelation is spoken within a judgement of what people are doing to one another. Reading it carefully brings the teaching into the history; it does not take the Guru out of the world. [1]

What the source establishes

Which source is primary depends on the question. The Bani attributed to a Guru is direct evidence of his teaching. It is not a continuous biography or a record of every event in his lifetime. A land grant may establish a transaction that a Shabad does not mention. Neither source should be made to answer a question it does not address.

Sidh Gosht makes the relationship between Guru and disciple explicit:

ਸਬਦੁ ਗੁਰੂ ਸੁਰਤਿ ਧੁਨਿ ਚੇਲਾ ॥

Simple reading: sabad guroo surat dhun chelaa.

Plain meaning: Shabad is the Guru; the consciousness attuned to it is the disciple.

Ramkali, Mahalla 1, Guru Nanak Sahib Ji, Sidh Gosht, pauri 44, Panna 943. One-line excerpt; the pauri continues. [2]

The attention described here is joined to Shabad, rather than valued simply for being steady. The pauri speaks of the Guru through the ages and of overcoming haumai, self-centredness, through Shabad. As a Sikh, I come before Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji as the present Guru. My task includes learning, prayer and accepting correction; it is not completed by explaining the words. [2]

A historian need not share that commitment to represent it accurately. A study of landholding can leave the source of revelation outside its scope.

But a writer who claims to explain Guruship cannot place the Guru’s own account of its source outside the inquiry and then present historical circumstances as the complete answer. That exclusion has already decided what may count as an explanation. Readers receive the resulting account as history, although evidence that challenges its completeness has been left unexamined. Calling that evidence theology does not repair the omission.

The same responsibility applies to me. Calling my interpretation Shabad-led does not make it correct. The wording, grammar and surrounding passage must support it. Historical or linguistic evidence may expose an error in my reading, and I must correct the error rather than defend it as an act of faith.

What changes when Bani is included

The two swords provide a particular example. The Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee’s account records Guru Hargobind Sahib Ji’s succession in 1606 and his wearing of the swords associated with Piri and Miri. It says: “Now the Sikh nation adopts both spiritual and political ways simultaneously.” The preceding paragraph already identifies him as Guru Arjan Sahib Ji’s successor and describes a change prompted by the need to resist imperial power. [3]

Read that statement beside Ramkali Ki Vaar on Pannas 966–967. Rai Balwand and Satta describe Guru Nanak Sahib Ji’s rule founded on Truth, the succession to Guru Angad Sahib Ji, and the same Light and way continuing. The Vaar’s language of rule concerns Guruship; it does not establish a territorial state or an army under Guru Nanak Sahib Ji. [3]

Read in its context, “Now” marks the policy change the account is describing; it does not show that the writer denies succession. The difficulty is allowing the start of organised armed defence to stand for the beginning of the Guru’s authority over shared Sikh life. The Vaar had already described the Guru’s rule, and the Tilang Shabad had already judged conquest. A history must explain the new means of defence under that continuing authority, rather than let the military change supply the whole explanation. The Khalsa Was Already in the Granth examines this continuity in detail. [1, 3]

The same attention to the source also limits claims made in defence of Sikhi. The Bani of Bhagat Kabir Ji, like that of Rai Balwand and Satta, is received within Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji as Gurbani under the same Guru. Bhagat Kabir Ji’s Bani uses khaalse on Panna 655. Professor Sahib Singh Ji’s Gurbani commentary, Darpan, explains it there as free, within a Shabad about loving devotion and release from the fear of death. The shared word alone does not establish that the passage describes the initiation of 1699. Nor does the later institution determine what the earlier Shabad means. [4]

Miri remains answerable to the Guru

Piri names spiritual authority; Miri concerns responsibility and authority in worldly affairs. I understand Miri as responsibility exercised under the Guru, not as an independent right to do whatever secures power. That is why the distinction between institutional change and a new source of authority matters beyond the history of the two swords.

I reject the claim that Piri without Miri becomes powerless idealism. A failure to organise protection or support someone in need belongs to the people and institutions responsible. It does not establish a defect in the Guru’s authority. Sikhs still have to build the means to act together. Prayer and devotion do not excuse leaving that work undone, while success in a political struggle cannot make an action right by itself.

The legal record provides another practical distinction. In 2016, Parliament amended the electoral provisions of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act 1925 and gave the change retrospective effect from 8 October 2003. My separate study of that law acknowledges that Sikh leaders have influenced legislation and sometimes secured changes. That does not mean Sikh institutions themselves held the final power to make, prevent or reverse those amendments. [5]

Holding an office created by that law does not, by title alone, make its holder the religious authority for Sikhs worldwide. The law establishes statutory powers. It cannot make a legislature Guru. An institution’s mandate and its actual service to people must be examined, rather than inferred from its title.

My July study examines who controls the governing law and electoral machinery, and proposes an orderly transition to representative Sikh institutions answerable to Sikhs under Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji. The transition would protect property, staff and charitable work under ordinary civil law. Asking institutions to serve better must include asking how their leaders are chosen, challenged and replaced. [5] I have not answered here how Sikh collective action should be judged by its effects on employment, education, agriculture, drugs, migration and social division in Panjab.

An account of the Gurus must bring the relevant Bani into its explanation and distinguish what the sources establish from what the writer infers. A change in military organisation, a shared word or a statutory power each tells us something particular. None can silently become a complete account of Guruship.

The young reader deserves an answer in which Guru Nanak Sahib Ji’s own words can be heard. A history that claims to explain Guruship without examining those words has ruled out evidence it was obliged to consider.

Related work

The Khalsa Stands Under the Same Guru examines visible discipline and the responsibilities it makes recognisable.

The Khalsa Was Already in the Granth examines the earlier textual and historical evidence for continuing Guruship through the developments of 1606 and 1699.

For the legal record, see Amended by Empire, Province and Parliament. Never by the Panth. Published 28 July 2026; evidence date 27 July 2026.

Read the legal study

Verify

The two Gurbani quotations are one-line excerpts: the opening of the Tilang Shabad on Pannas 722–723 and Sidh Gosht, pauri 44, on Panna 943. Ramkali Ki Vaar, pauris 1–2, on Pannas 966–967, and Bhagat Kabir Ji’s Shabad beginning on Panna 654 and ending on Panna 655 are discussed, not quoted here. Gurmukhi remains primary. My Roman readings and plain-English meanings are learning aids; the historical and institutional applications are the essay’s arguments.

Cross-check

Checked to 14 September 2026. The two quoted Gurmukhi lines and their locations were compared with SriGranth; their complete passage contexts were reviewed in Professor Sahib Singh Ji’s Darpan. The Vaar and the khaalse passage were also revisited. The quoted sentence and its surrounding context were checked in the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee’s account. The 2016 Act’s number, amended sections, assent, publication and retrospective commencement were checked in the Gazette reproduction hosted by PRS Legislative Research. The institutional proposals were compared with the cited July article, whose evidence date remains 27 July 2026. These checks are not a collation of early manuscripts or an independent dating of the compositions.

Correction note

PanthSeva will correct errors in Gurmukhi, Roman reading, plain meaning, attribution, Panna reference, date or factual claim publicly, calmly and with a dated note.

Source note

[1] The source of Bani. Tilang, Mahalla 1, Guru Nanak Sahib Ji, Pannas 722–723. The opening line is read with the complete Shabad. The next line names Kabul and a gift demanded by force. Babar is identified by the contextual commentary, not named in the Gurmukhi of this Shabad. Darpan’s complete discussion is under Panna 722.

SriGranth, Panna 722 · Panna 723 · Darpan, Panna 722

[2] Shabad as Guru. Sidh Gosht, Ramkali, Mahalla 1, Guru Nanak Sahib Ji, pauri 44, Panna 943. Darpan explains surat dhun through the settling of the speaker’s attention as the disciple of Shabad, the Guru.

SriGranth, Panna 943 · Darpan, Panna 943

[3] The two swords and the earlier Vaar. The Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee’s account supplies the succession in 1606, the two swords and the quoted sentence. The preceding paragraph acknowledges succession and describes circumstances prompting a change in policy. The criticism concerns the limits of that account of political responsibility, not an express denial of continuing Guruship. Ramkali Ki Vaar, Rai Balwand and Satta, pauris 1–2, Pannas 966–967, supplies the account of rule and continuing Guruship. The Committee page is a later historical summary; the comparison with the Vaar is the argument made here.

Delhi committee account: Guru Hargobind Sahib Ji · SriGranth, Panna 966 · Panna 967 · Darpan, Panna 966 · Darpan, Panna 967

[4] Khaalse. Sorath, Bani Bhagat Kabir Ji, the Shabad beginning on Panna 654 and ending on Panna 655. Darpan’s explanation of khaalse as free occurs under Panna 654. The closing line, rather than the complete Shabad, is quoted in the companion study, where its context is examined.

SriGranth, Panna 654 · Panna 655 · Darpan, Panna 654

[5] The legal record. Sikh Gurdwaras (Amendment) Act 2016, No. 21 of 2016: section 1(2), retrospective commencement from 8 October 2003; sections 2–3, substituting the provisos to sections 49 and 92 of the 1925 Act. Presidential assent: 5 May 2016. Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 1: 6 May 2016; the linked reproduction is hosted by PRS Legislative Research. For the wider history and proposed institutional transition, see my PanthSeva article, Amended by Empire, Province and Parliament. Never by the Panth. Published 28 July 2026; evidence date 27 July 2026. The distinction here is between legislative influence, statutory powers and religious authority, not a claim that Sikhs never influenced the law.

2016 Act: Gazette text (PRS) · PanthSeva: the legal record and proposed transition

Strong disagreement is welcome. Contempt is not.

Bhul chuk maaf karni Ji.

Gurjit Singh Sandhu
PanthSeva
London

Guru Hargobind Sahib Ji’s two swords and Guru Gobind Singh Sahib Ji’s initiation of the Khalsa were substantial changes in Sikh life. Do those changes establish a break with the earlier Gurus’ teaching, or a separate source of Sikh authority? I examine that question through Gurbani and the historical accounts, beginning with the succession described in Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji. [1, 6, 8]

The Roman line is only a reading aid, not the translation. The English sentence gives the plain meaning.

The Vaar describes the first succession in these words:

ਜੋਤਿ ਓਹਾ ਜੁਗਤਿ ਸਾਇ ਸਹਿ ਕਾਇਆ ਫੇਰਿ ਪਲਟੀਐ ॥

Simple reading: jot ohaa jugat saai seh kaaiaa fer palteeai.

Plain meaning: The Light was the same, the way was the same; the Master had only changed the body.

Ramkali Ki Vaar, Rai Balwand and Satta, pauri 2, Panna 966. One-line excerpt; the pauri continues onto Panna 967. [1]

Jot is the Guru’s Light; Jugat is the Guru’s way. The Vaar carries the account through Guru Amar Das Sahib Ji and Guru Ram Das Sahib Ji to Guru Arjan Sahib Ji upon the continuing throne. The later Sikh Rehat Maryada, the code of Sikh conduct, likewise asks Sikhs to understand all ten Gurus as one Light and one entity. The successors are received as Guru, not as followers offering revisions to an earlier teacher’s work. [1, 10]

By “already in the Granth”, I mean the teaching under which the Khalsa was called to live. Gurbani does not narrate the initiation of 1699 in advance or give an item-by-item history of the five Ks. Historical accounts are needed for those questions. Here I examine how the earlier teaching directs Sikhs to serve the One, live together and exercise responsibility towards others.

Guru Arjan Sahib Ji compiled the first Granth in 1604. Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji as received today also contains Guru Tegh Bahadur Sahib Ji’s later Bani. That Bani precedes 1699 but was not in the first compilation. The Panna references below locate passages in the received Granth; they do not date every passage to 1604. [2]

Within Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji, the Bani of the Bhagats, Bhatts, Rai Balwand and Satta is received as Gurbani under the same Guru. The attributions identify the contributors; they do not divide Gurbani into higher and lower authorities. [1, 15]

1. Authority before the two swords

The account of succession begins with Guru Nanak Sahib Ji’s rule:

ਨਾਨਕਿ ਰਾਜੁ ਚਲਾਇਆ ਸਚੁ ਕੋਟੁ ਸਤਾਣੀ ਨੀਵ ਦੈ ॥

Simple reading: naanak raaj chalaaiaa sach kot sataanee neev dai.

Plain meaning: Nanak established a rule, with Truth as its fortress and a strong foundation beneath it.

Ramkali Ki Vaar, Rai Balwand and Satta, pauri 1, Panna 966. One-line excerpt. [1]

The surrounding lines describe a canopy placed over Bhai Lehna Ji, the teaching he receives, and Guru Nanak Sahib Ji bowing before him. This is the language of Guruship, founded on Truth. It does not establish a territorial kingdom. It describes the Guru governing the life of his Sikhs, not merely advising them as separate individuals. [1]

Bhatt Nal brings rule and spiritual union together in praise of Guru Ram Das Sahib Ji:

ਰਾਜੁ ਜੋਗੁ ਤਖਤੁ ਦੀਅਨੁ ਗੁਰ ਰਾਮਦਾਸ ॥

Simple reading: raaj jog takhat deean gur raamdaas.

Plain meaning: The One gave Guru Ram Das the throne of rule and spiritual union.

Swayye Mahle Chauthe Ke, Bhatt Nal, Swayya 4, Panna 1399. Opening line. [3]

Raj names rule; Jog names spiritual union. The following lines recall the earlier Gurus and the gift of spiritual understanding. No army is specified. The praise joins authority to union with the One. Guru Nanak Sahib Ji’s response to conquest shows how the teaching addresses the exercise of worldly power. [3]

The Shabad addressed to Lalo begins by naming the source of Bani and confronting the invader:

ਜੈਸੀ ਮੈ ਆਵੈ ਖਸਮ ਕੀ ਬਾਣੀ ਤੈਸੜਾ ਕਰੀ ਗਿਆਨੁ ਵੇ ਲਾਲੋ ॥
ਪਾਪ ਕੀ ਜੰਞ ਲੈ ਕਾਬਲਹੁ ਧਾਇਆ ਜੋਰੀ ਮੰਗੈ ਦਾਨੁ ਵੇ ਲਾਲੋ ॥

Simple reading: jaisee mai aavai khasam kee baanee taisarraa karee giaan ve laalo.
paap kee janj lai kaabalahu dhaaiaa joree mangai daan ve laalo.

Plain meaning: As Bani comes to me from the Master, so I make it known, O Lalo. He has rushed from Kabul with a wedding party of sin and demands a gift by force, O Lalo.

Tilang, Mahalla 1, Guru Nanak Sahib Ji, Panna 722. Opening two consecutive lines; the Shabad continues onto Panna 723. [4]

Professor Sahib Singh Ji’s Gurbani commentary, Darpan, identifies the invader as Babar and understands the demanded gift as the rule of Hind. The wedding image exposes conquest: the invading party seizes what it demands. As the Shabad continues, Muslim and Hindu women suffer its violence; their religion and caste offer no protection. Guru Nanak Sahib Ji names what is being done to them while continuing to praise the One and speak of Divine justice. Devotion includes this judgement of the conqueror. [4]

The officials who carry out a ruler’s will are also held to account. In Malar Ki Vaar on Panna 1288, Guru Nanak Sahib Ji describes rulers as lions and their officials as dogs tormenting people. The Salok distinguishes the wisdom of Naam from trained cunning and ends with the reckoning awaiting those who do harm. Guru Amar Das Sahib Ji’s pauri on Panna 1088 similarly distinguishes recognition of Truth from possession of land and power. Holding a throne does not establish the worth of its occupant. [4]

The teaching also bears on the Sikh who gains authority. Guru Arjan Sahib Ji’s passage on Halemi Raj, the rule of humility, occurs within prayer and praise. SriGranth’s displayed English describes people no longer oppressing one another; Darpan explains the absence of torment through freedom from vices within. I follow Darpan’s contextual reading below, then consider what it asks of a Sikh entrusted with public authority:

ਹੁਣਿ ਹੁਕਮੁ ਹੋਆ ਮਿਹਰਵਾਣ ਦਾ ॥
ਪੈ ਕੋਇ ਨ ਕਿਸੈ ਰਞਾਣਦਾ ॥
ਸਭ ਸੁਖਾਲੀ ਵੁਠੀਆ ਇਹੁ ਹੋਆ ਹਲੇਮੀ ਰਾਜੁ ਜੀਉ ॥੧੩॥

Simple reading: hun hukam hoaa miharvaan daa.
pai koi na kisai ranjaanadaa.
sabh sukhaalee vutheeaa ih hoaa halemee raaj jeeo.

Plain meaning: The Merciful One’s command now prevails: no vice torments anyone who has taken shelter in Him. All who receive His mercy dwell in inward peace; humility reigns within them.

Siri Raag, Mahalla 5, Guru Arjan Sahib Ji, stanza 13, Panna 74. Complete stanza; contextual sense following Darpan. The composition begins on Panna 73. [5]

Here humility belongs to a life sheltered by the Merciful One. A Sikh entrusted with authority must show that humility in the way other people are treated. Praising release from pride means little if an office is used to satisfy it. I apply the passage to public conduct on that basis, rather than treating it as a historical description of a state. [5]

2. What changed in 1606

In Vaar 1, pauri 38, Bhai Gurdas Ji describes Guru Nanak Sahib Ji returning to Kartarpur, putting aside the recluse’s dress and teaching as a householder. The pauri places recitation, discussion and shared devotion within that settled life. This is an early Sikh account, not an eyewitness report from Guru Nanak Sahib Ji’s lifetime. [6]

The later histories published by the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee record Guru Amar Das Sahib Ji’s teaching centres and the stepwell at Goindwal. Visitors were required to share langar, the common meal. The same histories describe Guru Ram Das Sahib Ji founding the town that became Amritsar and inviting merchants and craftspeople to settle there. Guru Arjan Sahib Ji continued the work of settlement and shared institutions, completed Sri Harmandir Sahib and compiled the Granth. [6]

These undertakings required land, resources and decisions about how people lived together. They cannot be accounted for as private devotion alone. Nor were they already the armed organisation developed under Guru Hargobind Sahib Ji. The difference between them is part of the history that needs explaining.

Guru Hargobind Sahib Ji succeeded to Guruship in 1606 after Guru Arjan Sahib Ji’s martyrdom. He wore the two swords associated with Piri, spiritual authority, and Miri, authority in worldly affairs. His armed following and the Akal Takht gave organised defence and public decision-making a new institutional form. Continuity of Guruship does not make these substantial developments less real. [6]

The Committee’s account says that Guru Sahib “converted the peaceful sect into a warlike community”. It is describing a military change. As an explanation of the whole religious development, however, the phrase leaves too much out. The Vaar’s account of rule, the judgement of conquest and the earlier organisation of community life all precede the two swords. An account of 1606 needs to explain what changed without erasing that evidence. [1, 4, 6]

Committee account of Guru Hargobind Sahib Ji

Bhai Gurdas Ji’s Vaar 26, pauri 24, gives earlier evidence of questions about the changed practices. It sets the earlier Gurus’ settled instruction beside movement from place to place, imprisonment in a fort and hunting. The pauri closes by affirming that truth cannot be concealed and that Sikhs remain drawn to the Guru. It neither names nor dates the two swords. Its value here is different: an early Sikh writer presents questions about outward change while affirming the Guru. [6]

This matters beyond the description of the past. If military organisation is taken to establish a separate source of Sikh authority, political success can become its own justification. Under continuing Guruship, those who organise defence remain answerable to the teaching that had already condemned the abuse of power. A Sikh community cannot seek protection from cruelty and then permit cruelty in its own exercise of strength.

3. The teaching received in 1699

Guru Nanak Sahib Ji’s invitation to the path of love describes the commitment through which I understand the Khalsa’s initiation:

ਜਉ ਤਉ ਪ੍ਰੇਮ ਖੇਲਣ ਕਾ ਚਾਉ ॥
ਸਿਰੁ ਧਰਿ ਤਲੀ ਗਲੀ ਮੇਰੀ ਆਉ ॥
ਇਤੁ ਮਾਰਗਿ ਪੈਰੁ ਧਰੀਜੈ ॥
ਸਿਰੁ ਦੀਜੈ ਕਾਣਿ ਨ ਕੀਜੈ ॥੨੦॥

Simple reading: jau tau prem khelan kaa chaau.
sir dhar talee galee meree aau.
it maarag pair dhareejai.
sir deejai kaan na keejai.

Plain meaning: If you long to play the game of love, place your head on your palm and come into my lane. When you set foot on this path, give your head without hesitation.

Salok Vaaran Te Vadheek, Mahalla 1, Guru Nanak Sahib Ji, Salok 20, Panna 1412. Complete Salok. [7]

The opening speaks to someone who longs for love of the One. Giving the head belongs within that longing. Darpan explains the image through giving up haumai, pride and self-centredness, and concern for public approval. I cannot offer myself to the Guru while reserving the decisions in which my own importance matters most to me. [7]

Guru Arjan Sahib Ji’s Salok on Panna 1102 joins accepting death with becoming the dust of everyone’s feet. Darpan reads this as the death of haumai and the humility through which the seeker approaches the Divine. Willingness to offer the self cannot become a claim to stand above other people. [7]

The received Sikh account of Vaisakhi 1699 tells how Guru Gobind Singh Sahib Ji called for a head and five Sikhs answered. They received Amrit in the Khalsa initiation and became the Panj Pyare, the Five Beloved Ones. Guru Sahib then received initiation from them. The detailed narrative used here comes through a later historical account, not from Gurbani. I understand their response through the wholehearted commitment described in the Salok; the passage does not record or predict the ceremony. [7, 8]

The Committee’s account identifies Bhai Daya Singh Ji with a Sobti Khatri background in Lahore, and Bhai Dharam Singh Ji with a Jat background in Hastinapur. It describes Bhai Mohkam Singh Ji as a washerman from Dwarka, Bhai Himmat Singh Ji as a water-carrier from Jagannathpur, and Bhai Sahib Singh Ji as a barber from Bidar. These were people separated by place and inherited social position, receiving the same initiation. [8]

Guru Sahib’s reception of initiation from the Five deserves attention. Those who had offered themselves were entrusted to administer Amrit to him. This can be read beside the Vaar’s account of Guru Nanak Sahib Ji bowing before Bhai Lehna Ji. Conferring Guruship and receiving initiation are different acts. The point of comparison is the Guru’s way taking precedence over personal rank, not the creation of another line of personal Gurus in the Five. [1, 8]

The Khalsa gave a shared discipline to people undertaking to live the Guru’s teaching. That common life also confronted inherited caste. Guru Nanak Sahib Ji gives the governing measure in the Rahao, the central refrain, of an Aasa Shabad:

ਜਾਣਹੁ ਜੋਤਿ ਨ ਪੂਛਹੁ ਜਾਤੀ ਆਗੈ ਜਾਤਿ ਨ ਹੇ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥

Simple reading: jaanahu jot na poochhahu jaatee aagai jaat na he. Rahao.

Plain meaning: Recognise the Divine Light; do not ask about caste. In the world beyond, caste has no standing.

Aasa, Mahalla 1, Guru Nanak Sahib Ji, Panna 349. Complete Rahao, read with the Shabad. [9]

The surrounding Shabad speaks of the One who creates, gives and hears the plea of a person of any caste. The Five’s different backgrounds belong within a teaching that had already refused caste as the measure of a person. Article XXIV(n) of the Maryada requires all the initiates to share the remaining Amrit; the Network of Sikh Organisations’ guide explicitly describes drinking from the same bowl. Caste contempt afterwards contradicts the teaching and the equality accepted together. [8, 9, 10]

Equality also concerns women. Guru Nanak Sahib Ji’s Salok on Panna 473 confronts contempt for woman by recalling the relationships through which human life is sustained. The Maryada admits men and women of any country, religion or caste who embrace Sikhi and accept its requirements. Its naming provisions require Singh for boys and Kaur for girls. That shared Sikh identity is named for girls as well as boys from childhood, not only for the men who first received initiation. These are continuing provisions; they do not date every practice to 1699. [9, 10]

4. Courage and the duty to protect

Bhagat Kabir Ji’s two Saloks on Panna 1105 speak through the imagery of battle:

ਗਗਨ ਦਮਾਮਾ ਬਾਜਿਓ ਪਰਿਓ ਨੀਸਾਨੈ ਘਾਉ ॥
ਖੇਤੁ ਜੁ ਮਾਂਡਿਓ ਸੂਰਮਾ ਅਬ ਜੂਝਨ ਕੋ ਦਾਉ ॥੧॥
ਸੂਰਾ ਸੋ ਪਹਿਚਾਨੀਐ ਜੁ ਲਰੈ ਦੀਨ ਕੇ ਹੇਤ ॥
ਪੁਰਜਾ ਪੁਰਜਾ ਕਟਿ ਮਰੈ ਕਬਹੂ ਨ ਛਾਡੈ ਖੇਤੁ ॥੨॥੨॥

Simple reading: gagan damaamaa baajio pario neesaanai ghaau.
khet ju maandio soormaa ab joojhan ko daau.
sooraa so pahichaaneeai ju larai deen ke het.
purjaa purjaa kat marai kabahoo na chhaadai khet.

Plain meaning: The battle drum sounds in the sky; the target has been struck. The warrior has taken the field; now is the time to struggle. Recognise as a warrior the one who fights for the poor. Though cut to pieces and killed, that person never abandons the field.

Maru, Salok Kabir, Bhagat Kabir Ji, Panna 1105. Both Saloks in full, read with the preceding Shabad. [11]

Darpan reads the first Salok through the person standing against vices in the world’s field of struggle. In the second, it understands deen through the poor; SriGranth’s displayed English gives religion. I follow Darpan’s contextual reading here. It relates the Saloks to the preceding Shabad, where poor Bidar’s loving devotion matters more than royal hospitality. [11]

Standing beside a poor person whom a ruler disregards may mean losing that ruler’s favour. Darpan joins that courage to freedom from the vices which make a person dependent on wealth and status. Inner struggle and responsibility towards the poor belong together in this reading. It does not confine courage to private feeling or make every battle image an instruction to fight physically. [11]

Guru Tegh Bahadur Sahib Ji’s Salok holds freedom from fear together with the refusal to intimidate:

ਭੈ ਕਾਹੂ ਕਉ ਦੇਤ ਨਹਿ ਨਹਿ ਭੈ ਮਾਨਤ ਆਨ ॥
ਕਹੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਸੁਨਿ ਰੇ ਮਨਾ ਗਿਆਨੀ ਤਾਹਿ ਬਖਾਨਿ ॥੧੬॥

Simple reading: bhai kaahoo kau det nah nah bhai maanat aan.
kahu naanak sun re manaa giaanee taahi bakhaan.

Plain meaning: The person who frightens no one and fears no other: Nanak says, listen, mind, call that person spiritually wise.

Salok Mahalla 9, Guru Tegh Bahadur Sahib Ji, Salok 16, Panna 1427. Complete Salok. [11]

This is teaching before 1699, although not part of the 1604 compilation. Applied to the bearer of a kirpan, the sword carried as part of Khalsa discipline, it requires courage without bullying or revenge. Restraint must not become an excuse for leaving someone defenceless. Protection may demand shared effort and a willingness to bear a cost; neither personal pride nor the wish for an easier life can decide whether another person deserves help. [2, 11]

5. What the name and the discipline mean

The word khaalse appears in Bhagat Kabir Ji’s Bani:

ਕਹੁ ਕਬੀਰ ਜਨ ਭਏ ਖਾਲਸੇ ਪ੍ਰੇਮ ਭਗਤਿ ਜਿਹ ਜਾਨੀ ॥੪॥੩॥

Simple reading: kahu kabeer jan bhae khaalse prem bhagat jih jaanee.

Plain meaning: Kabir says: those servants who have understood loving devotion have become free.

Sorath, Bani Bhagat Kabir Ji, Panna 655. Final line of stanza 4 and of the Shabad beginning on Panna 654; read with its Rahao. [12]

The Shabad begins on Panna 654 with religious effort that has not brought the seeker beyond fear of death. Its closing line speaks of freedom through loving devotion. Darpan explains khaalse in that context as free. The earlier occurrence of the word is therefore not, by itself, evidence that the Shabad describes the later initiation. Its teaching addresses the life of the person who now bears the name. [12]

The Committee’s historical account describes the Khalsa as Sikhs belonging directly to Guru Gobind Singh Sahib Ji, without the masands, local representatives, standing between them. That account helps explain an institutional relationship. It does not replace the meaning of Bhagat Kabir Ji’s Shabad. A shared word is not proof that the two sources describe the same event. [8, 12]

The religious commitment within which the Khalsa belongs is also expressed before 1699. Guru Arjan Sahib Ji states:

ਨਾ ਹਮ ਹਿੰਦੂ ਨ ਮੁਸਲਮਾਨ ॥
ਅਲਹ ਰਾਮ ਕੇ ਪਿੰਡੁ ਪਰਾਨ ॥੪॥

Simple reading: naa ham hindu na musalmaan.
alah raam ke pind paraan.

Plain meaning: We are neither Hindu nor Muslim. Our body and life-breath belong to the One called Allah and Raam.

Bhairau, Mahalla 5, Guru Arjan Sahib Ji, stanza 4, Panna 1136. Complete stanza, read with the Shabad and its Rahao. [13]

The Rahao names the One alone as Master. The surrounding stanzas distinguish this worship from the religious observances being discussed. Body and life-breath belong to the One: that is the positive commitment accompanying the refusal of the two labels. Sikhs did not have to wait until 1699 to receive this teaching, and the Khalsa serves the One under the same Guru. [13]

That does not remove the need to explain particular requirements accurately. Guru Nanak Sahib Ji’s challenge to the janeu, the sacred thread, on Panna 471 calls for compassion, contentment, self-restraint and truth. It does not declare every visible discipline worthless. The Maru passage containing saabat soorat on Pannas 1083–1084 addresses the seeker through Muslim religious vocabulary; it is not a list of Khalsa requirements. And the prayer offering hair in humble service on Panna 500 does not establish the historical origin of keeping kesh. [14]

The Maryada states the continuing requirement of the five Ks: kesh, uncut hair; kangha, the comb; kara, the steel bracelet; kachhera, the prescribed undergarment; and kirpan, the sword. [10]

The passages examined here do not prescribe the kirpan, kara, kangha or kachhera as Khalsa initiation requirements. I cite the Maryada for that continuing prescription. Correcting a strained Gurbani explanation does not make the Guru-given discipline optional. Nor can keeping the articles excuse conduct that contradicts the teaching received with them. [10, 14]

6. The Guru who teaches the Khalsa now

Guru Ram Das Sahib Ji had already stated the Sikh’s relationship with Bani before either the two swords or the initiation of 1699:

ਬਾਣੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਗੁਰੂ ਹੈ ਬਾਣੀ ਵਿਚਿ ਬਾਣੀ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤੁ ਸਾਰੇ ॥
ਗੁਰੁ ਬਾਣੀ ਕਹੈ ਸੇਵਕੁ ਜਨੁ ਮਾਨੈ ਪਰਤਖਿ ਗੁਰੂ ਨਿਸਤਾਰੇ ॥੫॥

Simple reading: baanee guroo guroo hai baanee vich baanee amrit saare.
gur baanee kahai sevak jan maanai partakh guroo nistaare.

Plain meaning: Bani is Guru, and Guru is present in Bani. In Bani is the life-giving Amrit that the Sikh holds within. The Guru speaks Bani, the servant accepts it, and the Guru surely carries the servant across.

Nat, Mahalla 4, Guru Ram Das Sahib Ji, stanza 5, Panna 982. Complete stanza, excerpted from the Shabad and read with its Rahao. [15]

Darpan explains Amrit here through the life-giving Naam, the Divine Name, within Bani. The servant receives with faith, and the Guru carries across. The surrounding Shabad describes the devotee longing for the One, the One watching over the devotee’s breaths, and grace strengthening devotion. This care belongs to the life the Khalsa receives. The Sikh is not left to meet its demands by willpower alone. [15]

In Sidh Gosht, Guru Nanak Sahib Ji names Shabad as Guru and describes his attention, joined to Shabad, as the disciple. This relationship precedes the historical succession at Nanded. The Committee’s accounts record Guru Gobind Singh Sahib Ji including Guru Tegh Bahadur Sahib Ji’s Bani in the Granth and giving Guruship to Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji in 1708. The Guru who formed the Khalsa left it before a present Guru, not only with the memory of departed teachers. [2, 15]

The Maryada prescribes Bani recitation during the preparation of Amrit. Initiation is therefore received with the Guru’s Word, and the later life of the Sikh remains one of listening, devotion and learning. The ceremony does not provide a rival authority that can release its recipient from Bani. [10, 15]

Conclusion

The two swords and the common initiation were substantial developments in Sikh life. Their history needs to be studied, but their new forms do not establish a different Guruship. Gurbani had already addressed rule and public harm, while the earlier Gurus had organised a shared life. The teaching gives the devotion, equality and courage through which that life must be lived. The Khalsa’s common discipline belongs within this teaching.

That is why continuity matters to Sikh institutions as well as to individual devotion. A community acting in the Guru’s name cannot treat political success as sufficient justification for its actions, or leave the vulnerable unprotected while praising courage. It needs the prayer and daily engagement with Bani through which Sikhs continue to learn together. Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji remains the Guru before whom that common life is answerable.

Verify

The twelve Gurbani quotation blocks are identified beside the text and in the source notes. Read each complete unit, including continuations across Pannas and its Rahao where present. The included Bani of the Bhagats, Bhatts, Rai Balwand and Satta is received as Gurbani, not as lesser supporting evidence. Bhai Gurdas Ji’s Vaars, historical accounts and the Maryada are cited separately and are not presented as Gurbani. Gurmukhi remains primary; my Roman readings and plain-English meanings are learning aids. The connections I draw between the sources and present responsibilities are the study’s arguments, not additional words in the quotations.

Cross-check

Checked to 14 September 2026. The twelve Gurmukhi quotation blocks and their locations were compared with SriGranth, and the relevant Darpan readings were revisited. This revision also checked the Panna 1102 Salok and the Mahalla 9 heading, consulted Vaar 1, pauri 38, and Vaar 26, pauri 24, directly in the iGurbani digital reproduction, and mapped the Maryada clauses to the claims they support. The Five’s backgrounds and the two-swords account were checked against the cited Committee summaries. These checks do not constitute a manuscript collation or a comparison with a printed edition of the Vaars.

Correction note

PanthSeva will correct errors in Gurmukhi, Roman reading, plain meaning, attribution, Panna reference, date or factual claim publicly, calmly and with a dated note.

Source note

[1] The Vaar and continuing Guruship. Ramkali Ki Vaar, Rai Balwand and Satta, Pannas 966–968. Pauri 1 supplies the account of rule and bowing before Bhai Lehna Ji; pauri 2, continuing onto Panna 967, supplies Jot and Jugat. Pauris 6–8 continue through the later Gurus. Royal language is not treated as proof of territorial government. Maryada Article XVI(c) separately records the unity of the ten Gurus.

SriGranth, Panna 966 · Panna 967 · Panna 968 · Darpan, Panna 966 · Panna 967 · Panna 968 · Article XVI

[2] Compilation and succession. The Committee’s accounts of Guru Arjan Sahib Ji, Guru Tegh Bahadur Sahib Ji and Guru Gobind Singh Sahib Ji supply the received history of 1604, the addition of Guru Tegh Bahadur Sahib Ji’s Bani and succession at Nanded in 1708. These later summaries are not eyewitness records examined here. Panna 1427 is used as teaching before 1699, not as part of the 1604 compilation.

Guru Arjan Sahib Ji · Guru Tegh Bahadur Sahib Ji · Guru Gobind Singh Sahib Ji

[3] Raj Jog. Bhatt Nal, Swayya 4, Swayye Mahle Chauthe Ke, Panna 1399. Darpan identifies the giver in the opening line as the One. The passage praises Guruship and recalls the earlier Gurus; it does not specify a later military organisation.

SriGranth, Panna 1399 · Darpan, Panna 1399

[4] Conquest and rulers. Tilang, Mahalla 1, Pannas 722–723. The English meaning of the two opening lines retains the unnamed agent, Kabul, the wedding party and the gift demanded by force. Darpan’s identification of Babar and the rule of Hind is explained separately in the body. The paraphrases concern Malar Ki Vaar, Salok Mahalla 1, Salok 2 before pauri 22, Panna 1288, and Guru Amar Das Sahib Ji’s pauri 6 on Panna 1088.

SriGranth, Panna 722 · Panna 723 · Panna 1288 · Panna 1088 · Darpan, Panna 722

[5] Halemi Raj. Siri Raag, Mahalla 5, stanza 13, Panna 74, in the composition beginning on Panna 73. SriGranth’s displayed English describes the ending of oppression between people. Darpan reads the freedom from torment through vices and the rule through humility within. The English meaning follows that contextual reading; its application to public conduct is my argument.

SriGranth, Panna 73 · Panna 74 · Darpan, Panna 73 · Panna 74

[6] Community life and military change. Bhai Gurdas Ji, Vaar 1, pauri 38, and Vaar 26, pauri 24, consulted directly in the iGurbani digital reproduction. The first describes Kartarpur’s settled life; the second presents questions about changed practices and closes by affirming the Guru. It does not specify the two swords or their date. The Committee’s later accounts of Guru Amar Das Sahib Ji, Guru Ram Das Sahib Ji, Guru Arjan Sahib Ji and Guru Hargobind Sahib Ji supply the institutional examples, succession in 1606 and the two-swords narrative. The exact peaceful-to-warlike phrase is from the last account, linked beside the quotation. No precise Akal Takht foundation date is claimed.

Vaar 1, pauri 38 · Vaar 26, pauri 24 · Guru Amar Das Sahib Ji · Guru Ram Das Sahib Ji · Guru Arjan Sahib Ji · Guru Hargobind Sahib Ji

[7] Love, the offered head and humility. Salok Vaaran Te Vadheek, Mahalla 1, Salok 20, Panna 1412. Darpan explains the offered head through giving up haumai and the final instruction through giving up hesitation and concern for public approval. The additional paraphrase is Guru Arjan Sahib Ji’s Salok 1 in the group before pauri 23 of Maru Ki Vaar, Panna 1102. Darpan reads its death-language through the death of haumai and becoming the dust of all. Neither passage narrates the 1699 ceremony.

SriGranth, Panna 1412 · Darpan, Panna 1412 · SriGranth, Panna 1102 · Darpan, Panna 1102

[8] Vaisakhi and the Five. The Committee’s account of Guru Gobind Singh Sahib Ji cites Koer Singh’s Gurbilas Patshahi 10 for the call for a head. It supplies the Five’s places and social or occupational backgrounds, initiation, Guru Sahib’s reception of initiation and the relationship after rejection of the masands. Their names are given here in post-initiation form. The descriptions follow this account; caste labels are not converted into supposed trades. The underlying chronicle has not been independently collated.

Historical account

[9] Caste and women. Aasa, Mahalla 1, complete Rahao, Panna 349. The Salok on woman in Aasa Ki Vaar, Panna 473, is paraphrased in its account of human relationships, not treated as a modern legal provision. The application to equality in initiation is the essay’s argument.

SriGranth, Panna 349 · Panna 473 · Darpan, Panna 349 · Panna 473

[10] Continuing discipline. SGPC English Sikh Rehat Maryada, as reproduced at Sikhs.org: Article XVI(c), unity of the ten Gurus; Article XVII(a), Singh and Kaur in naming; Article XXIV(d), admission and the five Ks before initiation; (f), explanation and willing acceptance; (i)–(k), preparation with recitation, with the Banis listed in (j); (h) and (n), the vessel and sharing the remaining Amrit; and (p), continuing discipline and the five Ks. The Network of Sikh Organisations’ guide explicitly says that the remaining Amrit is shared from the same bowl. Article XXIV(t) concerns karah prashad, not this remaining Amrit. The later code does not date every practice to 1699.

Articles XVI and XVII · Article XXIV · NSO guide

[11] Courage and restraint. Both Kabir Saloks on Panna 1105 are quoted in full. Darpan reads the first inwardly and deen in the second through the poor, relating the Saloks to the preceding Bidar Shabad; SriGranth’s displayed English gives religion. The choice is stated in the body. Salok Mahalla 9, Salok 16, Panna 1427, gives the refusal to intimidate or be ruled by fear. Its heading begins on Panna 1426: Mahalla 9 identifies Guru Tegh Bahadur Sahib Ji, while Nanak is the shared signature of the Gurus’ Bani. Neither passage prescribes the kirpan; the application concerns its bearer.

SriGranth, Panna 1105 · Panna 1426 · Panna 1427 · Darpan, Panna 1105 · Panna 1427

[12] Khaalse. The quoted line ends the Sorath Shabad beginning on Panna 654 and concluding on Panna 655. Darpan’s explanation appears under Panna 654. Freedom through loving devotion is distinguished from the later institutional use of the name.

SriGranth, Panna 654 · Panna 655 · Darpan, Panna 654

[13] Religious belonging. Bhairau, Mahalla 5, stanza 4, Panna 1136, read with the Rahao and surrounding stanzas. Attribution follows the Mahalla 5 heading. The passage supplies earlier religious commitment, not a prediction of initiation.

SriGranth, Panna 1136 · Darpan, Panna 1136

[14] Particular disciplines. The janeu passage on Panna 471 is read with its connected Saloks. The Maru Shabad on Pannas 1083–1084 addresses the seeker through Muslim religious vocabulary; Darpan explains saabat soorat with reference to circumcision and moustache trimming. The Gujri prayer on Panna 500 offers hair in service. These passages are not prescriptions of the five Ks as Khalsa initiation requirements. This is a limit on the use of these passages, not a claim that no related word or object occurs anywhere in the Granth.

SriGranth, Panna 471 · Panna 1083 · Panna 1084 · Panna 500 · Darpan, Panna 1084 · Panna 500

[15] Bani and present Guruship. Nat, Mahalla 4, stanza 5, Panna 982, read with the complete Shabad and Rahao. Darpan explains Amrit through Naam, saare through holding within, and reception through faith. Its full explanation uses the “certainly” sense of partakh. Stanza 7 describes Divine care and grace. Sidh Gosht, Ramkali, Mahalla 1, pauri 44, Panna 943, is paraphrased. The Sikh’s response is not made the cause of Guruship. The stanza does not establish the historical reason for naming the initiation Amrit.

SriGranth, Panna 982 · Panna 943 · Darpan, Panna 982 · Panna 943

Strong disagreement is welcome. Contempt is not.

Bhul chuk maaf karni Ji.

Gurjit Singh Sandhu
PanthSeva
London

The Roman line is only a reading aid, not the translation. The English sentence gives the plain meaning.

Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji describes the succession from Guru Nanak Sahib Ji to Guru Angad Sahib Ji in these words:

ਜੋਤਿ ਓਹਾ ਜੁਗਤਿ ਸਾਇ ਸਹਿ ਕਾਇਆ ਫੇਰਿ ਪਲਟੀਐ ॥

Simple reading: jot ohaa jugat saai seh kaaiaa fer palteeai.

Plain meaning: The Light was the same, the way was the same; the Master had only changed the body.

Ramkali Ki Vaar, Rai Balwand and Satta, pauri 2, Panna 966. One-line excerpt; the pauri continues onto Panna 967. [1]

Jot is the Guru’s Light; Jugat is the Guru’s way. The verse describes the same Guruship continuing in Guru Angad Sahib Ji. The Sikh Rehat Maryada, the code of Sikh conduct, likewise asks Sikhs to understand all ten Gurus as one Light and one entity. Guru Gobind Singh Sahib Ji’s authority is therefore not that of a follower offering a later opinion on Guru Nanak Sahib Ji’s teaching. He is Guru. [1]

Their actions and circumstances differed. Continuity does not require every act of the later Gurus to have been performed by the first Guru, and this verse does not name the five Ks. The history of the five Ks needs historical evidence. But a new form of discipline does not in itself establish a break in Guruship. A Sikh receives the Khalsa’s discipline under the same authority as the teaching through which its meaning is understood.

Guru Nanak Sahib Ji’s Salok on Panna 1412 describes the commitment through which the seeker enters the path of love:

ਜਉ ਤਉ ਪ੍ਰੇਮ ਖੇਲਣ ਕਾ ਚਾਉ ॥
ਸਿਰੁ ਧਰਿ ਤਲੀ ਗਲੀ ਮੇਰੀ ਆਉ ॥
ਇਤੁ ਮਾਰਗਿ ਪੈਰੁ ਧਰੀਜੈ ॥
ਸਿਰੁ ਦੀਜੈ ਕਾਣਿ ਨ ਕੀਜੈ ॥੨੦॥

Simple reading: jau tau prem khelan kaa chaau.
sir dhar talee galee meree aau.
it maarag pair dhareejai.
sir deejai kaan na keejai.

Plain meaning: If you long to play the game of love, place your head on your palm and come into my lane. When you set foot on this path, give your head without hesitation.

Salok Vaaran Te Vadheek, Mahalla 1, Guru Nanak Sahib Ji, Salok 20, Panna 1412. Complete Salok. [2]

The invitation begins with a longing for love of the One. The offered head belongs within that longing. Professor Sahib Singh Ji’s Gurbani commentary, Darpan, explains the image through giving up haumai, pride and self-centredness, and concern for public approval. I cannot offer myself to the Guru while keeping the right to ignore the teaching whenever it becomes difficult. Love reaches the decisions I would rather keep for myself. [2]

The received Sikh account of Vaisakhi in 1699 tells how Guru Gobind Singh Sahib Ji called for a head and five Sikhs answered. They came from different regions and caste backgrounds and became the Panj Pyare, the Five Beloved Ones. After administering Amrit to them, Guru Sahib received initiation from them himself. Those who had offered themselves were entrusted with administering the same initiation to the Guru. [3]

I understand their response as a historical expression of the wholehearted commitment described in the Salok, not as an event the passage records or predicts. The Khalsa gave that commitment a common, disciplined form. Those receiving initiation were joined in a life of devotion and service, with responsibilities they would learn to carry together.

The life received in initiation

That life is sustained by the Guru’s Word. Guru Ram Das Sahib Ji explains the Sikh’s relationship with Bani in a Shabad about Divine protection and devotion:

ਬਾਣੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਗੁਰੂ ਹੈ ਬਾਣੀ ਵਿਚਿ ਬਾਣੀ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤੁ ਸਾਰੇ ॥
ਗੁਰੁ ਬਾਣੀ ਕਹੈ ਸੇਵਕੁ ਜਨੁ ਮਾਨੈ ਪਰਤਖਿ ਗੁਰੂ ਨਿਸਤਾਰੇ ॥੫॥

Simple reading: baanee guroo guroo hai baanee vich baanee amrit saare.
gur baanee kahai sevak jan maanai partakh guroo nistaare.

Plain meaning: Bani is Guru, and Guru is present in Bani. In Bani is the life-giving Amrit that the Sikh holds within. The Guru speaks Bani, the servant accepts it, and the Guru surely carries the servant across.

Nat, Mahalla 4, Guru Ram Das Sahib Ji, stanza 5, Panna 982. Complete stanza, excerpted from the Shabad and read with its Rahao. [4]

Amrit here speaks of the life-giving Naam, the Divine Name, within Bani. The Sikh receives Bani with faith, and the Guru carries the Sikh across. Later in the Shabad, the devotee longs for the One while the One watches over the devotee’s breaths. Grace strengthens the devotion. The Sikh who accepts this demanding discipline also turns to the Guru for help in living it. [4]

The Maryada brings Bani and the visible discipline together in the initiation itself. Those seeking Amrit must keep the five Ks: kesh, uncut hair; kangha, the comb; kara, the steel bracelet; kachhera, the prescribed undergarment; and kirpan, the sword. The teaching and obligations are explained before Amrit is prepared, and those seeking initiation are asked whether they accept them willingly. Japji Sahib and specified stanzas of Anand Sahib are among the Banis recited during the preparation. [5]

The remaining Amrit is shared by those receiving initiation, all drinking from the same bowl. Men and women of any country, religion or caste may receive it when they embrace Sikhi and accept its requirements. [5] Guru Nanak Sahib Ji’s teaching on Panna 349 directs us to recognise the Divine Light rather than ask about caste. [6] Suppose a Sikh shares that bowl with someone, then refuses to eat with them because of their caste. The refusal contradicts both the teaching and the equality accepted in initiation. The Sikh must welcome the other initiate to sit and eat beside them afterwards.

Keeping the five Ks does not excuse dishonesty. The Sikh must put the wrongdoing right; the failure is no reason to discard the discipline. Equally, an appeal to good conduct does not make the Guru-given discipline optional. Its authority does not depend on claiming that every wearer behaves better than every non-wearer. A Sikh receives it from the Guru, with the responsibility to learn what keeping it requires.

What others should be able to expect

The kirpan makes the responsibility to protect especially clear. Guru Hargobind Sahib Ji, who succeeded to Guruship in 1606, wore the two swords associated with Piri, spiritual authority, and Miri, authority in worldly affairs. The Khalsa’s readiness to protect belongs within that continuing responsibility. [7] It requires people who can act together, share resources and remain beside someone who cannot protect themselves. The Maryada also places organised collective service alongside individual duties. Devotion does not relieve the community of those shared obligations. [5]

Guru Tegh Bahadur Sahib Ji’s Salok 16 on Panna 1427 identifies the spiritually wise person as one who neither frightens others nor lives in fear of them. The Salok gives us a measure for the bearer of a kirpan. Strength cannot excuse bullying or revenge, while restraint cannot become an excuse for leaving another person defenceless. What protects the person in danger must matter more than our wish to appear brave, or to avoid inconvenience. [7]

After the killings at the Oak Creek gurdwara in Wisconsin in 2012, KQED’s Mina Kim asked Mandeep Singh Dhillon whether people were worried about attending Sikh prayer services. He described Sikh identity as “distinctive by design” and connected that visibility with protecting the defenceless. Asked about his own community’s safety, he spoke of its responsibility towards others. [8]

A person who recognises a Sikh should have reason to expect help. That expectation cannot be sustained by explaining our appearance while leaving the responsibility to someone else. It asks something of the person who can be recognised, and of the community that teaches and supports them. The interview gives a contemporary expression to this responsibility.

The received Sikh account records Guru Gobind Singh Sahib Ji including Guru Tegh Bahadur Sahib Ji’s Bani in the Granth. At Nanded in 1708, Guru Sahib gave Guruship to Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji. The Guru who formed the Khalsa did not leave it with only the memory of departed teachers. [3] Nor does the need for historical evidence about its discipline make Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji an incomplete Guru.

The Khalsa continues before a present Guru, with Bani governing and sustaining the life received in initiation. Its visible identity makes a shared commitment recognisable: devotion to the One, equal regard for others, and courage in their protection. Through daily engagement with Bani and prayer, Sikhs learn to keep that commitment with one another’s help. The authority under which they act remains Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

Related work

To follow: The Khalsa Was Already in the Granth, a companion study of the Granth’s account of the Guru’s authority before 1606 and of the teaching the Khalsa was called to live in 1699.

Verify

Read Ramkali Ki Vaar, pauri 2, on Pannas 966–967; Salok Vaaran Te Vadheek, Mahalla 1, Salok 20, on Panna 1412; and the complete Nat, Mahalla 4, Shabad on Panna 982 from which stanza 5 is quoted above, including its Rahao. The passages on Pannas 349 and 1427 are paraphrased. Gurmukhi remains primary; the Roman readings and plain-English meanings are learning aids.

Cross-check

Checked to 14 September 2026 against SriGranth and the relevant entries in Professor Sahib Singh Ji’s Darpan. The checks covered the three quotations and their contexts, including pauri 2’s continuation and the Nat Shabad’s Rahao. The two paraphrased passages were checked at SriGranth. The cited Committee histories, KQED interview and Maryada provisions were revisited; the common-bowl wording was compared with the NSO guide.

Correction note

PanthSeva will correct errors in Gurmukhi, Roman reading, plain meaning, attribution, Panna reference and factual claims publicly, calmly and with a dated note.

Source note

[1] Continuing Guruship. Ramkali Ki Vaar, Rai Balwand and Satta, pauri 2, Pannas 966–967. The line concerns the first succession. Darpan assists the reading of Jot and Jugat. Maryada Article XVI(c) separately records the unity of the ten Gurus; it does not govern the verse’s meaning.

SriGranth, Panna 966 · SriGranth, Panna 967 · Darpan, Panna 966 · Darpan, Panna 967 · Article XVI

[2] Love and the offered head. Salok Vaaran Te Vadheek, Mahalla 1, complete Salok 20, Panna 1412. Darpan explains the offered head through giving up haumai and concern for public approval, and kaan through hesitation. The connection with 1699 is the essay’s interpretation.

SriGranth, Panna 1412 · Darpan, Panna 1412

[3] Vaisakhi, the Granth and Nanded. The Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee’s account of Guru Gobind Singh Sahib Ji supplies the received accounts of the Five, initiation in 1699, Guru Sahib receiving initiation and succession at Nanded in 1708. Its account of Guru Tegh Bahadur Sahib Ji records the inclusion of his Bani by Guru Gobind Singh Sahib Ji. These are later historical summaries, not eyewitness records examined here.

Guru Gobind Singh Sahib Ji: historical account · Guru Tegh Bahadur Sahib Ji: historical account

[4] Bani as Guru. Nat, Mahalla 4, stanza 5, Panna 982, read with the complete Shabad and its Rahao. The English follows Darpan’s explanation of Naam held within, faith and the Guru carrying the Sikh across. Stanza 7 describes longing, Divine care and grace. The passage does not establish why the initiation was named Amrit.

SriGranth, Panna 982 · Darpan, Panna 982

[5] Initiation and shared service. Sikh Rehat Maryada, Article XXIV(d), (f), (j), (n) and (p), in the SGPC English version reproduced at Sikhs.org; the opening paragraph of Article XXIII, headed “Panth’s Status of Guruhood”, supplies the reference to organised collective service. The NSO guide explicitly describes drinking from the same bowl. These continuing requirements do not establish that every procedural detail began in 1699.

Articles XXIII–XXIV · NSO guide

[6] Caste. Aasa, Mahalla 1, Guru Nanak Sahib Ji, Panna 349. The Rahao is paraphrased and read with the complete Shabad. Its application to the shared initiation is the essay’s argument; the example is hypothetical.

SriGranth, Panna 349

[7] Protection and restraint. The Committee’s account of Guru Hargobind Sahib Ji supplies the succession in 1606 and the two-swords reference, not the governing interpretation. Salok Mahalla 9, Guru Tegh Bahadur Sahib Ji, complete Salok 16, Panna 1427, is paraphrased. The Salok does not prescribe the kirpan; its application to carrying one is the essay’s argument.

Guru Hargobind Sahib Ji: historical account · SriGranth, Panna 1427

[8] Oak Creek interview. Laird Harrison, KQED, 6 August 2012; updated 16 July 2024. The edited interview by Mina Kim with Mandeep Singh Dhillon supplies the connection between visibility and protecting the defenceless. It is a contemporary statement of responsibility, not evidence for the historical origin of the five Ks.

KQED interview

The plain-English meanings are the author’s learning aids, informed by the cited commentary. Practical applications are not additional words in Gurbani.

Strong disagreement is welcome. Contempt is not.

Bhul chuk maaf karni Ji.

Gurjit Singh Sandhu
PanthSeva
London

Today, 12 September 2026, we celebrate Prakash Purab, remembering the first installation of the compiled Granth at Sri Harmandir Sahib by Guru Arjan Sahib Ji in 1604. [3,4] It is a day to give thanks for Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji and to consider how our celebrations can help us listen with love.

When a family arranges an Akhand Paath, it needs readers for about forty-eight hours of uninterrupted recitation of Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Readers need their rota, and relatives need to know when to gather for the bhog, the concluding observance. But the arrangements are incomplete unless someone also asks how the family will listen. [2]

Guru Nanak Sahib Ji holds praise, listening and love together in Japji Sahib:

The Roman line is only a reading aid, not the translation. The English sentence gives the plain meaning.

ਗਾਵੀਐ ਸੁਣੀਐ ਮਨਿ ਰਖੀਐ ਭਾਉ ॥

Simple reading: gaaveeai suneeai man rakheeai bhaau.

Plain meaning: Sing, listen, and hold love within the mind.

Japji Sahib, pauri 5, Guru Nanak Sahib Ji, panna 2. One-line excerpt; the pauri continues. [1]

The love here is love of the One whose qualities are being sung. The pauri ends by asking the Guru for the understanding through which the One Giver of all may never be forgotten. Listening belongs within that relationship. It is more than following sounds accurately, and it is not a test of how much religious information we can remember. [1]

This matters when we speak about people whose Panjabi is limited. They should not be made to feel that their devotion counts for nothing until they can explain every line. Recitation, reverence and the wish to learn belong together. Our arrangements should help that wish grow rather than allow difficulty with language to become a permanent barrier.

What the reading requires

The Sikh Rehat Maryada, the code of Sikh conduct, is clear about Akhand Paath. Reading must be clear and correct. Hurrying so much that a listener cannot follow is irreverence; careful pronunciation may require a little longer than the usual forty-eight hours. [2]

It also expects participation by the family or congregation, with relatives and friends sharing the work. Someone unable to read should listen to a competent reader. The reader must not be left continuing alone while nobody from the family or congregation listens. [2]

A rota of listeners is therefore part of taking this responsibility seriously. It does not mean that every person must stay awake for two days and nights. A shared act of devotion can be sustained by people taking turns, each receiving different portions. Their participation need not be dismissed because no individual follows the whole reading.

We should nevertheless be honest about what the arrangement makes possible. A family member who listens on Saturday afternoon has not thereby heard the passages read on Friday night. Attending the bhog cannot supply that missing encounter. Supporting the readers and preparing langar, the shared meal, are worthwhile service, but they cannot do another person’s listening for them.

Even a well-organised relay therefore leaves a question. Is it the most suitable way for this particular family to engage with a complete reading? I do not think Akhand Paath should be the automatic or spiritually superior choice for every occasion. That judgement concerns the choice of form, not merely whether an organiser has done the job properly.

The history does not settle that choice for us. The first installation in 1604 does not itself establish the later forty-eight-hour relay. The Encyclopaedia of Sikhism says that the custom’s exact beginning is unknown; its suggested connection with eighteenth-century persecution is conjecture. Uncertain origins do not make a practice wrong. They do prevent us from claiming a precise Guru-period origin without evidence. [3]

A reading the family can return to

The Maryada also provides for Sadharan Paath: a complete reading undertaken in separate sittings. It recommends completing a full reading over one or two months, or longer. Choosing it is therefore not abandoning the complete reading. It gives that reading a different rhythm. [2]

For a family seeking to follow the whole, this may be the more suitable discipline. They can agree on a manageable time, read or listen together, and return at the next sitting to where they left off. Work, sleep and caring responsibilities need not mean that much of the reading passes while they are absent.

There can also be time, alongside the reading, to return to a complete Shabad and seek help with its meaning. A child can ask about an unfamiliar word. An older relative who knows the sound of Bani can share that familiarity with someone learning Gurmukhi. An English explanation can help without being mistaken for a replacement for the Guru’s words. These are opportunities a family can deliberately make, not benefits guaranteed by a slower pace.

Sadharan Paath can become a formality too, particularly if the family leaves it entirely to someone else. Its strength lies in the opportunity to keep returning together. The discipline is then sustained beyond the weekend or occasion that prompted it, as Bani becomes part of the household’s continuing life.

Japji Sahib gives us a reason to value that patient engagement:

ਮਤਿ ਵਿਚਿ ਰਤਨ ਜਵਾਹਰ ਮਾਣਿਕ ਜੇ ਇਕ ਗੁਰ ਕੀ ਸਿਖ ਸੁਣੀ ॥

Simple reading: mat vich ratan javaahar maanik je ik gur kee sikh sunee.

Plain meaning: Within the understanding are jewels, gems and rubies, if even one teaching of the Guru is heard.

Japji Sahib, pauri 6, Guru Nanak Sahib Ji, panna 2. One-line excerpt; the pauri continues. [1]

The line gives weight to a teaching truly received. It does not invite us to select a favourite sentence and disregard the rest of Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji. The pauri places the seeker before Divine grace and again asks for understanding that keeps the One Giver in remembrance. The patient learner has reason for hope without claiming mastery. [1]

Before the next Paath is arranged

A gurdwara should help a family decide how it will participate before settling the programme. Where Akhand Paath is chosen, listeners should be arranged as carefully as readers, and a fixed finishing time must not force rushed pronunciation. Where the family cannot participate meaningfully in an uninterrupted reading, Sadharan Paath deserves to be offered seriously.

Language support needs planning as well. Help people locate what is being read and arrange another time to consider selected Shabads and the Hukam, the passage received as the Guru’s guidance. This need not interrupt an Akhand Paath or turn it into a running commentary. It can give the family somewhere to take its questions afterwards.

A family in grief deserves particular kindness. We should help its members come before the Guru as they are, without promises that a donation or a completed reading guarantees the outcome they long for. Nor should tiredness, limited literacy or caring duties become grounds for humiliating them.

The purpose of recommending a slower reading is to make participation possible. A family should be able to leave the gurdwara knowing how to begin, whom to ask for help and how to continue. On this Prakash Purab, that could mean agreeing on a regular time to read or listen together, with help for those who need it. A beginning made today can continue after the celebrations, as the family returns to Bani with love and attention.

Verify

Both quotations are one-line excerpts from Japji Sahib, pauris 5 and 6, Guru Nanak Sahib Ji, panna 2. Read each within its complete pauri. The Roman lines and plain-English meanings are learning aids, not replacements for Gurmukhi.

Cross-check

Checked to 12 September 2026. The preceding review recorded comparison of the two quoted Gurmukhi lines with SriGranth and SearchGurbani’s indexed wording, reading of the complete pauris at SriGranth and in Darpan, and checking of the Maryada against scanned pages 17–18. SearchGurbani’s full pauri display was unavailable. For this Prakash Purab revision, the SGPC announcement confirming this year’s observance was checked and the installation reference revisited. The two quoted lines were rechecked at SriGranth; their wording and learning aids are unchanged. No independent reviewer check is claimed.

Correction note

This shorter revision separates the Amrit Vela discussion from the article published on 10 September 2026. This edition adds the Prakash Purab context omitted from the first shortened draft. The two retained quotations, Roman reading aids and English meanings are unchanged. PanthSeva will correct textual, interpretive, reference and factual errors publicly, calmly and with a dated note.

Source note

[1] Gurbani. Japji Sahib, pauris 5 and 6, panna 2. Professor Sahib Singh Ji’s Darpan assists the contextual reading; the argument remains answerable to Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji. SriGranth, panna 2 · Darpan, panna 2 · SearchGurbani, first excerpt · SearchGurbani, pauri 6.

[2] Sikh Rehat Maryada. English edition, printed pages 17–18, Articles VIII–IX, checked in a scanned reproduction. The Sadharan Paath paragraph is labelled VIII(e) in this scan. These provisions identify the recognised forms and requirements; the recommendation about a family’s choice is the essay’s argument. English Maryada, scanned reproduction.

[3] History. The Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee’s historical account supplies the installation in 1604. The uncertainty about Akhand Paath’s origins is stated in the opening “Akhand Path” encyclopaedia entry reproduced online. The appended, unreferenced account on that page is not evidence for a Guru-period origin. No fresh manuscript investigation is claimed. SGPC historical account · Opening encyclopaedia entry.

[4] Prakash Purab in 2026. The Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee’s announcement of 10 September 2026 identifies 12 September 2026 as the observance of the first Prakash Purab. This establishes this year’s observance, not the Gregorian date of the original installation in 1604. SGPC anniversary announcement.

Earlier version: “The Paath Is Going On. The Listening Is Not.”, PanthSeva, 10 September 2026. Original published article.

Strong disagreement is welcome. Contempt is not.

Bhul chuk maaf karni Ji.

Gurjit Singh Sandhu
PanthSeva
London

A modern Akhand Paath normally runs for about forty-eight hours. Readers take turns, and listeners are meant to take turns too. That keeps the reading unbroken. It does not mean that anyone has heard and understood the whole reading. Gurbani asks us to notice that difference.

I had almost finished this article when I realised that one sentence was shielding me from the harder question.

I had written:

“Akhand Paath itself is not the problem.”

It sounded careful. It allowed me to criticise the way Akhand Paath is sometimes arranged without examining whether the form itself may also create a difficulty.

Then one word in Japji Sahib stopped me:

ਗਾਵੀਐ ਸੁਣੀਐ ਮਨਿ ਰਖੀਐ ਭਾਉ ॥

gaaveeai suneeai man rakheeai bhaau.

Sing, listen, and hold love within the mind.

Japji Sahib, Pauri 5, Ang 2, Guru Nanak Sahib Ji. This is one line from the pauri; the pauri continues.

The word was:

ਸੁਣੀਐ

suneeai.

Listen.

Guru Nanak Sahib Ji does not stop when the sound is made. The line moves from singing to listening, and from listening to something being held within the mind in love.

That made me ask a simple question.

Who listens?

I do not mean who attends when the Paath begins, who makes the donation, who provides the langar or who returns for the bhog at the end.

I mean who listens to the reading itself.

What is continuous?

The official English Sikh Rehat Maryada currently hosted by the SGPC says that an Akhand Paath takes approximately forty-eight hours. That is the recognised modern form: about two days and two nights of uninterrupted reading, carried by several readers taking turns.

The Maryada does not prescribe a fixed number of readers. It does insist that the reading must be clear and correct. Reading so quickly that a listener cannot follow is described as irreverence. Proper attention must be given to pronunciation, even when that causes the reading to take a little longer.

The forty-eight hours are therefore a normal working period. They are not a sacred deadline which must be met by rushing.

No one person is expected to remain awake for the entire reading. Readers change because human beings need sleep. If the Paath is to be heard throughout, listeners must also take turns.

A relative may sit for an hour during the day. Someone else may come during the night. Another family member may listen the following morning.

Even when this is done honestly, each person hears only part of the reading.

The Paath is continuous.

No one person’s listening is.

This does not make the Paath worthless. Gurbani is not ordinary information which becomes valuable only after an English explanation has been attached to it. Its Gurmukhi form, sound, rhythm and recitation matter. A single line may steady someone in grief before that person can explain what has happened within.

But the Guru has not spoken merely so that sacred sound may continue.

The Sikh Rehat Maryada expects the family or congregation undertaking an Akhand Paath to carry it out through its own members, relatives and friends. A person who cannot read is told to listen to a competent reader. The Maryada then says that the reader must not be left carrying on alone while no member of the family or congregation is listening.

That instruction is far removed from a Paath purchased from others and collected at the end.

Neither a donation, food for the readers nor attendance at the bhog can substitute for listening. Returning at the end cannot turn the parts we missed into something we heard.

The same Maryada makes a related point when explaining Hukam. Merely lifting the covering, looking at the exposed page and leaving without taking Hukam is contrary to Gurmat. Physical nearness and a respectful glance do not replace receiving the Guru’s command.

The principle is the same. Being near the reading is not necessarily the same as coming under what is read.

An Akhand Paath can be a continuous communal act of recitation, supported by a relay of listeners. It is not one person hearing and understanding the complete reading of Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji from beginning to end.

Uninterrupted completion and complete reception are not the same thing.

What the history allows us to say

I had also assumed that the history of Akhand Paath would give a simple answer. I expected to find that one of the Gurus had established the modern forty-eight-hour form.

I did not find secure evidence for that claim.

Before Guru Arjan Sahib Ji compiled and installed the Adi Granth at Sri Harmandir Sahib in 1604, there could not have been a reading of that complete compiled volume. The installation placed the compiled Bani at the centre of Sikh life, with Baba Buddha Ji serving as its first granthi. It does not, by itself, establish the later forty-eight-hour relay.

Bhai Gurdas Ji gives us a revealing picture of Kartarpur in Vaar 1, Pauri 38. Bani is uttered. So Dar and Aarti are sung. Jap is recited at Amrit Vela. Alongside this, there is giaan gosat and charcha: discussion and vichaar.

Bhai Gurdas Ji does not carry the authority of Gurbani, and the pauri is not a full daily timetable. Yet the picture matters. Recitation, singing, listening and discussion have not been pulled apart.

Bani is not passing over a community which has organised itself not to hear.

The Encyclopaedia of Sikhism, published by Punjabi University, Patiala, says that when and how the custom of Akhand Paath began is not known. It offers a reasoned conjecture that the practice developed during the dangerous conditions of the eighteenth century, when persecution had scattered Sikhs and settled religious life could not be taken for granted. It also describes listeners coming and going, receiving different portions of Bani at different times.

Gurinder Singh Mann points to late eighteenth-century evidence of uninterrupted complete readings. The source he discusses, Guru Kian Sakhian, is dated by its editors to 1790. That gives us evidence that the practice was present by the late eighteenth century. It does not establish the precise moment when the first Akhand Paath took place.

The responsible historical conclusion is therefore modest.

Reading, singing, listening and discussing Bani belong to the Guru period. The compiled Adi Granth stood at the centre of Sikh life from 1604. The uninterrupted complete reading is securely visible later. Its exact beginning remains uncertain.

A later origin would not make the practice wrong. The Panth has developed disciplines in response to changing circumstances. If Akhand Paath grew during persecution, its history may carry courage, urgency and collective devotion. Sikhs living under threat may not have known how long they could remain safely in one place.

But that possibility opens a question rather than closing one.

Should a form shaped partly by danger and uncertainty automatically remain the normal or preferred way for settled families in London, Birmingham, Toronto, Vancouver or Amritsar to engage with the complete reading today?

History can help us ask the question, but Gurbani must govern the answer.

Amrit Vela is a beginning, not a boundary

While revising the article, another question came to me.

Is Amrit Vela only a period before dawn? Do not all twenty-four hours belong to remembrance? Are not all the hours, minutes and breaths available for Bani to enter the human mind?

The careful answer requires us to hold two things together.

Japji Sahib says:

ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਵੇਲਾ ਸਚੁ ਨਾਉ ਵਡਿਆਈ ਵੀਚਾਰੁ ॥

amrit velaa sach naau vadiaaee veechaar.

At Amrit Vela, remember the True Naam and reflect upon the Greatness.

Japji Sahib, Pauri 4, Ang 2, Guru Nanak Sahib Ji. This is one line from the pauri; the pauri continues.

Amrit Vela has a real early-morning meaning. Professor Sahib Singh Ji reads it as the dawn or pre-dawn period, when the mind may be less occupied by the noise and demands of the day.

But the value of the time does not lie in the clock alone.

Guru Nanak Sahib Ji joins the time to Sach Naam and vadiaaee veechaar: remembrance of the True Naam and reflection upon Divine greatness.

Getting up early is not the whole teaching. A person can rise before dawn and still spend the time distracted, proud, hurried or mechanically completing a duty.

The hour serves remembrance and vichaar. It does not possess spiritual force apart from them.

Gurbani then carries the direction beyond the early morning:

ਸਭੇ ਵੇਲਾ ਵਖਤ ਸਭਿ ਜੇ ਅਠੀ ਭਉ ਹੋਇ ॥
ਨਾਨਕ ਸਾਹਿਬੁ ਮਨਿ ਵਸੈ ਸਚਾ ਨਾਵਣੁ ਹੋਇ ॥੧॥

sabhe velaa vakhat sabh je athee bhau hoi.
naanak saahib man vasai sachaa naavan hoi.

When reverent awareness remains through all eight watches, every time and moment comes under it. O Nanak, when the Master dwells within the mind, the cleansing is true.

Majh Ki Vaar, Salok Mahalla 1, Guru Nanak Sahib Ji. The Salok begins on Ang 145; these closing two lines are on Ang 146.

The eight watches are the whole day and night. Amrit Vela therefore gives the Sikh a disciplined beginning. It is not meant to create one religious part of the day followed by hours of forgetfulness.

What begins before dawn must enter the morning journey, the workplace, the home, the difficult conversation, the handling of money, the exercise of power and the way another person is treated.

Guru Arjan Sahib Ji says:

ਸਾਸਿ ਸਾਸਿ ਸਿਮਰਹੁ ਗੋਬਿੰਦ ॥
ਮਨ ਅੰਤਰ ਕੀ ਉਤਰੈ ਚਿੰਦ ॥

saas saas simrahu gobind.
man antar kee utrai chind.

With every breath, remember Gobind; the anxiety within the mind departs.

Gauri Sukhmani, Ashtapadi 24, Pauri 1, Mahalla 5, Ang 295, Guru Arjan Sahib Ji. These are two lines from the pauri; the pauri continues.

This reaches beyond hours and minutes to the breath itself.

The early-morning discipline is real. Its fulfilment is not confined to the morning. Gurbani carries remembrance through all eight watches and every breath.

In that sense, every hour belongs to the One. No minute is outside Naam. No part of life is meant to stand beyond the correction of the Shabad.

This matters for the question of Akhand Paath.

A twenty-four-hour Sikh life does not mean twenty-four-hour audible recitation. Human beings sleep, work, raise children, care for parents, earn a living and meet responsibilities. Gurbani does not ask us to keep our mouths moving every second.

It asks that remembrance should not end when recitation ends.

The aim is not unbroken sound.

It is continuing answerability to the Guru.

When the clock begins to rule

Forty-eight hours can serve a useful practical purpose. It can organise the relay. It can tell readers when their turns begin. It can help a family prepare for two days and two nights of continuous reading.

The difficulty begins when the clock stops serving the Shabad and the Shabad is made to serve the clock.

A reader begins to hurry because the bhog has been announced for a fixed time. A family attends when the Paath begins, disappears for most of the reading and returns at the end. Payment, food and attendance at the conclusion come to stand in for the listening that did not happen.

Several Akhand Paaths may be accepted because readers can be supplied. But every reading also requires a listening Sangat. If an institution can provide paathis more easily than it can identify listeners, it has multiplied recitation while multiplying the absence around it.

Repeated discipline, set times and Maryada are not the problem. Sikhi needs all three. Ritualism begins when completing the form allows us to avoid what the form was meant to serve.

The final Ang is reached, so we assume the Guru has been received. The bhog takes place, so we assume the family’s duty has been completed. The clock reaches the expected time, so we assume that something spiritual has been achieved.

None of those conclusions follows automatically.

A bhog can tell us that the reading ended. It cannot tell us whether the family listened, whether Rahao was noticed, whether one line remained in the mind, or whether anything in life came under correction.

If Guru Nanak Sahib Ji were teaching in the room, would I bow, sit for a few minutes, leave while the teaching continued, and return for the final words?

The Guru before us is Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji. That makes the question more serious, not less.

Why have we accepted a pattern in which the Guru may continue speaking to an almost empty room?

A slower way back

I do not believe one writer should abolish Akhand Paath by personal decree.

It stands within the Sikh Rehat Maryada and has become part of Panthic life. When a family or Sangat undertakes it honestly, remains present through a genuine rota, supports clear readers and listens with attention, it can be a serious collective discipline. Its continuity may express a shared act of devotion even though no individual hears the complete reading.

But I no longer think it should be treated as the automatic or spiritually superior choice for every birth, death, anniversary, new home or family difficulty.

For many families, Sadharan Paath may be the more truthful way to receive the complete reading.

The Sikh Rehat Maryada recommends that a Sikh carry on a full intermittent reading and complete it over one or two months, or over a longer period. That slower form allows a family to return. People can read, sleep, work and come back the following day. They can remember where the reading had reached. There is time to pause at Rahao, ask about an unfamiliar word and allow one Shabad to remain before the next one arrives.

A child may begin to recognise the movement of the reading rather than appearing only for its beginning and end. Someone whose Panjabi is limited can use a learning aid and ask what has been read. An older relative who knows the sound of Bani may share that inheritance with someone who needs the meaning explained in English.

A slower Paath may look less impressive. There may be no intensive weekend programme and no large gathering at the end. It asks the family to keep returning after the public occasion has passed.

That may be its strength.

When a family approaches a gurdwara, the first discussion should not be limited to the date, donation and time of bhog. Someone should ask who will read, who will listen, how the family will take part, and whether Sadharan Paath would allow more honest participation.

Where Akhand Paath is chosen, a real listening rota should exist before the reading begins. Clarity should take priority over the advertised finish. If correct reading takes longer than forty-eight hours, it should take longer. The Maryada already places clear reading above speed.

Those whose Panjabi is limited should be helped to follow where the reading has reached. The Hukam should be explained. Selected Shabads should be opened for the family. No claim should be made that payment or uninterrupted completion automatically removes suffering, guarantees success or transfers spiritual benefit to someone who has not listened.

Where a family intends to attend only the beginning and the end, the gurdwara should be willing to recommend a slower Paath instead.

This is not an argument for reducing Paath. It is an argument for restoring Paath to listening, vichaar and life under the Guru.

Japji Sahib gives extraordinary weight to one teaching truly heard:

ਮਤਿ ਵਿਚਿ ਰਤਨ ਜਵਾਹਰ ਮਾਣਿਕ ਜੇ ਇਕ ਗੁਰ ਕੀ ਸਿਖ ਸੁਣੀ ॥

mat vich ratan javaahar maanik je ik gur kee sikh sunee.

Within the understanding are jewels, gems and rubies, if even one teaching of the Guru is heard.

Japji Sahib, Pauri 6, Ang 2, Guru Nanak Sahib Ji. This is one line from the pauri; the pauri continues.

This line does not place one teaching against the wholeness of Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji. The whole is Guru.

It tells us how the Guru enters the person.

One teaching must be heard deeply enough for jewels to arise within the mat, the understanding.

That is what our practice should protect.

Akhand Paath may remain where a family and Sangat can carry it honestly. It should not hide the absence of the family or Sangat. Sadharan Paath should be restored as a normal and serious way of reading Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji in full. The forty-eight-hour period should remain a practical guide, not a spiritual achievement.

And Amrit Vela should not be reduced to another sacred clock.

It gives the Sikh a disciplined beginning. Gurbani then carries that beginning into all eight watches and every breath. What is heard before dawn should enter the whole day. What is read in the gurdwara should enter the home. What passes through the ears should be held within and become conduct.

I return to the line which changed this article:

ਗਾਵੀਐ ਸੁਣੀਐ ਮਨਿ ਰਖੀਐ ਭਾਉ ॥

gaaveeai suneeai man rakheeai bhaau.

Sing, listen, and hold love within the mind.

We have worked hard to keep the Paath going. That care deserves respect. Generations of readers have preserved pronunciation, continuity and reverence. Families have turned to Bani in grief and gratitude. Gurdwaras have kept Guru Sahib at the centre of Sikh community life.

The question is whether we have left enough room for the rest of Guru Nanak Sahib Ji’s line.

The clock can tell us when the final Ang was reached.

It cannot tell us whether the Guru was heard.

Verification and sources

The Gurmukhi text, Ang references, Bani headings, Mahalla attributions and textual boundaries in this article were checked against SearchGurbani and SriGranth. Professor Sahib Singh Ji’s Guru Granth Darpan was consulted additionally for context and the plain-English senses. The renderings are learning aids. They do not replace the Gurmukhi or the need to read each pauri and Salok in its full setting.

Cross-check: Every Gurmukhi line, Ang reference and attribution in this article can be checked at SearchGurbani.com and SriGranth.org.

Correction note: If a mismatch is found in the Gurmukhi, Ang reference, Bani heading, Mahalla attribution, transliteration, English sense or historical description, PanthSeva will correct it publicly, calmly and with a dated correction note.

Source note: The reading of Amrit Vela in this article keeps both parts of the Gurbani evidence together. Japji Sahib gives an early-morning discipline joined to Sach Naam and vichaar. The Majh Ki Vaar Salok carries remembrance through all eight watches, and Sukhmani Sahib speaks of remembrance with every breath. The article therefore does not redefine Amrit Vela as a literal twenty-four-hour clock period. It argues that the practice begun there is meant to shape the whole day.

The official English Sikh Rehat Maryada currently hosted by the SGPC is used for its provisions on Hukam, Sadharan Paath and Akhand Paath. The linked PDF omits the letter (d) and labels the Sadharan Paath paragraph (e); other standard English editions label the same provision Article VIII(d). Article IX says Akhand Paath takes approximately forty-eight hours, requires clear and correct reading, allows a little longer where care requires it, expects participation by the family or congregation, and requires a listener to be present.

The historical discussion draws upon the SGPC’s account of the 1604 compilation and installation of the Adi Granth; Bhai Gurdas Ji, Vaar 1, Pauri 38; Harbans Singh, editor-in-chief, The Encyclopaedia of Sikhism, Volume I, entry “Akhand Path”, pp. 63-64; and Gurinder Singh Mann, “Sri Gur Panth Prakash: Its Text, Context, and Significance”, Journal of Sikh and Punjab Studies, volume 23, numbers 1 and 2, 2016, p. 35 and note 49.

Historical and source claims were checked to 20 August 2026.

The historical and Maryada sources identify the development and regulation of the practice. They do not govern the doctrinal judgement.

That judgement remains answerable to Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

Strong disagreement is welcome. Contempt is not.

Bhul chuk maaf karni Ji.

Gurjit Singh Sandhu
PanthSeva
London

Plain-English renderings are mine. The Roman line under each Gurmukhi line is only a reading aid. It is not the translation. The English sentence gives the plain meaning.

Summary

S. Karan Bir Singh Sidhu Ji says Guru Gobind Singh Sahib Ji created the Khalsa to unite India. He has not shown that this was the Guru’s purpose. The Khalsa’s service to India does not prove why it was created. His reply accepted that it belongs to Akal Purakh (the Timeless One, God) and Gurmat (the Guru’s teaching), but his article still gives it a national purpose. That claim needs evidence or correction. [1, 4]

Introduction

On 18 March 2026, I challenged Sidhu Ji’s article, “The Birth of the Khalsa: The Day India United in Spirit”. Sidhu Ji is a retired senior Panjab civil servant. He replied that day. I thanked him but explained why his answer did not settle my objection. [1, 4]

1. What Sidhu Ji claims

His author’s note calls Vaisakhi 1699 “India’s first conscious act of national integration”. The main text uses “deliberate” and adds “spiritual, social, and geographical”. National integration means bringing the people of a country together as one nation. [1]

His subtitle says:

“Beyond swords and ceremony, the Khalsa was Guru Gobind Singh’s living map of ‘akhand’ Bharat.”

Akhand Bharat means “undivided India”. He also writes:

“Guru Gobind Singh did not create division between Sikh and Hindu; instead, he reaffirmed the moral unity of Bharat”.

These are claims about what Guru Gobind Singh Sahib Ji intended. They go beyond saying that the Khalsa has helped people in India. [1]

Sidhu Ji later writes that the Khalsa envisioned a spiritual nationality based on shared values, not territory. That is not a plan to redraw borders. But he has not established that uniting Bharat was the Guru’s purpose. [1]

His article praises the Guru and the Panj Pyare, and gives their coming together a national purpose. The Panj Pyare are the Five Beloved Ones who first received Amrit from Guru Gobind Singh Sahib Ji on Vaisakhi 1699. Receiving Amrit is the initiation into the Khalsa. Are the Five to be understood through the Guru who called them, or through the country Sidhu Ji uses their story to explain? [1]

2. What Gurbani teaches

I examine that claim under Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Bhagat Kabir Ji says:

ਅਵਲਿ ਅਲਹ ਨੂਰੁ ਉਪਾਇਆ ਕੁਦਰਤਿ ਕੇ ਸਭ ਬੰਦੇ ॥
aval alah noor upaaiaa kudrat ke sabh bande.

ਏਕ ਨੂਰ ਤੇ ਸਭੁ ਜਗੁ ਉਪਜਿਆ ਕਉਨ ਭਲੇ ਕੋ ਮੰਦੇ ॥੧॥
ek noor te sabh jag upjiaa kaun bhale ko mande.

Before all else, the Light of Allah made the world; all beings are of His making. From the One Light the whole world arose; who, then, is good and who is bad?

The Rahao, the centre of the Shabad, continues:

ਲੋਗਾ ਭਰਮਿ ਨ ਭੂਲਹੁ ਭਾਈ ॥
logaa bharam na bhoolahu bhaaee.

ਖਾਲਿਕੁ ਖਲਕ ਖਲਕ ਮਹਿ ਖਾਲਿਕੁ ਪੂਰਿ ਰਹਿਓ ਸ੍ਰਬ ਠਾਂਈ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
khaalik khalak khalak meh khaalik poor rahio srab thaaee. Rahao.

O people, do not be lost in delusion. He is the Creator of all and is present in all creation, pervading every place.

Bibhas Prabhati, Bani Bhagat Kabir Ji Ki, Shabad 3, Pannas 1349 and 1350. The opening stanza is on Panna 1349; the complete Rahao is on Panna 1350. The Shabad continues. [2]

Bhagat Kabir Ji speaks of the whole world. We share the One as our source. Caste and religion do not make one person worth more than another. Our equality does not depend on belonging to the same country. No people or country owns that truth. [2]

That is why I understand the Five’s equality through the Guru, not through their place in an Indian nation. The Shabad gives the measure for that judgement; it is not a record of Vaisakhi 1699.

3. Why his evidence does not prove his claim

Sidhu Ji points to the different regions, castes and occupations of the Panj Pyare. Their coming together shows that the Guru’s call reached across those differences. It does not prove that Guru Sahib called them together to build an Indian nation. Sidhu Ji adds that purpose to their story. [1]

The Sikh Rehat Maryada, the code of Sikh conduct, is clear about joining the Khalsa. A man or woman of any nationality, race or social standing may receive Amrit on accepting Sikh discipline. Indian ancestry is not required. The SGPC (Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee) publishes the same rule: a person of any country who accepts Sikhi and undertakes to live by its principles may receive Amrit. [3]

Someone with no Indian ancestry does not enter the Khalsa as a lesser member. The code records the continuing Sikh discipline; it is not a record of 1699.

Sidhu Ji also says the five Ks “were not markers of separatism but reminders of moral vigilance”. The five Ks are the emblems of Khalsa discipline. Their moral demands matter. Their meaning must be explained through the Guru, not through reassurance that they pose no problem for a nation. [1]

Belonging to the Guru does not mean avoiding public life. A Sikh may serve a country, protect its people and challenge its rulers. Those actions must answer to Gurmat. A government’s wishes cannot decide a Sikh’s duty.

4. What his reply changed, and what it did not

In his reply to me, Sidhu Ji agreed that:

“the Khalsa belongs first to Akal Purakh and to Gurmat, not to any temporal or national frame.”

He explained that he meant to show how Guru Gobind Singh Sahib Ji’s universal vision had shaped the ethical life of the land. He also distinguished the shared cultural life of the subcontinent from political boundaries. I thanked him for that distinction. [4]

But describing an influence is different from claiming a founding purpose. India may have benefited from the Khalsa without being the reason for its creation.

The version retrieved on 8 September 2026 still carries the national-integration claim. Its conclusion still says:

“The Khalsa was, and forever shall be, the light of integrated India”. [1]

A reader who does not open the comments still receives the claim I challenged. Praise of the Guru does not make an unsupported claim about the Guru’s purpose true.

Agreement in a reply is not correction of an article.

Conclusion

Sidhu Ji should show the evidence that Guru Gobind Singh Sahib Ji created the Khalsa for Indian national integration, or revise the article to describe its contribution without claiming that purpose.

This does not ask Sikhs to stop caring for India. It asks a writer to distinguish service to a country from obedience to the Guru. The same rule applies in Britain, Canada and everywhere else.

Sidhu Ji has acknowledged where the Khalsa belongs. His article should now reflect it.

The Khalsa belongs to the Guru. A country may benefit from its service; it does not gain the right to decide what the Khalsa is for.

Verify

The quoted passage is stanza 1 and the complete Rahao of Bhagat Kabir Ji’s Shabad 3 in Bibhas Prabhati. Gurmukhi and Panna boundaries were checked at SriGranth; the Rahao was also checked at SearchGurbani. The English senses follow Professor Sahib Singh Ji’s Sri Guru Granth Sahib Darpan. Darpan reads aval as “before all else” and alah noor as the Light of Allah that made the world. SriGranth’s default English opens differently. My rendering follows Darpan. [2]

The quotations from Sidhu Ji’s article were checked in its author’s note, subtitle, main text and conclusion. The three comments in our exchange were checked in the search-indexed discussion page; the direct comments page did not load. [1, 4]

Cross-check

Readers can check the complete Shabad at SriGranth and SearchGurbani using Pannas 1349 and 1350. The Gurmukhi remains primary. [2]

Correction note

PanthSeva will correct any error in Gurmukhi, Panna references, headings, attribution, Roman reading lines, English sense, quotations, dates or source descriptions publicly, calmly and with a dated note.

Source note

[1] Sidhu Ji’s article. The Birth of the Khalsa: The Day India United in Spirit, The KBS Chronicle, 18 March 2026. The author’s note says “conscious”; the main text says “deliberate”. The quotations about moral unity and the closing description of the Khalsa are extracts from longer sentences. His qualification about values rather than territory is retained.

[2] Gurbani. SriGranth, Panna 1349 and Panna 1350; SearchGurbani, Panna 1350; and Professor Sahib Singh Ji’s Sri Guru Granth Sahib Darpan, entry for Panna 1349, which contains the complete Shabad.

[3] Amrit and nationality. Rehat Maryada: A Guide to the Sikh Way of Life, translated by Kanwaljit Kaur and Indarjit Singh, hosted by the Network of Sikh Organisations. Section 2, “The Baptism Ceremony”, clause (d). The corresponding SGPC provision is Sikh Rehat Maryada, Section Six, Chapter XIII, Article XXIV(d). The SGPC clause was checked in the search-indexed text; its direct page did not load during this check.

[4] Public exchange. Comments beneath the article: my objection, Sidhu Ji’s reply and my further response, all displayed as 18 March beneath the article dated 18 March 2026. The individual discussion link is also retained. The three comments in our exchange were checked in the search-indexed text; the direct discussion links did not load. No live-page screenshot was captured.

Checked to 8 September 2026.

The series title refers to Sidhu Ji’s public roles. This part examines his published writing and reply, not his private motives or his conduct in another role. The judgement remains answerable to Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

S. Karan Bir Singh Sidhu Ji is invited to reply. If he marks his reply for publication, PanthSeva will publish it in full and unedited.

Strong disagreement is welcome. Contempt is not.

Bhul chuk maaf karni Ji.

Gurjit Singh Sandhu
PanthSeva
London

Next: Agreement Is Not Correction. I examine Sidhu Ji’s use of Gurbani to praise the Ayodhya temple, and why acknowledging my objection did not correct the claim left before readers.

Gurjit Singh Sandhu | PanthSeva

The series title refers to the public roles in which S. Karan Bir Singh Sidhu Ji appears: writer, former magistrate, senior officer and adviser. Each part examines one role on its own record. Part One concerns his public use of Gurbani.

Plain-English renderings are mine. The Roman line under each Gurmukhi line is only a reading aid. It is not the translation. The English sentence gives the plain meaning.

On 4 September 2026, S. Karan Bir Singh Sidhu Ji republished his Janmashtami article. One caption still said that the Ram temple at Ayodhya was “expected to be completed by early next year”. Those words belonged to the 2023 copy. They were still there in 2026.

The caption had not been updated. Neither had the central claim.

Sidhu Ji’s article is misleading. It says Guru Arjan Sahib Ji validates the distinct work of Vishnu’s avatars, supports several paths to the same Divine reality, and joins Krishna’s stories to Gurbani as a combined guide for life. But his explanation covers stanzas one to seven, skips stanzas eight to twenty, and then gives stanza twenty-one. Among the missing stanzas is the one that tells the reader how the Divine names in the Shabad are to be understood.

This was not one hurried festival post. The article first appeared on 6 September 2023, was revised for Gita Jayanti on 22 December 2023, returned for Janmashtami in 2024 and 2025, and was republished on 4 September 2026. The argument has been offered to readers at least five times.

The verse Sidhu Ji leaves out

Sidhu Ji says limited space prevented him from explaining the whole composition. Limited space cannot justify leaving out the teaching that controls the conclusion.

ਕਿਰਤਮ ਨਾਮ ਕਥੇ ਤੇਰੇ ਜਿਹਬਾ ॥
ਸਤਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਤੇਰਾ ਪਰਾ ਪੂਰਬਲਾ ॥

kiratam naam kathe tere jihbaa.
sat naam teraa paraa poorbalaa.

The tongue speaks names formed for You. Your Sat Naam has existed from the very beginning.

Maru, Mahalla 5, stanza 20, Panna 1083, Guru Arjan Sahib Ji. These are the opening two lines of the stanza; the stanza continues.

Professor Sahib Singh Ji explains kiratam as names made by beings after seeing Divine qualities. He explains paraa poorbalaa as meaning from the very beginning. The names have meaning, but they do not define or limit the One. Sat Naam was not produced by the stories, forms or labels through which human beings speak. Sat Naam precedes them.

That is the verse Sidhu Ji leaves out.

Without it, the reader sees a list of names linked with Krishna, Rama and other avatars. With it, the reader hears Guru Sahib distinguish those formed names from Sat Naam. The omission changes what the article can support.

This argument is not new. In Ham Hindu Nahin, first published in 1898, Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha Ji gives the Hindu speaker almost the same case. The speaker points to Madhusudan, Damodar, Rikhikesh, Krishna and other names in this Shabad as evidence of avatar belief. The Sikh answer quotes stanza twenty: kiratam naam and Sat Naam.

More than a century ago, the answer to the list of avatar names was the verse Sidhu Ji now leaves out.

What the complete Shabad says

Sidhu Ji does not merely point out that Krishna-related names are present. That fact is obvious. He gives those names a Vaishnav meaning and then attributes that meaning to Guru Arjan Sahib Ji.

His own selected material already creates a problem for him. In stanza seven, he quotes:

ਅਮੋਘ ਦਰਸਨ ਆਜੂਨੀ ਸੰਭਉ ॥

amogh darasan ajoonee sanbhau.

Your Darshan never fails. You are beyond birth and self-existent.

Maru, Mahalla 5, stanza 7, Panna 1082, Guru Arjan Sahib Ji. This is the opening line of the stanza; the stanza continues.

The translation Sidhu Ji prints says the Divine “is not born” and is “self-existent”. Yet he later says Guru Sahib validates the distinct roles of Divine incarnations. He does not explain how his claim of incarnation stands with the line he has already quoted.

The omitted stanzas make the problem clearer. Stanza fourteen names the One as Nirankar, without form. Stanza fifteen says:

ਆਪੇ ਗੋਪੀ ਆਪੇ ਕਾਨਾ ॥
ਆਪੇ ਗਊ ਚਰਾਵੈ ਬਾਨਾ ॥
ਆਪਿ ਉਪਾਵਹਿ ਆਪਿ ਖਪਾਵਹਿ ਤੁਧੁ ਲੇਪੁ ਨਹੀ ਇਕੁ ਤਿਲੁ ਰੰਗਾ ॥੧੫॥

aape gopee aape kaanaa.
aape gau charaavai baanaa.
aap upaavahi aap khapaavahi tudh lep nahee ik til rangaa.

You Yourself are the gopi, the milkmaid, and You Yourself are Krishna. You Yourself graze the cattle in the forest. You create and You bring creation to an end; not even the smallest trace of its play clings to You.

Maru, Mahalla 5, stanza 15, Panna 1083, Guru Arjan Sahib Ji.

Guru Sahib does not leave Krishna standing as an independent Divine person whose surrounding theology governs the Shabad. The One is spoken of as both Krishna and the gopi. The One creates the whole creation and remains untouched by it.

The movement continues. Stanza sixteen says that no tongue can describe even one Divine quality fully. The later stanzas turn to Sadh Sangat, grace, Naam and Shabad. Then stanza twenty distinguishes the names spoken by the tongue from Sat Naam. The final stanza asks to remain among the servants of the One.

Sidhu Ji moves in the other direction. He writes that Guru Arjan Sahib Ji is “validating each avatar’s distinct role in maintaining cosmic equilibrium”. He says the Shabad shows “multiple routes to comprehending the same ultimate reality”. He closes by giving Krishna’s stories a guiding place in earthly life and Gurbani a spiritual place, calling the two “complementary” for the person he describes as a Karmayogi.

These are Sidhu Ji’s claims. They are not the conclusion of the complete Shabad.

The Shabad does not divide life into a Krishna-led worldly path and a Gurbani-led spiritual path. It does not say that avatar stories and Gurbani are two matching sources for the Sikh. It does not establish several independently authorised religious paths. Sidhu Ji adds those claims after leaving out the stanzas that govern the names.

A name appearing in Gurbani does not bring every belief attached to that name into Gurmat. Gurbani also uses Allah, Khuda, Ram, Hari, Gobind and Narayan. Each name must be heard under the complete Shabad in which Guru Sahib has placed it. The surrounding religion does not take control of the Guru’s meaning.

Sidhu Ji reverses that order. He lets the outside story decide what the Gurbani reference must mean.

Janmashtami and the claim of Divine birth

The article is offered for Janmashtami, the festival marking Krishna’s birth on the eighth lunar date. Guru Arjan Sahib Ji addresses that claim directly on Panna 1136:

ਸਗਲੀ ਥੀਤਿ ਪਾਸਿ ਡਾਰਿ ਰਾਖੀ ॥
ਅਸਟਮ ਥੀਤਿ ਗੋਵਿੰਦ ਜਨਮਾ ਸੀ ॥੧॥

sagalee theet paas ddaar raakhee.
asattam theet govind janmaa see.

All the other lunar dates are set aside, and the claim is made that Govind was born on the eighth.

The Rahao gives the teaching to hold:

ਭਰਮਿ ਭੂਲੇ ਨਰ ਕਰਤ ਕਚਰਾਇਣ ॥
ਜਨਮ ਮਰਣ ਤੇ ਰਹਤ ਨਾਰਾਇਣ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥

bharam bhoole nar karat kachraa-in.
janam maran te rahat naaraa-in. Rahao.

Misled by delusion, people make unsound claims. Narayan is beyond birth and death.

Bhairau, Mahalla 5, Ghar 1, Panna 1136, Guru Arjan Sahib Ji. The first two lines form stanza 1. The next two lines are the Rahao, the centre of the Shabad.

The Shabad closes:

ਜਨਮਿ ਨ ਮਰੈ ਨ ਆਵੈ ਨ ਜਾਇ ॥/
ਨਾਨਕ ਕਾ ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਰਹਿਓ ਸਮਾਇ ॥੪॥੧॥

janam na marai na aavai na jaai.
naanak kaa prabh rahio samaai.

The One is not born and does not die, does not come and does not go. Nanak’s Prabh remains present throughout.

Bhairau, Mahalla 5, Ghar 1, Panna 1136, Guru Arjan Sahib Ji. These are the closing two lines of the Shabad.

Professor Sahib Singh Ji’s explanation is explicit. The claim being answered is that God was born in Krishna’s form on the eighth lunar date. The Rahao answers that Narayan is beyond birth and death.

Sidhu Ji does not examine this Shabad.

He cannot answer it merely by saying that an avatar is a voluntary Divine appearance rather than an ordinary human birth. That is a Vaishnav answer. If Sidhu Ji claims Guru Arjan Sahib Ji teaches it, he must prove it from Gurbani. He has not done so.

A Sikh can wish Hindu neighbours well on Janmashtami. A Sikh can understand why Krishna’s stories matter deeply to them. None of that permits a Sikh writer to attribute Vaishnav avatar doctrine to Guru Arjan Sahib Ji.

Friendship does not require the Guru’s teaching to be changed.

The correction required

This article has now been offered to readers at least five times. It can no longer be treated as a passing phrase or a single careless festival greeting. It is a repeated public position.

The fault is clear. Sidhu Ji selects genuine Gurbani references, gives them the surrounding Vaishnav doctrine, and then presents that doctrine as Guru Arjan Sahib Ji’s validation. He leaves out stanza twenty, which tells the reader how the names are to be understood. He also leaves unanswered the Rahao in which the same Guru says Narayan is beyond birth and death.

The result is not a dependable exposition of the Shabad. It is Sidhu Ji’s proposed Sikh and Vaishnav synthesis presented with the Guru’s authority.

S. Karan Bir Singh Sidhu Ji should correct the article. He should restore the omitted teaching, withdraw the claim that Guru Arjan Sahib Ji validates avatar doctrine unless he can establish it from the complete Shabad, and identify the Krishna and Gurbani arrangement as his own proposal.

The verse left out is not a minor gap. It is the verse that decides what the names can prove.

Put it back, and Sidhu Ji’s claimed harmony is no longer the Guru’s conclusion. It is his own.

The Guru’s teaching must govern the interpretation. In Sidhu Ji’s article, it does not.

* * *

Verify

The Gurmukhi and Panna locations were checked at SriGranth and SearchGurbani.

Professor Sahib Singh Ji’s Sri Guru Granth Sahib Darpan was checked for:

· kiratam and paraa poorbalaa on Panna 1083: names made by beings after seeing Divine qualities, and Sat Naam as present from the very beginning;

· the movement from Nirankar, through Krishna and the gopi, towards grace, Naam and Shabad in stanzas fourteen to twenty;

· the Panna 1136 Shabad: the claim that God was born in Krishna’s form on the eighth lunar date, and the Rahao teaching that Narayan is beyond birth and death.

Every quotation attributed to Sidhu Ji was checked against the 4 September 2026 repost.

Gurbani quoted

ਕਿਰਤਮ ਨਾਮ ਕਥੇ ਤੇਰੇ ਜਿਹਬਾ ॥
ਸਤਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਤੇਰਾ ਪਰਾ ਪੂਰਬਲਾ ॥

Maru, Mahalla 5, stanza 20, Panna 1083, Guru Arjan Sahib Ji.

ਅਮੋਘ ਦਰਸਨ ਆਜੂਨੀ ਸੰਭਉ ॥

Maru, Mahalla 5, stanza 7, Panna 1082, Guru Arjan Sahib Ji.

ਆਪੇ ਗੋਪੀ ਆਪੇ ਕਾਨਾ ॥
ਆਪੇ ਗਊ ਚਰਾਵੈ ਬਾਨਾ ॥
ਆਪਿ ਉਪਾਵਹਿ ਆਪਿ ਖਪਾਵਹਿ ਤੁਧੁ ਲੇਪੁ ਨਹੀ ਇਕੁ ਤਿਲੁ ਰੰਗਾ ॥੧੫॥

Maru, Mahalla 5, stanza 15, Panna 1083, Guru Arjan Sahib Ji.

ਸਗਲੀ ਥੀਤਿ ਪਾਸਿ ਡਾਰਿ ਰਾਖੀ ॥
ਅਸਟਮ ਥੀਤਿ ਗੋਵਿੰਦ ਜਨਮਾ ਸੀ ॥੧॥
ਭਰਮਿ ਭੂਲੇ ਨਰ ਕਰਤ ਕਚਰਾਇਣ ॥
ਜਨਮ ਮਰਣ ਤੇ ਰਹਤ ਨਾਰਾਇਣ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
ਜਨਮਿ ਨ ਮਰੈ ਨ ਆਵੈ ਨ ਜਾਇ ॥
ਨਾਨਕ ਕਾ ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਰਹਿਓ ਸਮਾਇ ॥੪॥੧॥

Bhairau, Mahalla 5, Ghar 1, Panna 1136, Guru Arjan Sahib Ji.

Cross-check

Every Gurmukhi line, Panna reference, Bani heading, Mahalla attribution and quotation boundary can be checked at SearchGurbani and SriGranth.

Correction note

If a mismatch is found in the Gurmukhi, Panna reference, Bani heading, Mahalla attribution, Roman reading line, English sense, quotation or source description, PanthSeva will correct it publicly, calmly and with a dated correction note.

Source note

The article examined is S. Karan Bir Singh Sidhu Ji’s “Janmashtami Greetings: Lord Krishna as Vishnu Avatar in Gurbani of Guru Arjan Dev Ji”, reposted on 4 September 2026.

The publication record is: first published on 6 September 2023; revised for Gita Jayanti on 22 December 2023; reposted for Janmashtami on 25 August 2024; reposted again on 15 August 2025; and reposted on 4 September 2026. The 2025 post itself says that it is sharing the previous year’s Janmashtami piece again.

The Gurmukhi and Panna checks used SriGranth Panna 1082, SriGranth Panna 1083 and SriGranth Panna 1136. Professor Sahib Singh Ji’s Sri Guru Granth Sahib Darpan entries for Panna 1082, Panna 1083 and Panna 1136 were used for the contextual meanings described above.

Some English line renderings used by Sidhu Ji also appear in Dr Sant Singh Khalsa Ji’s translation, used by SriGranth as its default English text. This article does not accuse Sidhu Ji of inventing those phrases. The criticism concerns the stanzas he selected, the explanations he added and the conclusions he attributed to Guru Arjan Sahib Ji.

The Ham Hindu Nahin comparison follows the English text available online, in which the Hindu speaker cites the names from this Maru Shabad and the Sikh speaker answers with kiratam naam and Sat Naam. Panjabi readers are encouraged to check the original text directly.

This article judges a published argument. It makes no claim about private motive.

The doctrinal judgement remains answerable to Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

Checked to 5 September 2026.

S. Karan Bir Singh Sidhu Ji is invited to reply. If he marks his reply for publication, PanthSeva will publish it in full and unedited.

Strong disagreement is welcome. Contempt is not.

Bhul chuk maaf karni Ji.

Gurjit Singh Sandhu
PanthSeva
London

Next in The Many Faces of KBS Sidhu: The Khalsa Belongs to the Guru. I examine how Sidhu Ji placed the Khalsa inside an Indian national story and what followed when that framing was challenged.

PanthSeva editorial illustration. It is not a photograph of the New York protest.

Plain-English renderings are mine. The Roman line under each Gurmukhi line is only a reading aid. It is not the translation. The English sentence gives the plain meaning.

On a New York pavement, one man insulted the Indian flag. In India, a government with Parliament, ministries and public institutions behind it is narrowing who counts as fully Indian. The first act was ugly. The second is more dangerous, because it can turn Hindutva into law, policy and the daily terms of citizenship.

On 29 August 2026, outside Madison Square Garden in New York, a protester walked on the Indian flag. Another flag was torn. I watched the footage and understood the anger. The act was deliberate. It was meant to insult India, and it did. Union minister Kiren Rijiju responded: “Do not insult our flag and my country. It will cost you dearly.” [1]

Had the same public trampling taken place in India, it could have led to prosecution and, on conviction, imprisonment for up to three years. In New York, political flag desecration is generally protected expression. That does not make the act honourable. It means only that, by itself, it is not a crime there. [1]

Yet the longer I looked at the image, the less willing I was to stop with that act.

The man on the pavement could offend India, but he could not decide what India is. He could not write its citizenship law, direct its ministries, shape its public institutions or tell whole communities that they belong only after accepting a Hindu account of the nation. Those powers belong to government.

Once I put the two acts beside each other, my answer was clear. The BJP-led Union government’s Hindutva project is a greater danger to India than the man who trampled its flag. His insult lasted a few seconds. Government power can change the terms on which people live together for years.

But anger alone cannot be the measure. For that, I return to Bhagat Kabir Ji.

ਅਵਲਿ ਅਲਹ ਨੂਰੁ ਉਪਾਇਆ ਕੁਦਰਤਿ ਕੇ ਸਭ ਬੰਦੇ ॥

ਏਕ ਨੂਰ ਤੇ ਸਭੁ ਜਗੁ ਉਪਜਿਆ ਕਉਨ ਭਲੇ ਕੋ ਮੰਦੇ ॥੧॥

ਲੋਗਾ ਭਰਮਿ ਨ ਭੂਲਹੁ ਭਾਈ ॥

ਖਾਲਿਕੁ ਖਲਕ ਖਲਕ ਮਹਿ ਖਾਲਿਕੁ ਪੂਰਿ ਰਹਿਓ ਸ੍ਰਬ ਠਾਂਈ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥

aval alah noor upaaiaa kudrat ke sabh bande.

ek noor te sabh jag upjiaa kaun bhale ko mande.

logaa bharam na bhoolahu bhaaee.

khaalik khalak khalak meh khaalik poor rahio srab thaaee. Rahao.

First, Allah brought forth the Light; through Kudrat, all beings came to be. From the One Light the whole world arose; who then is good and who is bad? People, brothers, do not lose yourselves in delusion. The Creator is within creation and creation within the Creator, pervading every place.

Bibhaas Prabhaati, Bani Bhagat Kabir Ji Ki, Shabad 3, Pannas 1349 and 1350. The opening verse is on Panna 1349; the Rahao lines are on Panna 1350.

Bhagat Kabir Ji begins before India, before the flag and before any majority acquired the power to call itself the nation. Every person has already arisen from the One Light. The state does not give that worth. It meets it and is required to protect it.

A ruler therefore does more than offend when he places one community above another. He damages the equal human belonging that allows a country of many faiths and peoples to remain one country.

That is why the man in New York and the government in Delhi cannot be judged by the same scale. One insulted a symbol. The other possesses the power to narrow the country the symbol is meant to represent.

What the rulers say

The danger is not hidden inside a secret document. The BJP and RSS have described their idea of India in public.

The BJP says it is committed to “One Nation, One People and One Culture”. The RSS says that India belongs to Hindus and that the national identity of its people is essentially Hindu. Its own explanation allows Muslims and Christians to take part if they accept its account of common ancestry, culture and motherland. [2]

In November 2025, Mohan Bhagwat put the condition more plainly. “Only Hindus are allowed” in the Sangh, he said. Muslims and Christians may come to a shakha, he said, but “keep your separateness out”. They enter as children of Bharat Mata and as part of Hindu society. [2]

The usual reply is that Hindu is being used as a broad civilisational word, not as a narrow religious label. That reply does not solve the problem. It states it.

A Sikh may keep the gurdwara, a Muslim the mosque and a Christian the church, but the majority still claims the right to name their deeper national identity. Difference is permitted after it has been placed inside a Hindu whole.

That is not equal belonging. It is assimilation described as inclusion.

The connection with the Union government is also public. At the RSS centenary in October 2025, Narendra Modi spoke as Prime Minister and “as a swayamsevak”. He said the government was acting upon challenges identified by the RSS and praised the organisation for producing a concrete roadmap for the country. [2]

The RSS and BJP are not the same legal body, but the relationship is no invention of their critics. The Prime Minister himself has told the country where he stands and which organisation’s programme he regards as part of India’s future.

This is why I use the word Hindutva. I am not using it as an insult to Hindu people. It names a political idea which the BJP claims as cultural nationalism and which the RSS describes through Hindu Rashtra. Many Hindus reject that idea. Many BJP voters choose the party for other reasons. The issue here is the project carried through government power, not the faith or character of every Hindu citizen.

The distinction matters because Sikhs know what absorption looks like when it arrives with praise. The Gurus are honoured. Langar is admired. Sikh courage is celebrated. Then Sikhi is placed inside a Hindu civilisation and the Sikh is told that this is the deeper truth of who he is.

Praise does not answer the question of authority. Who has the right to name the Sikh: the Guru, or the political majority?

When those words acquire power

The dispute over Vande Mataram shows how quickly a national idea can become a test of conscience.

I examined the full song, its history and the 2026 law in Should a Sikh Sing Vande Mataram?. Here the song matters because it shows what happens when one tradition’s devotion is turned into a test for everyone else.

The complete official version identifies the Mother with Saraswati, Lakshmi and Durga. The Prime Minister has called the song a mantra and said it embodies devotion and spiritual dedication to Maa Bharati. Citizens who receive those words through their own faith are free to sing them. A Sikh is equally free not to. [3]

The law punishes someone who deliberately prevents the singing or disturbs the gathering. It does not make respectful silence a crime. Yet when the Congress Working Committee decided in August 2026 to continue singing only the first two stanzas, Home Minister Amit Shah called the decision anti-national and an open defiance of the law made by Parliament. He wrote in Hindi; the English is a translation. [3]

A Sikh who stands quietly has not insulted India. He has refused to use another tradition’s worship as proof of loyalty. When the government turns that boundary of conscience into suspicion, it is no longer merely honouring a song. It is telling the citizen that full belonging requires a religious act.

The same habit appeared during the 2024 general election. At a campaign rally, Narendra Modi warned that wealth would be given to “those who have more children” and to “infiltrators”, after invoking a claim about Muslims having the first right over national resources. He later said that he had not spoken in Hindu-Muslim terms. The later denial cannot erase the words the country had already heard. [4]

This matters because the speaker was not a man at the edge of politics. He was the Prime Minister seeking another term. A government teaches through the people it praises, the fears it repeats and the citizens it places under suspicion.

The same religious distinction is also written into citizenship law.

The Citizenship (Amendment) Act gives a special route to citizenship to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian migrants from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan who entered India by the end of 2014 and meet the Act’s other conditions. Muslims are excluded from that route. [5]

The government says the Act offers relief to persecuted minorities from neighbouring Islamic republics and does not remove the citizenship of any Indian Muslim. That explains the case made for the law, but it does not remove the religious line Parliament chose to draw. The Act did not create a general test of persecution and apply it to everyone. Ahmadi, Shia and other persecuted Muslim communities from the same countries receive no equivalent route.

As a Sikh, I am named on the favoured side. That does not free me from asking what has been done to the person left outside. Sikh advantage cannot make a religious preference equal. Bhagat Kabir Ji’s One Light is not divided because Parliament has placed my community in the preferred list.

The same political mood becomes more severe when accusation begins to look like punishment.

In several BJP-governed states, authorities demolished homes and shops connected with people accused after crimes, protests or communal incidents. Officials said the structures were unlawful. Families and rights groups said bulldozers were being used to punish people, often Muslims, before guilt had been proved. [6]

In November 2024, the Supreme Court said the executive could not decide guilt and punish an accused person by demolishing a home. It rejected collective punishment and required notice and due process. An unlawful structure may still be removed, but the state must act through law rather than use an accusation as its verdict. [6]

The Union government did not issue every demolition order. But these actions took place under BJP governments and within a political culture in which strength is repeatedly shown through the public humiliation of people already treated as suspect.

A house is not an abstract planning violation to the family standing outside it. It is where children sleep, medicines are kept and an elderly parent expects to spend the night. When the state arrives with a bulldozer before a court has established guilt, the message travels far beyond that building.

This is what makes the government more dangerous than the protester in New York. The protester’s reach ended with his own act. The government’s ideas can travel through speeches, Parliament, ministries, state administrations and the conduct of public authorities.

An election does not remove this danger. It gives a government authority to govern for a term. It does not make a party the owner of India or give it ownership of anyone’s conscience. Roads, welfare and public services are duties of government. They are not payment for the right to define the recipient’s religion or national identity.

The Guru’s test of rule

Guru Nanak Sahib Ji gives a severe description of rule when Dharam has been driven out of public life:

ਸਲੋਕੁ ਮਃ ੧ ॥

ਕਲਿ ਕਾਤੀ ਰਾਜੇ ਕਾਸਾਈ ਧਰਮੁ ਪੰਖ ਕਰਿ ਉਡਰਿਆ ॥

ਕੂੜੁ ਅਮਾਵਸ ਸਚੁ ਚੰਦ੍ਰਮਾ ਦੀਸੈ ਨਾਹੀ ਕਹ ਚੜਿਆ ॥

salok mahallaa 1.

kal kaatee raaje kaasaaee dharam pankh kar uddariaa.

koorr amaavas sach chandramaa deesai naahee kah charriaa.

This dark age is the knife; the rulers are butchers; Dharam has taken wing and flown. Falsehood is the moonless night; the moon of Truth is nowhere seen rising.

Majh Ki Vaar, Salok Mahalla 1, Panna 145, Guru Nanak Sahib Ji. These are the opening two lines of a six-line Salok.

I do not use this Salok as a name to throw at every politician I oppose. Guru Nanak Sahib Ji gives something more serious than an insult. The Shabad gives a test.

What happens to the people under those who rule? Are they protected equally, or divided into those who own the nation and those who must keep proving they belong? Is conscience protected, or is majority devotion turned into a loyalty test? Does law restrain power, or does punishment arrive first and legal process later?

The present government fails that test where its Hindutva idea enters public power.

By this point the pattern is no longer difficult to see. The movement that calls India essentially Hindu now speaks through a Prime Minister who also names himself an RSS swayamsevak. Its devotional language has been used to question Sikh loyalty. Its campaign rhetoric has placed Muslims beside infiltrators. Its citizenship law prefers six religions and leaves Muslims outside that route. In BJP-governed states, demolitions were used in circumstances serious enough for the Supreme Court to remind the executive that it is not judge and punisher.

Each act has its own setting, but they point in the same direction. India is being defined from the majority outward. Others may remain, but on terms they did not choose.

That is dangerous because India cannot remain a shared country if one community is treated as the owner of the nation and everyone else must belong on its terms.

I return, then, to the image.

The man in New York did something contemptible. He put the Indian flag beneath his foot. His act deserved condemnation, and he alone should answer for it.

But the flag is not the whole country. India is also the Sikh who will not sing devotion to Durga, the Muslim excluded from a religious route to citizenship, the family watching a bulldozer approach before guilt has been proved, and the Hindu who refuses to let his own faith become the state’s name for everyone.

The protester could insult those people’s flag. The government can alter their place in the country.

That is why the Hindutva government is the greater danger in the comparison before us. The man’s power ended with his own act. The government exercises power through law, administration, public institutions and national office.

Bhagat Kabir Ji’s question remains. If the whole world arose from the One Light, by what right does any majority make itself the national owner and reduce others to citizens on conditions it sets?

The boot on the flag was ugly. The deeper insult is to use the flag while weakening the equal standing of the people it is meant to represent.

The man in New York insulted India for a moment.

The rulers are breaking India in the name of unity.

Verification and sources

The Gurmukhi, Panna references, Bani headings, attributions and quotation boundaries were checked against SearchGurbani and SriGranth. Professor Sahib Singh Ji’s Sri Guru Granth Sahib Darpan was consulted additionally for contextual sense. The English passages are learning renderings. They do not replace the Gurmukhi or the need to read the complete Shabad and Salok.

Cross-check: Every Gurmukhi line, Panna reference and attribution in this article can be checked at SearchGurbani and SriGranth.

Correction note: If a mismatch is found in the Gurmukhi, Panna reference, Bani heading, attribution, Roman reading line, English sense, legal description or source account, PanthSeva will correct it publicly, calmly and with a dated correction note.

1. The New York protest and the flag: Moneycontrol, 30 August 2026, reporting the protest outside Madison Square Garden on 29 August while Mohan Bhagwat spoke inside. Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act 1971 includes public trampling of the Indian National Flag and permits imprisonment for up to three years, a fine, or both. The American constitutional principle comes from Texas v Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) and United States v Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990). Those cases concerned the American flag. Separate offences involving violence, trespass, theft or damage to another person’s property remain punishable. Union minister Kiren Rijiju’s response, including the words quoted in the article, was reported by The Economic Times, 31 August 2026.

2. The declared BJP and RSS idea of India: BJP, “Cultural Nationalism”, including “One Nation, One People and One Culture”; RSS, “Basic FAQ on RSS”, which says that the country belongs to Hindus and that national identity is essentially Hindu; Mohan Bhagwat’s November 2025 remarks reported by The Indian Express; and the Prime Minister’s RSS centenary address of 1 October 2025.

3. Vande Mataram: The full Shabad-led, historical and legal examination is in PanthSeva’s Should a Sikh Sing Vande Mataram?. The summary here is supported by the Ministry of Home Affairs order of 28 January 2026, the Prime Minister’s address of 7 November 2025, the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Act 2026, and Amit Shah’s post of 20 August 2026, in Hindi, reported by The Indian Express. The amended section punishes intentional prevention of singing or disturbance of an assembly. It does not create an offence of respectful silence.

4. The 2024 election speech: Reuters, 22 April 2024 and Reuters, 14 May 2024, reporting the Prime Minister’s words at the Banswara rally and his later denial that he had spoken in Hindu-Muslim terms.

5. Citizenship: Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019 and Citizenship (Amendment) Rules 2024, official Government of India texts.

6. Demolition as punishment: In Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures, Supreme Court of India, 13 November 2024, 2024 INSC 866; and Reuters, 13 November 2024. The Court held that the executive cannot punish an accused person by demolishing property, rejected collective punishment and issued nationwide due-process directions.

Current legal and political claims were checked to 4 September 2026.

The statutes, court judgements, political documents and news reports identify public words and actions. They do not govern the doctrinal judgement.

That judgement remains answerable to Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

Strong disagreement is welcome. Contempt is not.

Bhul chuk maaf karni Ji.

Gurjit Singh Sandhu
PanthSeva
London

Most of us trust our sight because our eyes are open. Yet a new pair of glasses can reveal how much we were missing. Gurbani asks a deeper question. What if the eyes work, the room is bright and the person is still in darkness? The Guru’s Shabad does not merely give us more to look at. It corrects the person who is looking.

Begin with Shabad

Guru Angad Sahib Ji says:

ਅੰਧੇ ਕੈ ਰਾਹਿ ਦਸਿਐ ਅੰਧਾ ਹੋਇ ਸੁ ਜਾਇ ॥
ਹੋਇ ਸੁਜਾਖਾ ਨਾਨਕਾ ਸੋ ਕਿਉ ਉਝੜਿ ਪਾਇ ॥
ਅੰਧੇ ਏਹਿ ਨ ਆਖੀਅਨਿ ਜਿਨ ਮੁਖਿ ਲੋਇਣ ਨਾਹਿ ॥
ਅੰਧੇ ਸੇਈ ਨਾਨਕਾ ਖਸਮਹੁ ਘੁਥੇ ਜਾਹਿ ॥੧॥

andhe kai raahi dasiai andhaa hoi so jaai.
hoi sujaakhaa naanakaa so kio ujjharh paai.
andhe eh na aakhee-an jin mukh lo-in naahi.
andhe se-ee naanakaa khasamahu ghuthe jaahi.

If a blind person shows the way, only another blind person follows. One who sees clearly, O Nanak, does not take that path into the wilderness. But do not call those blind who have no eyes upon their faces. The truly blind are those who wander away from the Master.

Ramkali Ki Vaar, Salok Mahalla 2, Ang 954, Guru Angad Sahib Ji.

Guru Angad Sahib Ji begins by taking spiritual blindness away from the body.

A person without physical sight is not spiritually blind simply because the eyes do not work. The deeper blindness belongs to the person who has wandered from the Khasam, the Master.

That is an uncomfortable teaching for those of us who can see.

We may read a road sign, recognise a face and notice what another person is wearing. We may see another person’s mistakes almost immediately. None of this proves that we understand what we are looking at. Eyesight can show us what is before us while haumai quietly decides what it means.

A person can read every sign in the room and still misread the room.

Ordinary life should already make us modest about our sight. Anyone who has worn the wrong prescription may know the surprise of putting on the right glasses. Leaves that had blended into one green shape suddenly appear separately. Writing becomes sharp. Faces become clearer.

The tree did not change. The person’s sight was corrected.

Colour blindness offers another limited reminder. It is not a spiritual fault and should never be used as an insult. It simply shows that two sincere people may look at the same scene and not distinguish every shade in the same way. Confidence alone does not prove that we have noticed everything there is to notice.

Gurbani carries this humility much further. The deepest question is not whether the eye works. It is whether the person remains turned towards the Master.

More light can still leave us in darkness

Guru Angad Sahib Ji says:

ਜੇ ਸਉ ਚੰਦਾ ਉਗਵਹਿ ਸੂਰਜ ਚੜਹਿ ਹਜਾਰ ॥
ਏਤੇ ਚਾਨਣ ਹੋਦਿਆਂ ਗੁਰ ਬਿਨੁ ਘੋਰ ਅੰਧਾਰ ॥੨॥

je sau chandaa ugavahi sooraj charhehi hajaar.
ete chaanan hodi-aan gur bin ghor andhaar.

Even if a hundred moons were to rise and a thousand suns appeared, with all that light there would still be deep darkness without the Guru.

Aasa Ki Vaar, Salok Mahalla 2, Ang 463, Guru Angad Sahib Ji.

A hundred moons and a thousand suns would give more light than any human eye could bear. Yet Guru Sahib says that even this would not remove the real darkness.

The modern person is often tempted to believe that ignorance is only a shortage of information. If we read more books, collect more facts, learn more science, study more history or listen to more arguments, perhaps we will finally see clearly.

Knowledge matters. Careful study can expose falsehood, prevent harm and deepen understanding. Gurbani is not asking the Sikh to become suspicious of learning.

But information is not the same as illumination.

A person may know history and use it to nourish hatred. A person may understand philosophy and become more proud of the analysing mind. A person may read Gurbani as literature while keeping its correction at a safe distance. A person may speak confidently about religion while remaining unable to recognise the need for praise, control or victory within themselves.

More light outside does not automatically remove the darkness within.

Guru Arjan Sahib Ji gives the remedy through a beautiful image:

ਗਿਆਨ ਅੰਜਨੁ ਗੁਰਿ ਦੀਆ ਅਗਿਆਨ ਅੰਧੇਰ ਬਿਨਾਸੁ ॥
ਹਰਿ ਕਿਰਪਾ ਤੇ ਸੰਤ ਭੇਟਿਆ ਨਾਨਕ ਮਨਿ ਪਰਗਾਸੁ ॥੧॥

giaan anjan gur dee-aa agiaan andher binaas.
har kirpaa te sant bheti-aa naanak man pargaas.

The Guru gave the eye-salve of spiritual understanding, and the darkness of ignorance was destroyed. Through the grace of the One, the Guru was met; O Nanak, light arose within the mind.

Gauri Sukhmani, Salok, Mahalla 5, Ang 293, Guru Arjan Sahib Ji.

I find the image of anjan, eye-salve, both comforting and difficult.

It is comforting because the Guru does not abandon the person in darkness. Correction is given.

It is difficult because the medicine is applied to an eye that already exists. The problem is not always that we have seen nothing. The problem may be the way we are using the sight we have.

We do not come to the Guru only to have our present understanding confirmed. We come to have it treated.

Sometimes the treatment is gentle. At other times, the Shabad shows us that what we called courage was anger, what we called love was possession, what we called Seva was control, or what we called defence of Sikhi was partly defence of our own importance.

This is not the Guru humiliating the Sikh. It is the Guru removing what prevents the Sikh from seeing.

Seeing Guru Sahib is not the same as receiving the Shabad

Guru Amar Das Sahib Ji says:

ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਨੋ ਸਭੁ ਕੋ ਵੇਖਦਾ ਜੇਤਾ ਜਗਤੁ ਸੰਸਾਰੁ ॥
ਡਿਠੈ ਮੁਕਤਿ ਨ ਹੋਵਈ ਜਿਚਰੁ ਸਬਦਿ ਨ ਕਰੇ ਵੀਚਾਰੁ ॥
ਹਉਮੈ ਮੈਲੁ ਨ ਚੁਕਈ ਨਾਮਿ ਨ ਲਗੈ ਪਿਆਰੁ ॥

satigur no sabh ko vekhdaa jetaa jagat sansaar.
ditthai mukat na hova-ee jichar sabad na kare veechaar.
haumai mail na chuka-ee naam na lagai piaar.

The whole world may behold the Satguru. Seeing alone does not bring liberation while the person does not reflect within the Shabad. The filth of haumai is not removed, and love for Naam does not arise.

Wadhans Ki Vaar, Salok Mahalla 3, Ang 594, Guru Amar Das Sahib Ji. These are the opening three lines of the Salok; the Salok continues.

This is difficult Gurbani for a community that can sometimes confuse physical nearness with spiritual reception.

A Sikh may enter the darbar, bow before Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji, sit respectfully and look towards the palki. These acts matter. The body should learn reverence as well as the mind.

But Guru Amar Das Sahib Ji says that seeing alone is not liberation.

Shabad-vichaar must take place. Haumai must begin to loosen. Love for Naam must arise.

The answer is not less reverence. It is reverence joined to listening, understanding and obedience.

It is possible to see Guru Sahib regularly while keeping the Shabad at a safe distance. We may hear the sound without understanding what is being said. We may bow and then return immediately to the same resentments, ambitions and habits that entered the darbar with us. We may become very protective of outward respect while avoiding the line that is asking us to change.

In that condition, we have been physically near Guru Sahib, but we have not yet allowed the Shabad near the part of us that resists correction.

This is why understanding in the gurdwara is not an optional extra. Gurmukhi must remain central, but the Sangat must also be helped to understand what is being read. For someone whose Panjabi is weak, careful translation and vichaar are not concessions. They are ways of helping that person enter what the Guru is saying.

A full darbar can still contain people who have not been given a way into the Shabad.

The answer is not to blame them. It is to teach.

Guru Nanak Sahib Ji says in Japji Sahib:

ਸੁਣਿਐ ਅੰਧੇ ਪਾਵਹਿ ਰਾਹੁ ॥
ਸੁਣਿਐ ਹਾਥ ਹੋਵੈ ਅਸਗਾਹੁ ॥

suniai andhe paavehi raahu.
suniai haath hovai asgaahu.

Through Suniai, those without spiritual sight find the path. Through Suniai, the depth of what seemed unfathomable becomes understood.

Japji Sahib, Pauri 11, Ang 3, Guru Nanak Sahib Ji. These are two lines from the six-line pauri.

Suniai is not sound merely touching the ear.

A person can hear kirtan while planning the next conversation, replaying an argument or judging the person sitting nearby. The sound is present, but attention is elsewhere.

Listening begins when the Shabad is allowed to interrupt us.

We do not come before the Guru merely to look. We come to be addressed.

What the Guru teaches us to see in another person

Guru Nanak Sahib Ji says:

ਸਭ ਮਹਿ ਜੋਤਿ ਜੋਤਿ ਹੈ ਸੋਇ ॥
ਤਿਸ ਦੈ ਚਾਨਣਿ ਸਭ ਮਹਿ ਚਾਨਣੁ ਹੋਇ ॥
ਗੁਰ ਸਾਖੀ ਜੋਤਿ ਪਰਗਟੁ ਹੋਇ ॥

sabh meh jot jot hai so-e.
tis dai chaanan sabh meh chaanan hoi.
gur saakhee jot pargat hoi.

The Light is in all; that Light is the One. By that Light, all are illuminated. Through the Guru’s teaching, the Light becomes manifest.

Sohila, Dhanaasari, Mahalla 1, Ang 13, Guru Nanak Sahib Ji. These are three lines from the third verse of the Shabad; the verse and the Shabad continue.

This is where the Guru’s correction of vision reaches our relationship with another human being.

We usually see people in pieces. We see caste, position, wealth, education, religion, politics, appearance and usefulness to us. We decide quickly who is respectable, who is difficult, who belongs, who threatens us and who can safely be ignored.

Guru Sahib does not ask us to become unable to judge conduct. Seeing the One Light in all does not mean that every action is right, every claim is true or every use of power should be accepted. Gurbani itself distinguishes truth from falsehood, Gurmat from haumai and justice from oppression.

But the person whose conduct must be challenged is still not outside the One Light.

That changes the way judgment is made.

We may oppose a claim without treating its speaker as less than human. We may resist injustice without allowing hatred to become our inner master. We may set a firm boundary while remembering that the person on the other side did not arise from a different Light.

To see the One Light in a person doing wrong is not to excuse the wrong. It is to refuse to let that wrong remake us in its own image.

Corrected vision does not remove distinction. It removes contempt from distinction.

There is another place where this vichaar becomes uncomfortable: when I am the person being seen wrongly.

Most of us know something of being reduced to one incident, one rumour, one mistake or another person’s account of our motives. My first instinct may be to explain everything, correct everyone and recover the image I believe I deserve.

Sometimes a falsehood must be answered. Silence is not always humility, especially when other people may be harmed.

But not every misunderstanding can be chased. Not every person is willing to see differently. There are moments when the attempt to control every opinion becomes another form of bondage.

Then the question changes.

Instead of asking only, “How can I make them see me correctly?”, I may need to ask, “What is the Guru showing me through this?”

Perhaps I am being shown how dependent I had become on approval. Perhaps I am learning how painful it is to be judged from partial knowledge, so that I become slower to do the same to others. Perhaps the loss of reputation is exposing how much peace I had handed over to the world’s gaze.

None of this makes the false judgment true. It does not excuse gossip or unfairness. It means that even the pain of being misunderstood can come under the Guru’s correction.

The Guru does not only correct how I see other people. The Guru corrects how I see myself while other people are looking.

What it means to see

A new pair of glasses may bring the leaves of a distant tree into focus. The tree was there before. What changed was the sight of the person looking at it.

The Guru’s correction goes deeper.

The Guru turns the Sikh back towards the Master. The Guru gives the eye-salve of spiritual understanding. The Guru joins seeing to Shabad-vichaar, opens the path through Suniai and teaches the Sikh to recognise the One Light in every person.

This is not a spiritual achievement to claim.

The moment I begin to believe that I alone see clearly, blindness may already have returned in another form. The Sikh is not the person who announces perfect sight. The Sikh is the person who remains willing to be corrected.

So the deepest question is not simply:

“Can I see?”

It is:

What is teaching me how to see?

Verification and sources

The Gurmukhi text, Ang references, Bani headings and attributions in this article were checked against SearchGurbani and SriGranth. Professor Sahib Singh Ji’s Guru Granth Darpan was consulted for the contextual senses.

On Ang 293, Professor Sahib Singh Ji reads ਸੰਤ ਭੇਟਿਆ as meeting the Guru. That is why the plain-English sense says, “Through the grace of the One, the Guru was met.”

The transliteration hodi-aan in the Ang 463 line reflects the nasal ending in ਹੋਦਿਆਂ. The Ang 13 quotation is identified as a partial verse, and the textual boundaries of the Ang 594 and Ang 3 quotations are also stated in the article.

The plain-English passages are learning renderings. They do not replace the Gurmukhi or the need to read each Salok, Shabad and pauri in its full setting.

The ordinary examples of glasses and colour vision are entry points only. They do not govern the doctrinal argument. Gurbani does.

If a mismatch is found in the Gurmukhi, Ang reference, Bani heading, attribution, transliteration or English sense, PanthSeva will correct it publicly, calmly and with a dated correction note.

Strong disagreement is welcome. Contempt is not.

Bhul chuk maaf karni Ji.

Gurjit Singh Sandhu
PanthSeva
London

Rakhri is tied in many Sikh homes with real love. That love should not be mocked. But the Sikh must still ask what is being claimed for the thread. Gurbani does not place protection, blessing or spiritual force in cotton or silk. Guru Nanak Sahib Ji gives the Sikh another thread: compassion, contentment, self-restraint, truthful conduct, Naam and praise. That thread does not break.

Begin with Shabad

ਦਇਆ ਕਪਾਹ ਸੰਤੋਖੁ ਸੂਤੁ ਜਤੁ ਗੰਢੀ ਸਤੁ ਵਟੁ ॥
ਏਹੁ ਜਨੇਊ ਜੀਅ ਕਾ ਹਈ ਤ ਪਾਡੇ ਘਤੁ ॥
ਨਾ ਏਹੁ ਤੁਟੈ ਨ ਮਲੁ ਲਗੈ ਨਾ ਏਹੁ ਜਲੈ ਨ ਜਾਇ ॥
ਧੰਨੁ ਸੁ ਮਾਣਸ ਨਾਨਕਾ ਜੋ ਗਲਿ ਚਲੇ ਪਾਇ ॥

da-i-aa kapaah santokh soot jat gandhee sat vat.
eh jane-oo jee-a kaa ha-ee ta paadde ghat.
naa eh tuttai na mal lagai naa eh jalai na jaa-e.
dhann so maanas naankaa jo gal chale paa-e.

Make compassion the cotton, contentment the yarn, self-restraint the knot, and truthful conduct the twist. If you have such a thread for the soul, O Pandit, then place it on me. This thread does not break, become stained, burn or disappear. Blessed are those, O Nanak, who go wearing such a thread.

Aasa Ki Vaar, Salok Mahalla 1, Ang 471. These are the opening lines of the Salok; the Salok continues.

This week, many Sikh families will prepare for rakhri. Sisters and brothers will meet, exchange gifts, share food and remember a relationship that began long before either of them understood religion. For some, the day carries memories of parents who are no longer here and of family homes that no longer exist. I understand why questioning the practice can feel like questioning the love itself.

But the relationship and the ritual are not the same thing.

A brother and sister do not become less loving because they ask whether a particular ceremony belongs inside Gurmat. Nor does a warm memory decide the spiritual standing of the thread tied within it. Sikhi does not test a practice by asking whether people enjoy it or whether it has been followed for many years. The Sikh asks what meaning the practice carries and whether that meaning stands under the Guru.

That is the question here.

What is the thread being asked to do?

Raksha Bandhan is practised in different ways. The Government of India’s own festival account describes it as a Hindu festival and translates the name as “the knot of protection”. In its fuller ritual form, a sister may perform aarti, apply tilak, tie the thread and pray for her brother’s health and well-being. The brother gives gifts and may promise to protect her.

Not every family follows the full form. Many Sikh families omit aarti and tilak. Some say they do not believe the thread has power at all and tie it only as a sign of affection. That difference should be acknowledged. We should not accuse every family of holding a belief they have never consciously formed.

Even so, the thread does not arrive without a meaning. It is called protective. It is tied through a ceremony. Prayers, blessings, promises and family duties gather around it. Once the thread is presented as sacred, protective, blessing-bearing or spiritually important, a religious claim is being made for it.

The Sikh must then ask whether Gurbani gives such force to a physical thread.

If the family says the thread is only decorative, then it has no spiritual power. It may be a family custom, but it is not a Guru-given Sikh practice. If protection or blessing is placed in it, the claim becomes more serious and must be tested under Gurbani.

A custom can be affectionate and still not belong to Gurmat.

What Guru Nanak Sahib Ji does with the thread

The Ang 471 Saloks speak directly about the janeu. They do not name rakhri or Raksha Bandhan. We should not pretend that they do.

They do, however, give the Sikh a clear way of judging the spiritual claim made for a thread.

Guru Nanak Sahib Ji does not merely say that the Pandit has chosen the wrong material. Guru Sahib does not recommend silk instead of cotton, the wrist instead of the neck, or a relative instead of a priest. Guru Sahib asks what a thread for the soul would actually have to be made from.

The answer is compassion, contentment, self-restraint and truthful conduct.

This is already a complete change in direction. The thread that matters is no longer an object placed upon the body. It is the life being formed under the Guru.

The next Salok exposes the physical thread more sharply. After naming the corruption that may remain hidden beneath religious appearance, Guru Sahib says:

ਹੋਇ ਪੁਰਾਣਾ ਸੁਟੀਐ ਭੀ ਫਿਰਿ ਪਾਈਐ ਹੋਰੁ ॥
ਨਾਨਕ ਤਗੁ ਨ ਤੁਟਈ ਜੇ ਤਗਿ ਹੋਵੈ ਜੋਰੁ ॥੨॥

ho-e puraanaa suttee-ai bhee fir paa-ee-ai hor.
naanak tag na tut-ee je tag hovai jor.

When it grows old, it is thrown away and another is put on. O Nanak, if the thread possessed real strength, it would not break.

Aasa Ki Vaar, Salok Mahalla 1, Ang 471. These are the closing lines of the Salok.

The word jor matters. It means strength, force or power.

A physical thread becomes dirty. It grows old. It can be removed, lost or broken. Guru Sahib asks how something so weak can be credited with spiritual strength simply because a religious ceremony surrounds it.

The Salok does not end by leaving the Sikh empty. Guru Nanak Sahib Ji immediately names the thread that can carry the person:

ਨਾਇ ਮੰਨਿਐ ਪਤਿ ਊਪਜੈ ਸਾਲਾਹੀ ਸਚੁ ਸੂਤੁ ॥
ਦਰਗਹ ਅੰਦਰਿ ਪਾਈਐ ਤਗੁ ਨ ਤੂਟਸਿ ਪੂਤ ॥੩॥

naa-e manni-ai pat oopjai saalaahee sach soot.
dargah andar paa-ee-ai tag na tootas poot.

When Naam is accepted and held firmly within, honour arises. Praise of the One is the true and pure thread. It is received in the Divine Court, and it does not break.

Aasa Ki Vaar, Salok Mahalla 1, Ang 471.

The teaching is now complete. The Sikh is moved from a thread that can be bought, tied and replaced to Naam received within, praise of the One, and a life woven from the qualities Guru Sahib has named.

That is the wider Gurmat principle which reaches the present question.

The janeu and rakhri are not historically the same ceremony. But when religious protection or spiritual force is placed in rakhri, it comes under the same test. The issue is not whether the thread hangs from the neck or sits around the wrist. The issue is whether a material thread possesses the jor being claimed for it.

It does not gain that strength because a sister ties it rather than a priest. Nor can genuine affection place spiritual power inside an object that has none of its own.

Love can surround the thread. It cannot give the thread jor.

The Guru gives a different discipline

There is a danger here which must be avoided. The Sikh answer is not that everything visible, physical or repeated is empty ritual.

Sikhi is lived through the body. Sikhs bow, stand, listen, sing, recite, serve, gather in Sangat, do Ardas and follow Maryada. The Khalsa has visible discipline. A practice does not become ritualism merely because it has an outward form.

The real question is one of authority. Who gave the practice? What meaning does it carry? Does it form the Sikh under the Shabad as Guru, or does it place religious power in an object or custom which the Guru has not given?

Guru Nanak Sahib Ji takes the religious forms before the Pandit and redirects each of them:

ਕਾਇਆ ਬ੍ਰਹਮਾ ਮਨੁ ਹੈ ਧੋਤੀ ॥
ਗਿਆਨੁ ਜਨੇਊ ਧਿਆਨੁ ਕੁਸਪਾਤੀ ॥
ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮਾ ਜਸੁ ਜਾਚਉ ਨਾਉ ॥
ਗੁਰ ਪਰਸਾਦੀ ਬ੍ਰਹਮਿ ਸਮਾਉ ॥੧॥

ਪਾਂਡੇ ਐਸਾ ਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਬੀਚਾਰੁ ॥
ਨਾਮੇ ਸੁਚਿ ਨਾਮੋ ਪੜਉ ਨਾਮੇ ਚਜੁ ਆਚਾਰੁ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥

kaa-i-aa brahmaa man hai dhotee.
giaan jane-oo dhiaan kuspaatee.
har naamaa jas jaacha-o naa-o.
gur parsaadee braham samaa-o.

paandde aisaa braham beechaar.
naame such naamo parra-o naame chaj aachaar. Rahao.

Let the body, kept from vice, be the Brahmin, and the purified mind his dhoti. Let deep knowledge of the One be the janeu, and attentive remembrance the ritual grass-ring. I ask for Har Naam and for praise, so that by the Guru’s grace I may remain absorbed in the One.

O Pandit, contemplate Brahm in this way. Purity is in Naam. Naam is what I study. Right religious conduct is in Naam.

Raag Aasa, Mahalla 1, Ang 355. The final two lines are the Rahao, the centre of the Shabad.

Guru Sahib is not replacing outward religion with a vague private feeling. The Rahao centres Naam. Knowledge, remembrance, praise, purity and conduct are all brought beneath Naam and Gur Prasad.

The Sikh is still being disciplined, but the discipline has changed its centre. It no longer depends upon an object carrying sacred force. The person is being formed through the Guru.

This is why the proper Sikh distinction is not simply between outer and inner. Sikhi has an outer life and an inner life, and the two should not be torn apart. The distinction is between Guru-given discipline and religious power placed in a practice which has not come from the Guru.

Protection, love and responsibility

The language of rakhri is the language of protection. We therefore have to ask where the Sikh places final trust.

Guru Arjan Sahib Ji says:

ਊਠਤ ਸੁਖੀਆ ਬੈਠਤ ਸੁਖੀਆ ॥
ਭਉ ਨਹੀ ਲਾਗੈ ਜਾਂ ਐਸੇ ਬੁਝੀਆ ॥੧॥

ਰਾਖਾ ਏਕੁ ਹਮਾਰਾ ਸੁਆਮੀ ॥
ਸਗਲ ਘਟਾ ਕਾ ਅੰਤਰਜਾਮੀ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥

oothat sukhee-aa baithat sukhee-aa.
bhau nahee laagai jaan aise bujhee-aa.

raakhaa ek hamaaraa suaamee.
sagal ghataa kaa antarjaamee. Rahao.

Standing or sitting, one rests in peace. Fear does not take hold when this understanding is received: the One Master is our Protector, the Inner-knower of every heart.

Raag Bhairau, Mahalla 5, Ang 1136. The final two lines are the Rahao.

This Shabad is not promising that a Sikh will never suffer illness, violence, injustice or death. Guru Sahib is not replacing a visible thread with an invisible magical shield. The teaching is deeper. The Sikh’s final trust and dependence rest in the One. The Guru makes that understanding firm within, and fear begins to loosen its hold.

Human responsibility remains.

A brother should stand beside his sister when she is in danger. He should respect her dignity, listen to her and help her when help is needed. A sister should stand beside her brother when he is suffering, lost or wronged. Parents must protect children. The Sangat must care for the vulnerable. The Khalsa must oppose injustice.

But these duties are carried out under the One. They are not spiritual power passed from one person to another through a thread.

Neither sibling is the other’s spiritual protector. Both stand under the same Guru. Both receive the same Bani. Both live under the same Hukam. A Sikh woman does not require a brother or a thread to place her beneath Divine protection. A Sikh man does not receive spiritual safety from a thread tied by his sister.

This does not weaken the relationship. It makes the duty more honest.

A brother does not prove his love by accepting a thread once a year while ignoring his sister’s dignity, worries or needs during the rest of the year. A sister’s prayer for her brother does not require an object before it can be heard by the One.

Their love is shown by how they live towards each other.

Keep the love

Many Sikh families will still say, quite honestly, “For us it is only love.”

I do not think that answer should be mocked. Most families are not trying to create a theology of cotton thread. They are remembering childhood, meeting relatives, sharing sweets and telling one another that the relationship still matters.

Keep all of that.

Visit one another. Eat together. Give a gift. Remember the years you have shared. Make a promise to stand beside one another through illness, hardship, loneliness and old age. A brother and sister do not need to become less close in order to become more truthful under the Guru.

What they do not need is the protective thread.

If a family continues to tie it while insisting that it carries no religious meaning, then it should at least be described honestly as a family or cultural custom. It is not a Guru-given Sikh rite. It should not be presented as Gurmat, and the Guru’s protection should not be treated as though it needs completion through an annual ceremony.

Sikhs share many cultural habits with their neighbours. Food, language, music, clothing and family customs move easily across communities. Not every shared custom is an attack on Sikhi. But neither does every familiar custom become Sikh merely because Sikh families practise it.

Culture may be loved without being renamed Gurmat.

There is also a separate historical use of the word rakhi in eighteenth-century Sikh history. The Dal Khalsa offered organised protection to villages or groups of villages in return for a levy. In that setting, rakhi meant protection or vigilance. It was a political and military arrangement during a period of disorder, not a family thread ceremony.

That history does not prove the doctrinal argument in this article. Gurbani does that. It simply prevents two different uses of a related word from being confused. The Sikh historical system involved actual responsibility, organisation and the ability to defend people. It did not place spiritual force in a thread.

The thread that does not break

Guru Nanak Sahib Ji does not remove a physical thread and leave the Sikh with nothing.

Guru Sahib gives the Sikh a thread which must enter the whole life.

Compassion is its cotton. Contentment is its yarn. Self-restraint is its knot. Truthful conduct is its twist. Naam is held within, and praise of the One becomes the true thread.

This thread is not tied once a year. It is not given by one gender and worn by another. It cannot be bought, displayed for a photograph, replaced when worn out or thrown away when the day has passed.

It has to be lived.

That is why rakhri as a sacred or protective ritual cannot stand inside Gurmat. Where spiritual strength is placed in the thread, Gurbani has already removed that strength. Where it is described only as a family token, it remains a cultural choice and should not be called a Sikh religious practice.

There is no need to reject the brother or the sister. There is no need to reject the gathering, the gift or the love.

The thread is what can be left behind.

The thread can break. The duty to love, defend and serve one another should not.

Verification and sources

The Gurmukhi text, Ang references, Bani headings and attributions used in this article were checked against SearchGurbani and SriGranth. Professor Sahib Singh Ji’s Guru Granth Darpan was consulted for the contextual senses. The English passages are learning renderings. They do not replace the Gurmukhi or the need to read the full Shabad or Salok in its setting.

1. Ang 471: The Salok sequence, including the full boundaries of the first and second Saloks, the meaning of jor, and the positive completion through Naam and praise, was checked against SearchGurbani and Professor Sahib Singh Ji’s Guru Granth Darpan.

2. Ang 355: The complete quoted stanza and Rahao were checked against SearchGurbani and Guru Granth Darpan. Professor Sahib Singh Ji reads ਨਾਉ in the line ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮਾ ਜਸੁ ਜਾਚਉ ਨਾਉ as Naam. His explanation reads the passage as asking for the Divine Naam and praise, not for a ritual bath.

3. Ang 1136: The protection Shabad and its Rahao were checked against SearchGurbani and Guru Granth Darpan.

4. Raksha Bandhan practice: The brief description of the festival is drawn from the Government of India Ministry of Tourism page, “Raksha Bandhan: Strengthening the Bonds of Sibling Love”. The page describes Raksha Bandhan as a Hindu festival, translates the name as “the knot of protection”, and records the use of aarti, tilak, prayers, the tying of the thread and gifts or promises in return. Practices vary between families.

5. The Sikh Rakhi system: The historical note is drawn from Harbans Singh, editor-in-chief, The Encyclopaedia of Sikhism, Volume III, entry “Rakhi System”, Punjabi University, Patiala, pp. 445–446. The entry describes the Dal Khalsa arrangement through which villages sought protection against aggression or molestation in return for a levy.

The doctrinal conclusion of this article does not arise from the Government of India festival account or from Sikh political history. Those sources identify the practices being discussed.

The doctrinal judgment arises from Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

If a mismatch is found in the Gurmukhi, Ang reference, Bani heading, attribution, transliteration or English sense, PanthSeva will correct it publicly, calmly and with a dated correction note.

Strong disagreement is welcome. Contempt is not.

Bhul chuk maaf karni Ji.

Gurjit Singh Sandhu
PanthSeva
London

pavan guroo paanee pitaa maataa dharat mahat.

Air is Guru, water is father and earth is the great mother.

Japji Sahib, Guru Nanak Sahib Ji, concluding Salok, Ang 8. There is no Rahao in this Salok.[1]

Can a Sikh sing Vande Mataram?

The question now comes wrapped in politics. Those who sing the song may be praised as patriots. Those who hesitate may be asked to prove their loyalty to India. But a Sikh cannot begin with either praise or accusation. We must first ask what the words mean, what they ask the singer to do, and whether that act can stand under Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

The strongest argument in favour of the song begins with something true. Gurbani itself calls the earth mother. A Sikh may love the country of birth, recognise what its soil and people have given, and serve it with courage. “Motherland” is not, by itself, the problem. If our objection begins by denying this, it begins weakly.

But Guru Nanak Sahib Ji does not take one territory, place it above other lands and turn it into a divine being. The complete Salok holds day, night and sagal jagat—the whole world—within one creation, then turns towards conduct, honest effort and Naam. Earth is mother within the Creator’s order. She is not made the Creator, and the Sikh is not asked to worship her.

The difference between honour and worship

In Raag Sorath, Guru Nanak Sahib Ji gives the centre before addressing the worship of gods, goddesses and stone-images:

ਸੋਰਠਿ ਮਹਲਾ ੧ ਪਹਿਲਾ ਦੁਤੁਕੀ ॥
ਮੇਰੇ ਪ੍ਰੀਤਮਾ ਤੂ ਕਰਤਾ ਕਰਿ ਵੇਖੁ ॥
ਹਉ ਪਾਪੀ ਪਾਖੰਡੀਆ ਭਾਈ ਮਨਿ ਤਨਿ ਨਾਮ ਵਿਸੇਖੁ ॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥

sorath mahalaa 1 pahilaa dutukee.
mere preetamaa too kartaa kar vekh.
hau paapee paakhandeeaa bhaa-ee, man tan Naam visekh. Rahao.

O my Beloved, You are the Creator; having created, You behold. I am sinful and hypocritical. Let Naam be foremost in mind and body. Rahao.

Later in the same Shabad, Guru Nanak Sahib Ji says:

ਦੇਵੀ ਦੇਵਾ ਪੂਜੀਐ ਭਾਈ ਕਿਆ ਮਾਗਉ ਕਿਆ ਦੇਹਿ ॥
ਪਾਹਣੁ ਨੀਰਿ ਪਖਾਲੀਐ ਭਾਈ ਜਲ ਮਹਿ ਬੂਡਹਿ ਤੇਹਿ ॥੬॥

devee devaa poojeeaai bhaa-ee, kiaa maago kiaa deh.
paahan neer pakhaaleeaai bhaa-ee, jal meh booddeh teh.

Why worship goddesses and gods? What could I ask from them, and what can they give? The stone is washed in water, but it sinks in that same water.

Raag Sorath, Guru Nanak Sahib Ji, Mahala 1, Pahila Dutuki, Angs 636–637. The Rahao places the Creator and Naam at the centre of the complete Shabad.[2]

The Sikh objection does not arise from hostility towards Hindus, Hindu language or Hindu forms of devotion. Other people are free to worship according to their faith. The Sikh question is narrower and more demanding: can the Sikh direct bhakti and bowing towards a territorial mother when the Guru has placed the Sikh before the One Creator?

The Sikh Rehat Maryada later states the same boundary plainly: “Worship should be rendered only to the One Timeless Being and to no god or goddess.”[3] The Maryada does not govern Gurbani; it bears witness to the discipline already given by the Shabad.

Read the whole song—and its history

The opening two stanzas of Vande Mataram describe a land rich with water, fruit, crops, cool breezes, flowering trees, moonlit nights and sweet speech. No goddess is named and no temple-image is mentioned. Those verses can be heard as poetry about a beautiful, life-giving homeland.

This matters. We should not accuse every Sikh who has sung the familiar opening of knowingly worshipping a goddess. Many will have known only those verses and understood them as a civic salute. The complete song, however, does not stop there.

The Mother becomes armed and terrible before her enemies. The singer says, namami tarineem, ripudala-varineem Mataram: I bow to the deliverer who drives away the enemy host. Then come tumi vidya, tumi dharma—you are knowledge; you are dharma—and hrdaye tumi Ma bhakti: in the heart, Mother, you are devotion. Her pratima, her image, is fashioned or installed in temple after temple. The next stanza says, tvam hi Durga dasha-praharana-dharinee: you indeed are Durga, bearer of ten weapons. The Mother is also identified with Kamala, or Lakshmi, and Vani, or Saraswati. The singer again says, namami: I bow.[4]

The verb vande can mean salute, honour, revere, pay homage or worship. One dictionary choice cannot decide the matter. The movement of the complete Sanskritised Bengali composition does: the beautiful land becomes the divine Mother, devotion is placed in her, her image is set in temples, she is named as Durga and the singer bows. This may be sincere Hindu devotion. A Sikh should neither mock it nor misdescribe it. But it is not the Sikh’s path of worship.

Nor is that religious reading an invention of the song’s critics. The present Government of India has called Vande Mataram a mantra, spiritual devotion to Maa Bharati and worship of the nation in maternal form. The Home Minister has called it a devotional hymn and linked the country’s prosperity, knowledge and security with the grace and worship of Mother India.[5] The government cannot celebrate the complete song as worship and then tell a Sikh that no religious act is involved.

Its history deserves the same honesty. Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay composed the song in the 1870s and placed it in Anandamath, published as a book in 1882. In the novel, militant Hindu ascetics called the Santans renounce ordinary family life to serve the Mother. Land, Mother and Goddess are drawn together. The story contains anti-Muslim hostility and conflict with Company forces, yet ends by accepting British rule as a temporary stage towards religious renewal.[6]

The song later acquired a life beyond the novel. Rabindranath Tagore sang from it at the 1896 Congress session. During the movement against the partition of Bengal in 1905 it became an anti-colonial cry associated with resistance and sacrifice. Its anti-colonial life cannot erase its devotional and sectarian inheritance; its original setting cannot erase the sacrifice later made under its words.[6]

This tension was faced rather than concealed in 1937. Jawaharlal Nehru read Anandamath and concluded that, although some agitation was political, the grievance had substance.[7] Tagore, who had helped give the song its national life, distinguished the opening description of a beneficent motherland from the later hymn to Durga. The Congress Working Committee recommended only the first two stanzas at national gatherings. It did not alter or ban Bankim’s literary work. It tried to honour the song’s part in the freedom movement without making its complete religious vision a condition of Indian belonging.[8]

On 24 January 1950, Constituent Assembly President Rajendra Prasad named Jana Gana Mana as the National Anthem and said that Vande Mataram should be honoured equally because of its historic part in the freedom struggle. He made a presidential statement rather than putting a formal resolution to the Assembly, and he did not specify a number of stanzas.[9] The two-stanza accommodation therefore continued in practice.

When the song becomes a test of loyalty

In 2026, the Union government formalised a six-stanza protocol. The Ministry of Home Affairs now lists all six stanzas, lasting about three minutes and ten seconds, as the official version. That version alone is to be used in mass singing, and audiences are told to stand to attention. The order says that a school may begin its day with community singing; it does not say that every child must sing. When the National Song and National Anthem are both performed, the Song comes first.[10]

Vande Mataram was rendered at the Red Fort Independence Day ceremony for the first time in August 2026. When the Congress then reaffirmed the historic two-stanza practice for its own events, the Home Minister called the decision “anti-national” and said it violated the new law.[11]

But Parliament did not enact a duty requiring every citizen to sing all six stanzas. The August 2026 amendment makes it an offence intentionally to prevent the singing of the National Anthem or National Song, or to disturb an assembly engaged in it.[12] In Bijoe Emmanuel v State of Kerala, the Supreme Court protected schoolchildren who stood respectfully but did not sing the National Anthem for reasons of religious conscience. Their silence neither prevented the singing nor disturbed the assembly.[13] Bijoe Emmanuel concerned the National Anthem, so it does not directly decide the position under the amended law. Its reasoning is nevertheless powerful: respectful silence neither prevents the singing nor disturbs those who sing.

On 26 August 2026, Sikh organisations asked the Acting Jathedar of Akal Takht Sahib for guidance on these questions.[14] No response to this new request had been issued when this article was published. PanthSeva cannot manufacture one. It can only offer Shabad-led vichaar.

The Sikh answer

I do not believe that a Sikh should sing the present official six-stanza Vande Mataram. India may be loved and served, and Gurbani itself calls the earth mother. The difficulty begins where love of country becomes religious devotion: the complete song asks the singer to address the country as Durga, install her image in temples and bow before her as the source of dharma and bhakti.

The first two stanzas must still be distinguished from the whole. They contain no named goddess or temple-image and can be understood as a civic salute to a beautiful homeland. A Sikh who has sung them with that understanding should not be casually declared an idol-worshipper. Another Sikh may still judge that bowing to a personified nation crosses the line of conscience. No Sikh should be compelled to sing even those verses. Conscience cannot be genuine only when the state finds it convenient.

A Sikh may stand respectfully while others sing and should neither heckle, obstruct nor prevent them. Hindus and others must remain free to sing with the meaning their faith gives the words. They must equally allow a Sikh, Muslim, Christian, Brahmo or any other person to remain silent without being marked as disloyal. This is what Nirbhau and Nirvair require in public life: neither surrender through fear nor hostility towards another.

India does not become weaker when a Sikh serves it faithfully from within Sikhi. Sikhs have shown that service through labour, public duty, defence of neighbours and sacrifice. Citizenship should be judged by how we live with and serve one another, not by whether every citizen can be made to speak the same religious words. A country can be loved, served and defended without being worshipped.

A Sikh can honour many things. But the Sikh does not live under many Gurus.

Sources and verification

1. Japji Sahib, concluding Salok, Guru Nanak Sahib Ji, Ang 8: SriGranth and SearchGurbani.

2. Raag Sorath, Mahala 1, Pahila Dutuki, Angs 636–637: SriGranth and SearchGurbani.

3. Sikh Rehat Maryada, Article XVI(a): official Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee English text.

4. Complete official text: Ministry of Home Affairs orders, 9 July 2026. For language, context and the range of vande, see Julius Lipner, “Icon and Mother: An Inquiry into India’s National Song”.

5. Current official interpretation: Prime Minister’s Office, 7 November 2025 and Press Information Bureau, 9 December 2025.

6. Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay, Anandamath: 1906 English translation; Julius Lipner’s Oxford study.

7. Jawaharlal Nehru to Subhas Chandra Bose, 20 October 1937: Nehru Archive.

8. The 1937 settlement as recorded by Nehru: letter to M. A. Jinnah, 6 April 1938. Tagore’s position is discussed in Lipner’s Oxford study cited in note 4.

9. Rajendra Prasad’s statement, 24 January 1950: Constituent Assembly transcript.

10. Ministry of Home Affairs consolidated orders, 9 July 2026.

11. First Red Fort rendition: Ministry of Defence, 13 August 2026. Report of the Home Minister’s remarks: Indian Express, 20 August 2026.

12. Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Act 2026, Act No. 11 of 2026: Gazette text.

13. Bijoe Emmanuel v State of Kerala (1986): Supreme Court judgment.

14. Sikh organisations’ memorandum to the Acting Jathedar, 26 August 2026: The Tribune.

This article is offered for Sikh vichaar, not as a Panth-binding decision. Gurbani quotations have been checked against two databases. English renderings are offered as sense translations. Bhul chuk di khima; corrections are welcome.

The RSS now says that Sikhi is a separate religion. Its wider doctrine still places different paths inside one Hindu identity and one Hindu Rashtra. A Sikh answer cannot rest on the sentence we are asked to welcome while ignoring the record we are asked not to examine. Bhai Kahn Singh Ji Nabha’s answer still matters because the question remains one of Guruship: who has the authority to name the Sikh?

Begin with Shabad

In Sidh Gosht, the Siddhs ask Guru Nanak Sahib Ji:

ਤੇਰਾ ਕਵਣੁ ਗੁਰੂ ਜਿਸ ਕਾ ਤੂ ਚੇਲਾ ॥

teraa kavan guroo jis kaa too chelaa.

Who is your Guru, whose disciple are you?

Guru Nanak Sahib Ji answers:

ਸਬਦੁ ਗੁਰੂ ਸੁਰਤਿ ਧੁਨਿ ਚੇਲਾ ॥

sabad guroo surat dhun chelaa.

The Shabad is Guru; consciousness attentively attuned to it is the disciple.

Ramkali, Sidh Gosht, Mahalla 1. The question is on Ang 942; the answer is on Ang 943.

This does not settle every question about Sikh institutions, leadership or collective Panthic action. Sikhs need institutions. The Panth must gather, deliberate and act. Sri Akal Takht Sahib has a unique place in Sikh life. Committees must manage property and carry out practical work. Office-holders may be entrusted with serious responsibilities.

But the first question has been settled. Shabad is Guru. The Sikh consciousness is the disciple.

Everything else must remain within that order. An institution may serve the Guru, but it cannot become Guru. An office-holder may speak from a place of responsibility, but does not own that place. A government may regulate civil matters, but it cannot decide what Sikhi is or place Sikh religious identity beneath another religious or political authority.

That is where Ham Hindu Nahin begins. It is not first an argument about census boxes, constitutional wording or ancient geography. It answers a prior question: who has the authority to tell the Sikh who he really is?

What Bhai Kahn Singh Ji Nabha was defending

Bhai Kahn Singh Ji Nabha published Ham Hindu Nahin in 1898, during a public struggle over whether Sikhi possessed an independent religious standing or was merely part of a wider Hindu system. The book appeared within the Singh Sabha period and became a classic statement of distinct Sikh identity.

The book is not Gurbani. Bhai Kahn Singh Ji was a Sikh scholar, not the Guru. His work remains beneath Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji, as every Sikh book and every PanthSeva article must.

Its importance lies in the question it answered. When others said that the Sikh was not truly separate, Bhai Kahn Singh Ji did not ask for a kinder version of the same claim. He answered it plainly: Ham Hindu Nahin. We are not Hindus.

Some people hear only rejection in those words. They assume that a boundary between faiths must be an act of hostility. It is not. A Sikh may love Hindu family members, defend Hindu neighbours, work beside Hindu colleagues and share language, food and history with Hindu friends. The Sikh should stand against injustice done to any Hindu person, just as the Sikh should stand against injustice done to a Muslim, Christian or anyone else.

None of that gives another person or organisation the right to rename the Sikh. Friendship does not give naming rights.

The positive meaning of Bhai Kahn Singh Ji’s title is larger than its negative wording. Sikhi has its own Guru. Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji is complete. Sikh truth does not need to be placed beneath another religious or civilisational tradition before it can be recognised as real.

The boundary begins with Guruship.

One assurance cannot cancel the record

At an RSS outreach event held at a private college in Ludhiana on Thursday 26 February 2026, Mohan Bhagwat said that the RSS considered Sikhism a “separate and distinct religion”. In the same answer, he said that the Sangh viewed Hinduism “not as a religion but as a way of life”. The report was published the following morning.

Those words should be recorded accurately. But they should not be separated from the doctrine around them.

The question is not whether Mohan Bhagwat made the reassuring statement. He did. The question is what the statement leaves untouched. If Hindu is also the name of a civilisation, a way of life and the nation itself, Sikhi can be called a separate religion while Sikhs are still claimed inside a wider Hindu identity.

The RSS’s own published material shows that this is not a theoretical concern. In August 2025, its official website reported Bhagwat saying that forms of worship may differ while the underlying identity remains one, and reaffirming Bharat as a Hindu Rashtra.

The RSS also continues to host a “Vision and Mission” page which names the Rashtriya Sikh Sangat among bodies serving what it calls a “unifying Hindu appeal” against separatist pulls. That is not a description invented by Sikh critics. It is the organisation’s own account of the work.

Nor is the relationship between this doctrine and political power imaginary. The RSS, the BJP, the Union Government and the Indian state are not the same body, and they should not be carelessly merged. Yet on 10 August 2026 the RSS announced a coordination meeting of 32 organisations it described as inspired by the Sangh, and its own notice named the Bharatiya Janata Party among the participants.

The record is therefore coherent. Sikhi may be given a separate religious name while the Sikh is placed inside a supposedly deeper Hindu national and civilisational identity. The separate room is permitted, but someone else still names the house.

This structure is not new. Savarkar allowed Sikhs to be classed as Sikh in religion while claiming them as Hindu in race and culture. The companion PanthSeva essay, Which “Hindu” Do You Mean?, examines the geographic, census, religious, political and legal meanings separately, and shows how an argument begins in one meaning and quietly ends in another.

A movement should not be judged by the single sentence most convenient to quote. It should be judged by the doctrine it continues to publish, the organisations it maintains and the work it continues to carry out.

A genuine change would be visible. The RSS would say without qualification that Sikhs are free to reject Hindu religious, cultural and civilisational membership. It would stop treating Hindu and Bharatiya as one underlying identity. It would remove the Rashtriya Sikh Sangat from a wider Hindu unity project. It would stop declaring Bharat a Hindu Rashtra in a way that claims Sikhs whether they consent or not.

That has not happened. The February assurance does not settle the Sikh objection. It leaves the larger claim in place.

When praise changes the Guru’s place

Absorption does not always arrive through insult. Sometimes it comes through praise.

In his official Vijayadashami speech on 2 October 2025, Mohan Bhagwat described Guru Tegh Bahadur Sahib Ji as having become a shield and sacrificed himself to “protect the Hindu society from the atrocities of invaders from a foreign religion”.

Guru Sahib defended the right of others to remain in their faith. That truth should never be hidden. But defending Hindu freedom of conscience did not make Guru Sahib Hindu, and it did not place his shahadat under Hindu religious ownership. A Sikh who gives his head so that another person may keep a different faith reveals the reach of Gurmat. He does not surrender the Guru’s identity to the people he defended.

On 25 November 2025, at the official commemoration of Guru Tegh Bahadur Sahib Ji’s 350th Shaheedi Diwas in Kurukshetra, Prime Minister Narendra Modi called Anandpur Sahib sacred ground of national consciousness and said that the tradition of the Gurus formed the foundation of the nation’s character, culture and inner spirit. Later in the same speech, Guru Sahib’s fearlessness was connected with the defence of India’s borders and Operation Sindoor.

Some Sikhs will hear honour in this language. I understand why. Governments can also do practical good through access, preservation, public remembrance and facilities for the Sangat. We do not need to deny every useful act in order to examine the meaning being placed around it.

What concerns me is the movement beneath the praise. Guru Sahib is first honoured, and then the modern nation becomes the frame through which his teaching and shahadat are explained. Fearlessness under the Guru is moved into the security language of the present state. Sikh sacred memory is made to support a national account whose deeper identity is repeatedly described as Hindu.

The nation may learn from the Guru. Every nation should. But the nation cannot become the interpreter of the Guru.

A government does not acquire authority over Sikh meaning by issuing a coin, building a road or organising a commemoration. It may honour Guru Sahib. It may not contain Guru Sahib within the political needs of the present day.

Political appropriation can come with folded hands.

Law, elections and the same question of authority

The legal position must also be stated accurately.

Article 25 of the Constitution of India does not generally declare Sikhs to be Hindus. Explanation I expressly recognises the wearing and carrying of kirpans as part of the profession of the Sikh religion.

Explanation II is limited to Article 25(2)(b), concerning social reform and access to public religious institutions. Within that clause, references to Hindus are made to include people professing the Sikh, Jaina and Buddhist religions.

That limit matters. We should not weaken a proper objection by making a false legal claim.

But the wording still makes Hindu the main legal category. Sikh people and Sikh institutions enter through inclusion within it. The Constituent Assembly could have named Hindu, Sikh, Jaina and Buddhist people and institutions separately. It did not.

The law can determine the reach of a clause. It cannot turn its drafting method into Gurmat. The state can decide what a law covers. It cannot decide who is Guru.

The same question of authority appears in the management of Sikh institutions. The SGPC’s own history records that during British rule Sri Harmandir Sahib came under a Sarbrah nominated through the Deputy Commissioner of Amritsar. Sikh resistance helped produce the Gurdwara Reform Movement, and the Sikh Gurdwaras Act 1925 vested management in the SGPC as a representative body elected by Sikh voters. That was a major Panthic victory, won through courage, imprisonment and shahadat. It should not be rewritten as though Sikhs gained nothing.

But the victory took statutory form, and the statutory machinery still matters. The last completed SGPC general election was held in 2011. Fifteen years later, in August 2026, the SGPC president was still writing to the Chief Commissioner of Gurdwara Elections about voter registration, verification and the conduct of officials preparing the rolls.

The point is not whether a particular official is sympathetic. The problem is that a central Sikh management body has not been renewed through a general Sikh election for fifteen years, while the machinery required to hold that election does not finally rest with the Sikh electorate.

A Panthic institution should not depend indefinitely upon a government timetable before Sikh voters may renew it.

The part that belongs to us

I do not want every Sikh argument to end in Delhi. That can become an excuse, and it would not be honest.

Outside control survives more easily when Sikh political parties, families, committees and office-holders learn to use the same structures for themselves. A Panthic institution does not become free merely because the person controlling it is Sikh. A Sikh name does not turn party capture into Panthic authority. A spiritual office cannot speak independently if appointment, salary, tenure and removal all depend upon the same political or managerial circle.

That is a structural problem before it is a judgment upon any particular office-holder.

We have spent too much time searching for the right powerful person. The safer question is how to build institutions that even the wrong person cannot easily misuse. Appointments to important Panthic offices need public rules. Terms and powers should be defined. Conflicts of interest should be declared. Budgets should be open. Reasons for appointment and removal should be recorded. No party, family or management group should be able to treat a Panthic institution as inherited property.

These safeguards do not create spiritual authority. Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji governs Sikh meaning. Civil safeguards simply stop ordinary human weakness from hiding behind a spiritual title.

We cannot demand freedom from outside control while defending hidden control inside. We cannot invoke Shabad as Guru when speaking against Delhi and treat the same Shabad as an inconvenience in Amritsar.

How the Sikh must answer

The Mool Mantar names the One:

ਨਿਰਭਉ ਨਿਰਵੈਰੁ

nirbhau nirvair.

Without fear. Without enmity.

Mool Mantar, Ang 1.

These words do not ask the Sikh to choose between courage and decency.

Nirbhau means that we do not soften a conclusion because the organisation being examined is powerful or close to government. We do not treat access, praise or a carefully worded assurance as a substitute for change.

Nirvair means that judgment must not become hatred. Hindu people are not responsible for every RSS statement, constitutional clause or government speech. The Sikh must not turn a disagreement over authority into contempt for neighbours.

But Nirvair does not require gullibility. It does not require the Sikh to accept an assurance contradicted by the doctrine and activity surrounding it. It does not turn organised absorption into an innocent misunderstanding. There is no hatred in judging a movement by its record.

Nor does Sikh distinctness close the Sikh’s concern around Sikhs alone. Guru Amar Das Sahib Ji prays:

ਜਗਤੁ ਜਲੰਦਾ ਰਖਿ ਲੈ ਆਪਣੀ ਕਿਰਪਾ ਧਾਰਿ ॥

jagat jalandaa rakh lai aapnee kirpaa dhaar.

This burning world: save it by Your grace.

Bilaval Ki Vaar, Salok Mahalla 3, Ang 853.

The prayer is for the jagat, the world. The Sikh does not need to become Hindu in order to care for Hindu people. The Sikh does not need to accept another civilisational identity in order to serve a shared country. Sikhi already gives the Sikh a universal responsibility under the Guru.

Guru Nanak Sahib Ji says:

ਸਿਖੀ ਸਿਖਿਆ ਗੁਰ ਵੀਚਾਰਿ ॥
ਨਦਰੀ ਕਰਮਿ ਲਘਾਏ ਪਾਰਿ ॥

sikhee sikhi-aa gur veechaar.
nadree karam laghaa-e paar.

Sikhi is learnt through reflection upon the Guru; through grace, one is carried across.

Aasa Ki Vaar, Salok Mahalla 1, Ang 465.

This is the final answer to absorption.

Sikhi will not survive merely because Sikhs become better at saying what they are not. A boundary is necessary, but a boundary cannot form the person living within it. Sikhi must be learnt. It must enter the home, the Sangat, the gurdwara and ordinary life. Children must know why Shabad is Guru. Adults must listen to Gurbani rather than living only through inherited identity. Sikh institutions must bring the Panth under the Guru rather than use Sikh feeling to preserve their own power.

Otherwise the outer name may remain while the inner authority has already moved.

Ham Hindu Nahin still means that the RSS does not have the right to place the Sikh inside a Hindu nation or civilisation. It means that a legal category cannot become religious truth. It means that official praise cannot make the nation the interpreter of the Guru. It means that Sikh parties, families and committees cannot claim the Guru’s authority for themselves.

The February 2026 assurance does not settle the matter. The larger doctrine and organised activity remain. Until they change, the Sikh should judge the record as it stands.

The old title protects the boundary. The Guru forms the Sikh who lives within it: under the Guru, and answerable to the Guru alone.

Verification and sources

The Gurmukhi, Ang references, Bani headings and attributions used in this article were checked against SearchGurbani and SriGranth. The plain-English senses are learning renderings. They do not replace the Gurmukhi or the need to read each passage in its full setting.

The historical setting of Ham Hindu Nahin was checked against a digitised copy of Bhai Kahn Singh Ji Nabha’s work and J. S. Grewal’s account of the Singh Sabha period in The New Cambridge History of India.

The RSS discussion was checked principally against the organisation’s own published material: its “Vision and Mission” page, its August 2025 account of Bharat as a Hindu Rashtra, its October 2025 Vijayadashami speech, and its 10 August 2026 notice for the coordination meeting of Sangh-inspired organisations. The Ludhiana statement was checked against the report published on 27 February 2026.

The discussion of the public framing of Guru Tegh Bahadur Sahib Ji was checked against the official Prime Minister’s Office transcript of the address given at Kurukshetra on 25 November 2025.

The Article 25 wording was checked against the official Constitution of India as in force on 1 May 2026, together with the record of the Constituent Assembly’s handling of the provision.

The history of the Sarbrah system and the Gurdwara Reform settlement was checked against the SGPC’s own historical account. The present election position was checked against the SGPC’s 10 August 2026 statement and reporting on the voter-registration process.

Historical, legal and current claims were checked to 18 August 2026.

If a mismatch is found in the Gurmukhi, Ang reference, Bani heading, attribution, transliteration, English sense, date or source description, PanthSeva will correct it publicly, calmly and with a dated correction note.

Strong disagreement is welcome. Contempt is not.

Bhul chuk maaf karni Ji.

Gurjit Singh Sandhu
PanthSeva
London

The sentence sounds simple only because one word keeps changing its job. Geography, census, faith, political nation and law are not the same thing. None has authority to place the Sikh under another Guru.

Begin with Shabad

ਏਕੁ ਗੁਸਾਈ ਅਲਹੁ ਮੇਰਾ ॥
ਹਿੰਦੂ ਤੁਰਕ ਦੁਹਾਂ ਨੇਬੇਰਾ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
ਨਾ ਹਮ ਹਿੰਦੂ ਨ ਮੁਸਲਮਾਨ ॥
ਅਲਹ ਰਾਮ ਕੇ ਪਿੰਡੁ ਪਰਾਨ ॥੪॥

ek gusaa-ee alahu meraa;
Hindu turak duhaan neberaa. Rahao.
naa ham Hindu na Musalmaan;
Alah Raam ke pind paraan.

The One, called Gusaain and Allah, is mine. For the guidance of spiritual life, I no longer depend on either Hindu or Turk. I am neither Hindu nor Muslim. My body and life-breath belong to the One called Allah and Ram.

Raag Bhairau, Mahalla 5, Ang 1136. The first two lines are the Rahao, the centre of the Shabad. The next two are verse 4. Here, “Turk” is the historical word used for a Muslim. The Shabad itself later uses the word Musalman.

A Sikh answer to the sentence “Sikhs are Hindus” must begin here. It cannot begin with the Indus river, a census table, a court judgment or a political definition. Those sources can help us understand how the word Hindu has been used. They cannot decide who the Sikh is or under whose authority the Sikh stands.

The whole Shabad confirms that Hindu and Muslim are being used in their religious sense. Guru Sahib places fasts beside Ramadan, Hajj beside teerath puja, and puja beside namaz. The Shabad names the One through words familiar to both communities, but refuses dependence upon either religious path for spiritual guidance. This is not hostility towards either neighbour. It is a statement of authority.

That is the governing measure. Only after it is clear should we examine the other work being done by the word Hindu.

One spelling, five jobs

When someone says “Sikhs are Hindus”, the first fair question is: which meaning of Hindu is being used?

The word has carried many meanings across a long history. This essay does not claim to define Hindu people or Hindu traditions fully. It identifies five different jobs the word is doing in this one argument: a geographic label, a census category, a religious identity, a political nation and a legal category.

The sentence gains its force by moving between these meanings. It may begin with geography, borrow the authority of a census or a law, and end by claiming a faith. Once each meaning is held still, the movement becomes visible.

1. The geographic word

The earliest uses we can date were geographical. In inscriptions left by the Achaemenid Persian Empire in the late sixth century BCE, a form of the word named a land connected with the Indus. The word developed from Sindhu, meaning river. Related forms later travelled into Greek and Arabic usage.

In that early use, the word did not name the modern religion now called Hinduism. It referred to a territory, and later to people connected with that territory. The word did not remain frozen there. From the fourteenth century onward, writers in several Indian languages also used Hindu in contrast with Muslim and in clearly religious ways. British rule did not invent every religious use of the word.

Geography can cross religious boundaries. A Sikh, Muslim, Hindu and Christian may all belong to the same place without sharing one faith. If “Sikhs are Hindus” means only that Sikhi arose in a land once reached through the word Hindu, the claim says something loose about geography. It says nothing about Guruship.

A river cannot place the Sikh inside another religion.

2. The census category

British census officials had to place living identities, mixed practices and disputed boundaries into fixed government categories. The Sikh category changed. Sikhs were counted separately in Punjab in 1868 and again in 1881, but no single official definition was used. In 1891, Punjab officials defined a male Sikh through long hair and abstention from smoking. By 1901, the census report admitted that the test had been applied inconsistently and had excluded people who still firmly described themselves as Sikh.

The Hindu column was not self-explanatory either. The 1891 general report described Hinduism by excluding Sikh, Jain, Buddhist and other categories, leaving a large remainder. These were administrative rules, not findings about religious truth. Changing a rule could change the published population of a community.

Those numbers later entered arguments about representation and political influence. That made the census powerful, but power is not Guruship. The census did not create Sikhi or every form of Hindu identity. It did help turn disputed social boundaries into official numbers that governments and political organisations could use.

A state may count the Sikh. It cannot create the Sikh.

3. The religious claim

Here the word names the living faiths and traditions of Hindu neighbours, colleagues and friends. Those traditions are diverse. They do not all accept one practice, one deity, one scripture or one philosophy. A Sikh argument should not make them falsely simple.

But their history, however understood, cannot decide Sikh authority.

Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji is Guru. Other religious texts may be studied with respect, but none has equal Guruship and none governs Sikh meaning. The Ang 1136 Shabad does not place the Sikh inside a wider Hindu family. It names Hindu and Muslim religious practice, centres the One Formless, and declines dependence upon either path for spiritual guidance.

Shared language, food, family history, moral teachings and friendship do not change who is Guru.

In 1898, Bhai Kahn Singh Ji Nabha made the same distinction in Ham Hindu Nahin. His title, “We Are Not Hindus”, was not a declaration of hatred. It defended the independent authority and discipline of Sikhi when that distinction was being publicly contested.

Against Hindu as a religious identity, the answer is therefore a respectful and complete no. Sikhi is not made independent by a census, court or political movement. It stands under the Guru.

4. The political nation

In 1923, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar published a different definition in Essentials of Hindutva. He distinguished Hindutva from Hinduism. His concern was not only religious belief. He described a political and cultural nation through common nation, ancestry and civilisation, and through India as both fatherland and holy land. “Race” was also part of his own language and theory. It is not a scientific claim adopted by this essay.

This definition excludes Muslims and Christians from full membership because their major holy lands lie outside India. It pulls Sikhs in because Sikhi arose in Panjab. The Sikh is not asked whether that larger political identity is accepted.

Savarkar dealt with the Sikh objection directly. He knew Sikh leaders objected and overruled that objection inside his theory. He allowed separate religious classification, but wrote: “Let the Sikhs be classed as Sikhs religiously, but as Hindus racially and culturally.”

The sentence appears to recognise Sikh religious identity, but then refuses Sikhs the right to decline a wider Hindu identity based on race, culture and civilisation. Savarkar did not discover an unavoidable membership. He designed one.

Shared land can create citizenship, neighbourly life and common public duties. Shared ancestry may create family connections. Neither can force the Sikh into a political identity the Sikh has not accepted. Membership that cannot be declined is forced political membership.

5. The legal category

Indian law gives the word a fifth job. The Constitution does not generally declare Sikhs to be Hindus. Explanation I to Article 25 expressly recognises “the Sikh religion”. Explanation II applies only to Article 25(2)(b), which concerns laws for social reform and access to public religious institutions. For that limited purpose, references to Hindus are made to include people who profess the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and “Hindu religious institutions” is enlarged in the same way.

The Supreme Court has confirmed that this wider meaning is for that special purpose and no other. It is therefore legally false to remove the explanation from its setting and announce that “the Constitution says Sikhs are Hindus”.

Yet the wording still matters. Hindu is the main constitutional word. Sikh people and Sikh institutions enter by being included inside it. Equal treatment did not require unequal naming. The religions could have been named separately.

The same method appears independently in four Hindu-titled family laws: the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, the Hindu Succession Act 1956, the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956, and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956. Each applies to a person who is Sikh by religion. Each then directs that the word “Hindu” within that Act includes a covered Sikh even though the person is not Hindu by religion.

These Acts did not arise from Explanation II, but they use the same method: Sikhs are recognised as Sikh by religion and then placed inside Hindu wording for the purposes of the law.

Shared civil rules are not the problem. Shared rules can carry a shared name.

The Anand Marriage Act recognises Sikh marriages performed through Anand Karaj and provides for separate registration. But it does not replace the wider family-law structure governing divorce, inheritance, adoption, maintenance and guardianship. That wider structure remains.

The responsible correction is plain. Explanation II should be removed, and Article 25(2)(b) should name Hindu, Sikh, Jaina and Buddhist people and institutions separately. Shared civil legislation should carry a shared name. Sikhs should not have to enter a law through another religion’s title.

What remains when the meanings stop moving

The original sentence can now be tested without allowing its key word to change halfway through.

If Hindu means an old geographic label, it establishes connection to a land, not membership of a religion. If it means a census category, it records an administrative decision, not Guruship. If it means a religious identity, the Shabad-led answer is no. If it means Savarkar’s political nation, it is an imposed membership the Sikh has the right to decline. If it means the legal category, the law recognises Sikhi as a religion and then, for limited purposes, places Sikhs inside Hindu wording. The contradiction belongs to the law, not to Sikhi.

The sentence “Sikhs are Hindus” is therefore not one claim. It is several claims hidden inside one spelling. None proves the religious conclusion.

The most common argument begins with land and ends with religion: “Hindu once meant people of this region; therefore Sikhs belong to Hinduism or Hindu civilisation.” The conclusion does not follow.

Sharing a place is not sharing a Guru.

The same mistake occurs when law is treated as theology. A legislature can place Sikhs within the coverage of a Hindu-titled Act. It cannot place that Act above Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Legal power can regulate civil life. It cannot rewrite Sikh authority.

A clear answer without hatred

Hindu people are not the enemy of this argument. A Sikh can defend a Hindu neighbour, learn from a Hindu neighbour, share a country with a Hindu neighbour and love that neighbour as family. None of these acts makes the Sikh Hindu. A fair principle protects both neighbours: each faith should be allowed to speak for itself, and neither should be absorbed into the other by wordplay, law or political power.

Respect does not require surrendering the difference between us.

The Guru’s answer is both open and exact. The Shabad uses the names Gusaain, Allah, Ram and the Formless One. It refuses contempt. In the same breath, it refuses dependence upon Hindu and Muslim religious paths for spiritual guidance. Nirvair does not erase a boundary. Nirbhau does not apologise for stating it.

A Sikh may belong to many honest human relationships, but the Sikh does not live under many Gurus.

ਏਕੁ ਗੁਸਾਈ ਅਲਹੁ ਮੇਰਾ ॥
ਹਿੰਦੂ ਤੁਰਕ ਦੁਹਾਂ ਨੇਬੇਰਾ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥

ek gusaa-ee alahu meraa; Hindu turak duhaan neberaa. Rahao.

The One, called Gusaain and Allah, is mine. For the guidance of spiritual life, I no longer depend on either Hindu or Turk.

Raag Bhairau, Mahalla 5, Ang 1136. Rahao.

The word may move. The Sikh measure does not.

The main essay ends here. Verification and sources follow for readers who wish to examine the evidence.

Verification and sources

The Gurmukhi text comes first. Romanisation and the English learning sense are aids only. They do not replace the Gurmukhi or the need to read the whole Shabad in its setting. In romanisation, this essay uses Hindu, not Hindoo, because it examines that word. Otherwise it follows the learning-aid style of The Chadar Covered Everyone. The learning sense of duhaan neberaa follows Professor Sahib Singh’s teeka and the religious practices named throughout the Shabad.

The printed heading, ਭੈਰਉ ਮਹਲਾ ੫ (Bhairau Mahalla 5), attributes the Shabad to Guru Arjan Sahib Ji. Its closing stanza contains the words kahu Kabir. Professor Sahib Singh reads Kabir as a form of address; some English translations render the words as “Says Kabir”. Because those readings differ, this essay claims no more than the heading establishes: the Shabad stands under Mahalla 5.

1. Gurbani: Ang 1136 at SearchGurbani, the exact verse 4, Ang 1136 with Professor Sahib Singh’s teeka at SriGranth, and Guru Granth Darpan.

2. History of the word: Audrey Truschke, “Hindu: A History”, Comparative Studies in Society and History, and Encyclopaedia Iranica, “India: Introduction”.

3. Census: Government of India history of the Indian census, Report on the Census of the Panjab, 1881, 1891 General Report, 1901 Punjab Census Report, and Jarnail Singh, “The Sikhs in the British Census Reports, Punjab”.

4. Religious identity and Sikh distinction: David Lorenzen, “Who Invented Hinduism?”, and Bhai Kahn Singh Ji Nabha, Ham Hindu Nahin, first published in 1898.

5. Political definition: Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, Essentials of Hindutva, first published in 1923. The quotation concerning Sikhs appears in the section addressing Sikh identity.

6. Constitution and judgments: Constitution of India, Article 25, Punjabrao v. D.P. Meshram, and Sastri Yagnapurushadji v. Muldas. The 1966 Swaminarayan judgment is included as background to the Court’s broad “way of life” language; it was not a case deciding Sikh religious identity.

7. Family-law statutes: Hindu Marriage Act 1955, Hindu Succession Act 1956, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956, Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956, and Anand Marriage Act 1909.

8. Proposed constitutional correction: National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution report, 2002 and the Constitution (Amendment) Bill introduced in the Rajya Sabha on 25 February 2011.

Strong disagreement is welcome. Contempt is not.

Bhul chuk maaf karni Ji.

Gurjit Singh Sandhu
PanthSeva
London

Excerpt

On 15 August, India celebrates its independence, and the Sikh wishes the country well, sincerely and without reservation. But the Sikh carries a second memory of the same day. The line drawn in August 1947 ran through Punjab. The land of the Gurus was cut in two. The birthplace of Guru Nanak Sahib came to lie in another country. The Sikh holds both memories at once, and Gurbani teaches how: honour the freedom, grieve the cutting, and keep hold of the deeper freedom that no border can grant and no border can take away.

Today is 15 August, and India marks the day its freedom came. That freedom was real, it was won at great cost, and the Sikh share of that cost was not small. We say plainly, and with goodwill: may the country flourish, and may its freedom be a blessing to every one of its people.

But for the Sikh, and for Punjab, this date holds two memories, not one. The Sikh would be false to history, and false to his own dead, if he spoke only of the first.

The first memory: the price the Panth paid for freedom

The struggle against colonial rule ran through Punjab, and it ran through Sikh lives.

It was at Amritsar, on Vaisakhi day in April 1919, a short walk from Sri Harmandir Sahib, that the gathering at Jallianwala Bagh was fired upon. The Ghadar movement that set out to overturn the empire drew heavily on Punjabi and Sikh emigrants; Kartar Singh Sarabha went to the gallows for it in 1915, aged nineteen. The passengers of the Komagata Maru, most of them Sikhs, were turned away from Canada in 1914 and met with bullets at Budge Budge on their return. The Akali morchas of the 1920s, fought to free the gurdwaras, were among the largest disciplined non-violent campaigns the country had then seen, and they filled colonial jails. Bhagat Singh, son of a Punjabi family steeped in that struggle, was hanged in 1931. Udham Singh carried the memory of 1919 for two decades and was hanged in London in 1940.

These are not claims. They are names. The freedom celebrated today was paid for, in real part, in Punjabi and Sikh blood. The Sikh does not say this to claim a debt. The Sikh says it so that the second memory cannot be dismissed as the grievance of a people who stood apart.

We did not stand apart.

We stood in front.

The second memory: the day the land was cut

When freedom came, it came with a line, and the line ran through Punjab.

In the months around 15 August 1947, Punjab was divided, and the division was paid for in suffering beyond full counting. Millions were uprooted from homes their families had held for generations. The dead were never completely numbered. Communities that had lived side by side for centuries were torn from one another in weeks.

And the Panth was cut from its own holiest ground. Nankana Sahib, where Guru Nanak Sahib was born. Kartarpur Sahib, where he farmed, taught, and left his body. Panja Sahib. Dera Sahib in Lahore, where Guru Arjan Sahib was martyred. After Partition, all of it lay across an international border.

The Panthic Ardas still carries the plea for khulhe darshan deedar — open access to the gurdwaras and gurdhams from which the Panth was separated. In this way, the Panth continues to carry Partition in daily prayer, often without needing to name the year. When the Kartarpur corridor opened in 2019 and, for a time, Indian Sikh pilgrims could walk to the Guru’s own fields again, the tears on both sides of that walkway were seventy years old.

So when 15 August comes, the Sikh does not refuse the celebration. The Sikh stands inside it carrying something more. Independence and Partition arrived in the same hour. One memory honours the living. The other mourns the dead and the divided. The Sikh is not permitted to drop either.

The Guru’s witness when powers clash

This is not the first time the Panth has watched empires change hands over the bodies of ordinary people. Guru Nanak Sahib saw it himself, when Babar’s invasion broke over Punjab, and he set what he saw into Bani. On Ang 360, in Raag Asa, the Guru speaks:

ਖੁਰਾਸਾਨ ਖਸਮਾਨਾ ਕੀਆ ਹਿੰਦੁਸਤਾਨੁ ਡਰਾਇਆ ॥

Khuraasaan khasmaanaa keeaa Hindusataan daraaiaa.

Ang 360

Plain-English sense: Having seized Khurasan, he terrified Hindustan.

And in the same Shabad:

ਏਤੀ ਮਾਰ ਪਈ ਕਰਲਾਣੇ ਤੈਂ ਕੀ ਦਰਦੁ ਨ ਆਇਆ ॥੧॥

Etee maar paee karlaane tain kee darad na aaiaa.

Ang 360

Plain-English sense: Such slaughter fell, such crying out. Did it not bring You pain?

This is the oldest Sikh response to the violence of changing powers: not propaganda for one side, not silence, but witness before the One. The Guru does not ask which empire deserved to win. The Guru names the suffering of the people, and takes even that grief to the Divine door.

In 1947, as in Guru Nanak Sahib’s own time, when powers clashed over the land, it was ordinary people of Punjab, of every faith, who paid. The Sikh way of remembering 15 August stands in the line of the Babar Vani: tell the truth about the suffering, mourn it before the One, and hate no people for it.

The freedom beneath the flag

And here the day’s deepest question opens. What is freedom, under the Guru?

Political freedom matters. The Panth fought for it, bled for it, and respects it. A people should not be ruled against their will, and the end of colonial rule was a genuine good. Nothing in Sikhi belittles that.

But Gurbani teaches that there is a freedom beneath political freedom, and that the second cannot substitute for the first. A country can lower one flag and raise another while every heart in it remains enslaved to haumai. And a Sikh can stand in chains and be free.

On Ang 1, Japji Sahib closes its account of Hukam with the real liberation:

ਨਾਨਕ ਹੁਕਮੈ ਜੇ ਬੁਝੈ ਤ ਹਉਮੈ ਕਹੈ ਨ ਕੋਇ ॥੨॥

Naanak hukamai je bujhai, ta haumai kahai na ko-e.

Ang 1

Plain-English sense: O Nanak, the one who understands Hukam no longer speaks in ego.

That is the freedom no empire ever granted and no empire ever revoked: freedom from the tyranny of haumai, life lived knowingly within Hukam. It was available to the Sikh under the Mughals, under the British, and it is available now. It does not wait for a government, and it does not fear one.

And on Ang 534, in Raag Devgandhari, Guru Arjan Sahib states the Sikh’s final desire, and it is neither a throne nor even release:

ਰਾਜੁ ਨ ਚਾਹਉ ਮੁਕਤਿ ਨ ਚਾਹਉ ਮਨਿ ਪ੍ਰੀਤਿ ਚਰਨ ਕਮਲਾਰੇ ॥

Raaj na chaahau mukat na chaahau man preet charan kamlaare.

Ang 534

Plain-English sense: I seek no empire; I seek not even liberation; my mind longs for the love of the Beloved’s lotus feet.

Read that line on Independence Day and the Sikh’s position becomes clear. Political freedom matters, and Sikh sovereignty has its own history. But the Sikh’s final centre is not rule for its own sake. It is the Guru.

That is why the Sikh can wish the country’s freedom well with a whole heart, and at the same time refuse to let any flag, any anniversary, any national story become the frame that defines what a Sikh is. The state can have the Sikh’s good citizenship, his service, and his sacrifice; history shows it has had all three in abundance. What it cannot have is the seat of the Guru.

What the Sikh does with this day

So this is the teaching of 15 August, held under Shabad.

Honour the freedom. It was real, and our people helped win it.

Tell the truth about the cutting. Punjab was divided, the dead were beyond counting, and the Panth still prays for the gurdwaras across the line. Grief that is named does not curdle; grief that is denied does.

Hate no one. The opening words of Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji name the One as ਨਿਰਭਉ ਨਿਰਵੈਰੁ, Nirbhau Nirvair — without fear, without enmity — and the Sikh is asked to grow a little like what he worships. The neighbour, of any faith, on either side of any border, is not our enemy and never was.

And keep the deeper freedom. Flags change. Borders have changed within living memory; that is the way of worldly powers. The freedom the Guru gives — freedom from haumai, life under Hukam, the love that wants neither raj nor even mukti — has not changed since Ang 1 was first uttered, and will not.

May the country be blessed on its day. May the divided land one day know open roads to every gurdham. And may the Sikh, on this day of two memories, hold both with a steady heart, under the Guru alone.

Verify

Checked 10 June 2026.

The Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji lines quoted in this piece are:

ਖੁਰਾਸਾਨ ਖਸਮਾਨਾ ਕੀਆ ਹਿੰਦੁਸਤਾਨੁ ਡਰਾਇਆ ॥
Ang 360 — Raag Asa, Mahala 1, Guru Nanak Sahib, Babar Vani.

ਏਤੀ ਮਾਰ ਪਈ ਕਰਲਾਣੇ ਤੈਂ ਕੀ ਦਰਦੁ ਨ ਆਇਆ ॥੧॥
Ang 360 — Raag Asa, Mahala 1, Guru Nanak Sahib, Babar Vani.

ਨਾਨਕ ਹੁਕਮੈ ਜੇ ਬੁਝੈ ਤ ਹਉਮੈ ਕਹੈ ਨ ਕੋਇ ॥੨॥
Ang 1 — Japji Sahib, Guru Nanak Sahib.

ਰਾਜੁ ਨ ਚਾਹਉ ਮੁਕਤਿ ਨ ਚਾਹਉ ਮਨਿ ਪ੍ਰੀਤਿ ਚਰਨ ਕਮਲਾਰੇ ॥
Ang 534 — Raag Devgandhari, Mahala 5, Guru Arjan Sahib.

ਨਿਰਭਉ ਨਿਰਵੈਰੁ
Ang 1 — Mool Mantar, Guru Nanak Sahib.

Cross-check instruction

Open each cited Ang on SearchGurbani.com and SriGranth.org and confirm that the Gurmukhi line, Ang number, Raag heading, and attribution match.

Historical note

The events referred to in this piece are the Jallianwala Bagh massacre in Amritsar on Vaisakhi, April 1919; the Ghadar movement and the execution of Kartar Singh Sarabha in 1915; the Komagata Maru episode in 1914; the Akali gurdwara reform morchas of the 1920s; the executions of Bhagat Singh in 1931 and Udham Singh in 1940; the Partition of Punjab in 1947; the Panthic Ardas plea for open access to separated gurdwaras and gurdhams; and the opening of the Kartarpur corridor in 2019.

Figures for Partition deaths and displacement vary widely between sources and are therefore stated here without numbers.

Correction note

If you spot any mismatch in text, Ang reference, attribution, transliteration, or English sense, PanthSeva will correct it publicly, calmly, and with a dated correction note.

Source note

The doctrinal judgment in this piece is grounded in Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji alone.

This piece is offered with goodwill toward India and its people on the country’s day of independence. It speaks against no community and no neighbour. It holds together what the date itself holds together: a freedom worth honouring, a wound worth naming, and a Guru above both.

Strong disagreement is welcome. Contempt is not.

Bhul chuk maaf.

Gurjit Singh Sandhu
PanthSeva

Excerpt

Science can study creation. It can measure, test, describe, model and correct its models. That is its proper field, and the Sikh need not fear it.

But science cannot define Ik Oankaar, Hukam, Gur Prasad or Akaal.

The problem begins when scientific prestige is placed above Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji, and the Guru is then required to fit inside it.

When Sikh scientists and writers turn scientific analogies into the meaning of Gurbani, they mislead Sikhs. Their learning may be real. Their authority over Shabad is not.

You have probably heard someone say, usually with real enthusiasm, that Guru Nanak Sahib was describing modern science long before modern scientists arrived. Japji Sahib is said to be really about the Big Bang. Hukam is said to mean the laws of nature. Ik Oankaar is made into the universe itself, an infinite quantity of energy, or the singularity from which the universe is said to have emerged. Sanjog and vijog are turned into nuclear fusion and fission.

Physics, we are told, is finally catching up with what the Guru already knew.

It sounds flattering, modern and respectful. It sounds like good news for Sikhi.

But it is not.

These claims have not appeared only in casual conversations or social-media posts. Professor Devinder Singh Chahal has published interpretations identifying Hukam with the laws of nature or universe, and sanjog and vijog with fusion and fission. In the same paper, he interprets a Japji Sahib line through energy, singularity and the Big Bang. Professor Hardev Singh Virk writes that the seeds of Big Bang cosmology are “explicitly visible” in the sacred writings of Guru Nanak and his successors. He also describes Sikh cosmology as “most scientific and compatible” with modern cosmological theories, and compares Sunn with a quantum-vacuum account of creation. [1] [2]

These are not passing illustrations offered after the meaning of the Shabad has been established. They are presented as interpretations of what Gurbani means.

It is time to say plainly that these interpretations mislead Sikhs. Whether every writer intended to mislead is not the question. The question is what the method does. It replaces the Shabad’s own language with a scientific category, and then uses academic standing to make the replacement sound authoritative.

Many who speak this way may sincerely want young Sikhs to respect Gurbani. But a sincere purpose does not make a wrong method right. The Guru does not need to be made respectable by being translated into the language of whichever outside discipline currently carries prestige.

Every time Gurbani is forced inside an outside frame, the Sikh is given less than the Guru gives. Scientific reframing is one version of a wider mistake: allowing something admired outside Gurbani to govern the meaning of Gurbani.

Noticing an analogy is one thing. Handing authority over meaning to that analogy is another.

Science can study the world. It can measure, test and describe many things within the created order. But the study of created patterns must not become the authority over Sikh meaning. Science may study creation. It does not get to tell the Sikh what Ik Oankaar, Hukam, Gur Prasad or Akaal mean.

That authority belongs to Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

What the opening already says

Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji does not begin with a scientific puzzle waiting to be solved. It begins by naming the One:

ੴ ਸਤਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਕਰਤਾ ਪੁਰਖੁ ਨਿਰਭਉ ਨਿਰਵੈਰੁ ਅਕਾਲ ਮੂਰਤਿ ਅਜੂਨੀ ਸੈਭੰ ਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ ॥

Ik Oankaar sat naam kartaa purakh nirbhau nirvair akaal moorat ajoonee saibhang gur prasaad.

Ang 1

Plain-English sense: The One. Naam is Truth. Creator-Being. Without fear. Without enmity. Timeless form. Beyond birth. Self-existent. Known by the Guru’s grace.

These are not decorative words. They are doctrinal guardrails.

Karta Purakh means the One is Creator, not merely the created order. Akaal Moorat means the One is not confined within time. Ajuni means the One does not enter birth as created beings do. Saibhang means the One does not depend upon something prior for existence. Gur Prasad tells the Sikh how the One is known: by the Guru’s grace.

Then Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji says:

ਆਦਿ ਸਚੁ ਜੁਗਾਦਿ ਸਚੁ ॥
ਹੈ ਭੀ ਸਚੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਹੋਸੀ ਭੀ ਸਚੁ ॥੧॥

Aad sach, jugaad sach. Hai bhee sach, Naanak hosee bhee sach.

Ang 1

Plain-English sense: True in the beginning. True through the ages. True now. O Nanak, forever true.

Before the scientific debate even begins, the reduction has already failed.

What begins within time changes. What unfolds through physical process changes. Human models change. Scientific descriptions change. But the One named here is not one more changing object within a changing system.

Ik Oankaar is not a name for the universe. Ik Oankaar is not a name for physical energy. Ik Oankaar is not a scientific singularity waiting to explode. The opening itself does not allow those reductions.

Why “science is catching up” gets the relationship backwards

To say that science is finally catching up with the Guru sounds respectful. But even that language places science in the higher court. It suggests that Gurbani becomes more secure when modern scientific language nods in approval.

The Guru does not wait for a laboratory to approve Ang 1.

Science works by observing, testing and revising its explanations. That is one of its strengths. A scientific model may be replaced when better evidence appears. But that is also why a scientific model cannot become the authority that defines Gurbani. Shabad is not waiting for the next scientific correction before it can know what Ik Oankaar means.

I remember visiting CERN near Geneva. The scale of human inquiry was astonishing. The instruments, discipline and accumulated learning deserved respect. But this argument does not depend upon what CERN or any other scientific institution has not yet discovered.

Dark matter may one day be understood more fully. Cosmological models may change. New physical laws may be proposed. Present mysteries may be solved.

Nothing in this article depends upon a scientific gap remaining open.

Even if science could produce a complete physical account of the universe, it would still be describing Kudrat. It would not thereby gain authority over Ik Oankaar, Hukam, Gur Prasad or Akaal.

The Guru is not hiding in the gaps of scientific knowledge.

Science does not lose authority over Gurbani because it has unanswered questions. It never possessed that authority.

A later key cannot be the key

There is a simple test.

If a modern scientific concept is the real meaning of a Gurbani line, what did the line mean before that concept was developed?

Before modern cosmology, was Gurbani’s account of creation closed?

Before nuclear physics, were sanjog and vijog waiting to become fusion and fission?

Before scientists began speaking of singularities and quantum vacuums, was Ik Oankaar waiting for those terms to become understandable?

No.

Sikhs had already heard, sung, lived and understood Bani for centuries before that vocabulary existed. Shabad had already opened hearts, loosened haumai, formed Sikhs and brought human beings towards Hukam.

Modern scientific words may sometimes provide later illustrations. They cannot be the necessary key to Gurbani. A vocabulary developed in recent centuries cannot be the indispensable key to Bani that Sikhs heard, sang and lived long before that vocabulary existed.

If fusion, fission, singularity or today’s cosmology become the “real meaning” of Gurbani, every change in scientific understanding will demand another reinterpretation of the Guru. Gurbani will be made to move whenever the scientific model moves.

That cannot be right.

Our explanations may need correction. Our understanding may deepen. Our examples may change.

But the Shabad is not waiting for the next scientific model to know what it means.

The One is in all. The One is not reduced to all

On Ang 13, in Sohila, under Raag Dhanaasree, Mahala 1, Guru Nanak Sahib says:

ਸਭ ਮਹਿ ਜੋਤਿ ਜੋਤਿ ਹੈ ਸੋਇ ॥
ਤਿਸ ਦੈ ਚਾਨਣਿ ਸਭ ਮਹਿ ਚਾਨਣੁ ਹੋਇ ॥
ਗੁਰ ਸਾਖੀ ਜੋਤਿ ਪਰਗਟੁ ਹੋਇ ॥

Sabh meh jot, jot hai so-e. Tis dai chaanan sabh meh chaanan ho-e. Gur saakhee jot pargat ho-e.

Ang 13

Plain-English sense: The Jot within all is that One. By the Light of that One, all are illumined. Through the Guru’s teaching, the Jot becomes manifest.

This is a vast statement of Divine presence. But presence in all is not the same as being reduced to all.

The third line matters. The Jot becomes manifest through Gur Saakhi. Gurbani itself tells us where recognition comes from. It does not say that the Jot becomes known when physics finds the correct particle, energy field or mathematical description.

Then, on Ang 463, in Aasaa Ki Vaar, Guru Nanak Sahib says:

ਆਪੀਨੑੈ ਆਪੁ ਸਾਜਿਓ ਆਪੀਨੑੈ ਰਚਿਓ ਨਾਉ ॥
ਦੁਯੀ ਕੁਦਰਤਿ ਸਾਜੀਐ ਕਰਿ ਆਸਣੁ ਡਿਠੋ ਚਾਉ ॥
ਦਾਤਾ ਕਰਤਾ ਆਪਿ ਤੂੰ ਤੁਸਿ ਦੇਵਹਿ ਕਰਹਿ ਪਸਾਉ ॥

Aapeenhai aap saajio, aapeenhai rachio naao. Duyee kudrat saajee-ai, kar aasan ditho chaao. Daataa kartaa aap toon, tus devah karah pasaao.

Ang 463

Plain-English sense: The One established the Self and the Naam. Then, second, the One fashioned Kudrat, abided within it, and beheld it with delight. You Yourself are the Giver and the Creator; in Your pleasure, You give and bestow grace.

The word duyee, second, matters. It points back to the line before it. The One and Naam are not derived from Kudrat. Kudrat is fashioned, and the One abides within it.

Gurbani therefore neither reduces the Creator to creation nor removes the Creator from creation. The One fashions Kudrat, abides within it, beholds it, gives and bestows grace.

A flat equation of “God equals universe” cannot carry everything the Shabad says.

Then, on Ang 1381, within the Salok Sheikh Farid Ji section, the heading changes to Mahala 5. Guru Arjan Sahib says:

ਮਹਲਾ ੫ ॥
ਫਰੀਦਾ ਖਾਲਕੁ ਖਲਕ ਮਹਿ ਖਲਕ ਵਸੈ ਰਬ ਮਾਹਿ ॥
ਮੰਦਾ ਕਿਸ ਨੋ ਆਖੀਐ ਜਾਂ ਤਿਸੁ ਬਿਨੁ ਕੋਈ ਨਾਹਿ ॥੭੫॥

Mahala panjvaa. Fareedaa khaalak khalak meh, khalak vasai rab maahi. Mandaa kis no aakhee-ai, jaan tis bin koee naahi.

Ang 1381

Plain-English sense: The Creator is in creation, and creation dwells in the Creator. Whom then should we call bad, when there is none apart from the One?

Gurbani is already more careful than the scientific reductions being offered to it. The One’s Jot is in all. The Creator is in creation. Creation dwells in the Creator. The One also remains Creator, Giver and the One who bestows grace.

Science may study creation.

It may not reduce the One to creation.

Hukam is not the laws of nature

One published interpretation explicitly presents Hukam as the laws of nature or universe and says that every action and reaction takes place under those laws. The same published method places Gurbani within a scientific account of energy, singularity and cosmic explosion. [1]

These are not harmless changes of vocabulary.

Japji Sahib does not permit Hukam to be reduced to physical causation:

ਹੁਕਮੀ ਹੋਵਨਿ ਆਕਾਰ ਹੁਕਮੁ ਨ ਕਹਿਆ ਜਾਈ ॥
ਹੁਕਮੀ ਹੋਵਨਿ ਜੀਅ ਹੁਕਮਿ ਮਿਲੈ ਵਡਿਆਈ ॥
ਹੁਕਮੀ ਉਤਮੁ ਨੀਚੁ ਹੁਕਮਿ ਲਿਖਿ ਦੁਖ ਸੁਖ ਪਾਈਅਹਿ ॥
ਇਕਨਾ ਹੁਕਮੀ ਬਖਸੀਸ ਇਕਿ ਹੁਕਮੀ ਸਦਾ ਭਵਾਈਅਹਿ ॥
ਹੁਕਮੈ ਅੰਦਰਿ ਸਭੁ ਕੋ ਬਾਹਰਿ ਹੁਕਮ ਨ ਕੋਇ ॥
ਨਾਨਕ ਹੁਕਮੈ ਜੇ ਬੁਝੈ ਤ ਹਉਮੈ ਕਹੈ ਨ ਕੋਇ ॥੨॥

Hukamee hovan aakaar, hukam na kahiaa jaa-ee. Hukamee hovan jee-a, hukam milai vadi-aa-ee. Hukamee uttam neech, hukam likh dukh sukh paa-ee-ah. Iknaa hukamee bakhsees, ik hukamee sadaa bhavaa-ee-ah. Hukamai andar sabh ko, baahar hukam na ko-e. Naanak hukamai je bujhai, ta haumai kahai na ko-e.

Ang 1

Plain-English sense: By Hukam forms arise, yet Hukam cannot be put into words. By Hukam beings arise; by Hukam greatness is received. By Hukam some are high and some low; by Hukam pain and pleasure are received according to what is written. Some receive blessing by Hukam; some continue wandering by Hukam. All are within Hukam; none is outside it. O Nanak, one who understands Hukam no longer speaks in haumai.

Look at what the Pauri itself includes.

Forms arise in Hukam. Beings arise in Hukam. Vadi-aa-ee is received in Hukam. High and low, dukh and sukh, bakhsees and wandering all stand within Hukam. The Pauri closes by saying that when Hukam is understood, haumai no longer speaks.

Reducing Hukam to the laws of nature does not clarify this Pauri. It cuts out what the scientific category cannot carry.

No equation gives bakhsees.

No formula silences haumai.

No physical law bestows mercy.

The regularities studied by science may stand within Hukam. They are not the definition of Hukam. A reading that cannot account for bakhsees and the ending of haumai cannot account for the Pauri.

Science may describe patterns within the created order. It may not replace Hukam with those patterns.

Sanjog and vijog do not mean fusion and fission

One published interpretation says that sanjog and vijog mean fusion and fission. After giving these readings, the paper says that interpretation of the verses in their “real perspective” would not have been possible without etymology and knowledge of physics, biology and genetics. [1]

But the Sikh should read the whole Pauri.

In Japji Sahib, Pauri 29 begins on Ang 6 and concludes on Ang 7:

ਭੁਗਤਿ ਗਿਆਨੁ ਦਇਆ ਭੰਡਾਰਣਿ ਘਟਿ ਘਟਿ ਵਾਜਹਿ ਨਾਦ ॥
ਆਪਿ ਨਾਥੁ ਨਾਥੀ ਸਭ ਜਾ ਕੀ ਰਿਧਿ ਸਿਧਿ ਅਵਰਾ ਸਾਦ ॥
ਸੰਜੋਗੁ ਵਿਜੋਗੁ ਦੁਇ ਕਾਰ ਚਲਾਵਹਿ ਲੇਖੇ ਆਵਹਿ ਭਾਗ ॥
ਆਦੇਸੁ ਤਿਸੈ ਆਦੇਸੁ ॥
ਆਦਿ ਅਨੀਲੁ ਅਨਾਦਿ ਅਨਾਹਤਿ ਜੁਗੁ ਜੁਗੁ ਏਕੋ ਵੇਸੁ ॥੨੯॥

Bhugat giaan da-i-aa bhandaaran, ghat ghat vaajeh naad. Aap naath naathee sabh jaa kee, ridh sidh avraa saad. Sanjog vijog du-e kaar chalaaveh, lekhe aaveh bhaag. Aades tisai aades. Aad aneel anaad anaahat, jug jug eko ves.

Angs 6 and 7

Plain-English sense: Let gyaan be the food and daya its steward; within every heart the Naad resounds. The One is the Master, under whose order all are held; riddhi and siddhi are other tastes. Union and separation are the two workings through which the affairs of the world proceed; each receives a share according to the account. Bow to that One; bow to that One. The Primal, unstained, beginningless and imperishable One remains the same through every age.

Fusion and fission may be physical examples of joining and splitting within Kudrat. They are not the meaning of sanjog and vijog.

The words are wider: union and separation, meeting and parting, joining and loss. The line also says:

ਲੇਖੇ ਆਵਹਿ ਭਾਗ ॥

Lekhe aaveh bhaag.

What comes as one’s portion comes within lekha. The Pauri is not describing a nuclear reaction.

The full Pauri speaks of gyaan, daya, the Naad within every heart, the Master under whose order all are held, riddhi and siddhi as other tastes, lekha and bhaag, Aades, and the beginningless, imperishable One.

The Shabad does not end in a reactor.

It turns the Sikh towards Aades.

Turning sanjog and vijog into fusion and fission does not uncover science hidden inside Japji Sahib. It narrows the Guru’s words to one modern mechanism and then uses scientific standing to make that narrowing appear authoritative.

That interpretation misleads the Sikh.

Science may describe a process within creation. It cannot replace Aades.

Gur Prasad is not a scientific category

The opening of Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji does not end with a mechanism. It ends with:

ਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ ॥

Gur Prasaad.

That matters.

The opening does not close with a physical account of the cosmos. It closes with grace. It tells the Sikh how the One is known.

A scientific theory may describe what happens within creation. It cannot grant grace. A model may measure and predict. It cannot bring the seeker to the One. The One is not known by mechanism.

The One is known by Gur Prasad.

Any interpretation that turns Ik Oankaar into energy, Hukam into physical law and creation into a scientific event must still explain why the Guru places Gur Prasad at the opening.

The scientific categories examined here do not do that work. Energy, physical law and cosmological mechanism cannot carry Gur Prasad.

When the analogy becomes the centre, grace is moved to the edge.

That is not interpretation led by Shabad. It is Shabad being rearranged to serve an outside theory.

What science may do, and what it may not

Science may study stars, cells, atoms, energy, motion, decay and countless patterns within creation. Let it do its work. Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji does not need to fear honest study.

Science may correct false claims about the physical world. It may deepen human wonder at Kudrat. It may produce knowledge that reduces suffering and improves human life.

But science must remain within its field.

It cannot define Ik Oankaar.

It cannot decide what Hukam finally means.

It cannot explain away Gur Prasad.

It cannot shrink Akaal into a theory of the universe.

It cannot turn the Guru into an early physicist whose greatness depends upon having anticipated later scientific discoveries.

That supposed praise is itself a reduction. Guru Nanak Sahib does not become great by being made to resemble a modern scientist. A scientist studies aspects of Kudrat. Guru Nanak Sahib brings the Sikh under Shabad, Naam, Hukam and Gur Prasad.

Created patterns may be studied.

Authority over Sikh meaning remains with the Guru.

A doctorate is not authority over Shabad

A doctorate in physics is real learning in physics. A chair in chemistry is real standing in chemistry. Scientific work may deserve respect within the field in which it has been earned.

But a title in one field is not authority in another.

When a physicist says that Hukam means physical law, or that sanjog and vijog mean fusion and fission, the claim must still be proved from Shabad. The title proves nothing about the claim.

This is where the ordinary Sikh is often placed at an unfair disadvantage. The letters “Dr” or “PhD” appear after a name. The word “Professor” appears before it. The reader assumes that a person qualified to speak about physics must also be qualified to settle the meaning of Gurbani.

That assumption is false.

A degree in the study of creation does not confer authority over the Guru. Scientific standing cannot be carried across an invisible border and converted into Gurmat authority.

The ordinary Sikh does not need a doctorate to ask simple questions:

Is this meaning present in the line?

Does it remain when the whole Pauri is read?

Does it account for all the words?

Does it agree with the wider direction of Gurbani?

Or has a modern concept been placed over the Shabad and then presented as what the Guru really meant?

The burden lies upon the person advancing the new interpretation. The ordinary Sikh is not required to disprove a professor before remaining with the direction given by Shabad.

Academic qualifications do not make a public interpretation less accountable. They make it more accountable, because people are more likely to trust it.

Before Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji, the professor and the ordinary Sikh sit in the same place: as learners.

The learning may be honoured.

The overreach must be rejected.

The real danger

The danger is not only that a few explanations go too far. The deeper danger is that Sikhs begin to believe that Gurbani must be validated by whichever outside system currently carries prestige.

Yesterday that frame may have been empire. Then nationalism. Then interfaith smoothing. Today, for some, it is science.

The effect is the same. Something outside Gurbani is allowed to govern Gurbani.

This is sometimes defended by saying that scientific readings make Gurbani attractive to young Sikhs. But attraction built upon distortion is not seva. A wrong interpretation does not become right because it was offered for educational purposes.

Young Sikhs do not need to be told that Guru Nanak Sahib was teaching nuclear physics. They need to be trusted with what Guru Nanak Sahib actually taught.

They need the Guru, not a scientific substitute for the Guru.

Once the outside frame takes control, the losses follow quickly. Ik Oankaar becomes energy or singularity. Karta Purakh becomes process. Akaal Moorat becomes a statement about timeless physics. Ajuni becomes metaphor. Saibhang becomes speculation about self-existing energy. Hukam becomes natural law. Sanjog and vijog become fusion and fission. Gur Prasad is pushed to the edge.

These reductions have appeared in published Sikh-science writing. They are not imaginary dangers. [1] [2]

That is not enlargement.

That is loss.

The answer is not hostility towards science. The answer is proper order:

Shabad first. Every outside frame second.

Science may serve as an instrument for studying Kudrat. It may provide an illustration after the meaning of the Shabad has been established from Gurbani. It may not become the court before which Gurbani must prove itself.

The Sikh may learn from the study of creation.

The Sikh does not ask creation to explain the Creator.

The bottom line

Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji does not need science to explain the Guru.

Science may study creation. It may describe physical processes and consequences. It may deepen our wonder at the created order.

But it does not interpret the Creator for the Sikh.

When scientific prestige is used to replace Gurbani’s own meaning, the Sikh must say no. It does not matter whether the claim comes from a physicist, a professor, a doctor or an institution carrying an impressive name. The title does not govern the Shabad.

That is not fear of science.

It is fidelity to the Guru.

That is the line we will not cross.

Verify

Checked 8 August 2026.

The Gurmukhi text, Ang references, Bani or section headings, Mahala and attributions used in this piece were cross-checked against SriGranth and SearchGurbani.

The opening line, Aad sach jugaad sach, and the full Hukam Pauri are on Ang 1 in Japji Sahib, Guru Nanak Sahib.

Sabh meh jot, jot hai so-e and Gur saakhee jot pargat ho-e are on Ang 13, under Raag Dhanaasree, Mahala 1, Guru Nanak Sahib. The Shabad forms part of Sohila.

Aapeenhai aap saajio is on Ang 463, in a Pauri of Aasaa Ki Vaar, Guru Nanak Sahib. The exact Gurmukhi form ਆਪੀਨੑੈ has been retained.

Japji Sahib, Pauri 29, begins on Ang 6 with Bhugat giaan da-i-aa bhandaaran and continues onto Ang 7 with Aades tisai aades and Aad aneel anaad anaahat. The citation is therefore Angs 6 and 7.

Fareedaa khaalak khalak meh is on Ang 1381 under the heading Mahala 5, within the Salok Sheikh Farid Ji section, and is therefore attributed to Guru Arjan Sahib.

Cross-check

Open each cited Ang on SearchGurbani.com and SriGranth.org and confirm that the Gurmukhi line, the Ang number, the heading and the attribution match.

Published interpretations examined

[1] Devinder Singh Chahal, “Application Of Science And Logic In Interpretating Gurbani Part I: Etymology,” Understanding Sikhism: The Research Journal, Vol. 15, Nos. 1 and 2, January to December 2013, pp. 9 to 20. The claims examined here appear especially at pp. 10 and 12 to 15.

[2] Hardev Singh Virk, “Cosmological Ideas in Science and Religion,” in Scientific Vision in Sri Guru Granth Sahib & Interfaith Dialogue (Singh Brothers, Amritsar, November 2007), pp. 34 to 52, especially pp. 34 and 48 to 50. An online version, titled “Cosmological Ideas in Science and Religion: The Riddle of Singularity and its Solution by Guru Nanak,” was republished by SikhNet on 22 October 2014.

These works are cited because they provide documented examples of the method examined in this article. The disagreement is with their published interpretation and the authority claimed for that method. Chahal’s singularity reading and Virk’s account are kept distinct. Virk expressly writes elsewhere that there is no singularity in Guru Nanak Sahib’s vision.

Disclosure

Professor Hardev Singh Virk sponsored my ISC Sikh Think Tank Fellowship. He also wrote a kind note of appreciation for my book on Japji Sahib. I record this openly. I name his published work here because the method matters more than any relationship, and because honest engagement is a form of respect.

Science note

This article does not depend upon science remaining incomplete.

Scientific knowledge may continue to develop. Present theories may be revised, strengthened or replaced. None of that alters the governing distinction.

Science studies creation.

It does not rule the meaning of Shabad.

Correction note

If any mismatch is found in the Gurmukhi text, Ang reference, Bani heading, Mahala, attribution, transliteration or plain-English sense, PanthSeva will examine it and, where correction is required, correct it publicly, calmly and with a dated note.

Source note

The doctrinal judgment in this piece is grounded in Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji alone.

This piece does not oppose honest scientific inquiry or the proper study of creation. It opposes the use of scientific prestige to redefine the Guru.

The distinction is clear:

Science may serve.

It may not rule.

Strong disagreement is welcome. Contempt is not.

Bhul chuk maaf.

Gurjit Singh Sandhu (PanthSeva).

When the Guru defends another person’s freedom of faith, this does not make the Guru part of that faith. Being thankful does not give anyone the right to claim the Guru as their own.

ਏਕੁ ਗੁਸਾਈ ਅਲਹੁ ਮੇਰਾ ॥
ਹਿੰਦੂ ਤੁਰਕ ਦੁਹਾਂ ਨੇਬੇਰਾ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
ਨਾ ਹਮ ਹਿੰਦੂ ਨ ਮੁਸਲਮਾਨ ॥
ਅਲਹ ਰਾਮ ਕੇ ਪਿੰਡੁ ਪਰਾਨ ॥੪॥

ek gusaa-ee alahu meraa; Hindu turak duhaan neberaa. Rahao.
naa ham Hindu na Musalmaan; Alah Raam ke pind paraan.

The One, called Gusaain and Allah, is mine. I do not depend on either Hindu or Turk for spiritual guidance. I am neither Hindu nor Muslim. My body and life-breath belong to the One called Allah and Ram.

Gusaain is a name for the Master. In this Shabad, “Turk” is the historical word used for a Muslim.

Raag Bhairau, Mahala 5, Ang 1136. The first two quoted lines are the Rahao, the centre of the Shabad. The next two are verse 4. The Shabad continues through verse 5, which begins ਕਹੁ ਕਬੀਰ. Its heading in Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji is Mahala 5, so it is cited here under Guru Arjan Sahib Ji.

Shabad, the Guru’s Word, gives the governing measure. Early court poetry, political speech and state law must be read beneath it. The Rahao does not place the Sikh halfway between two religions or leave Sikh identity open to either one. It centres the One, who is beyond both. The Shabad then speaks in the first person: neither Hindu nor Muslim; body and life-breath belong to the One. Its discipline begins with the Sikh. The Panth cannot reverse that discipline and place itself inside one of the identities that the Shabad has set aside.

This clear boundary matters. Here, shahadat means giving one’s life as a witness to truth. Across different dates and settings, public officials have repeatedly linked Sikh shahadat to Sanatan dharam, Hinduism, Indian civilisation, culture and nation. The words have varied, but their direction has remained the same.

Some people use this language sincerely to honour the Gurus and express thanks. That intention should be treated fairly, but it does not change what the language does. The Gurus are praised and then placed inside an older religion or civilisation. Sikh shahadat is honoured and then another tradition is allowed to define its meaning and claim it as its own.

The public record shows this. In April 2022, an official Prime Minister’s Office account reported the Prime Minister saying that Guru Tegh Bahadur Sahib Ji emerged as a great hope for India to save its identity, stood as Hind di Chadar, and inspired later generations of India to protect the dignity and honour of their culture.

On 1 March 2026, an official Ministry of Home Affairs release reported Amit Shah saying that Guru Sahib gave his shahadat “to save Hinduism and Hindus”. It also reported him saying that followers of Sanatan Dharma across India and the world “express their gratitude” to Guru Sahib for enduring torture and giving his shahadat “to save Hinduism”.

The two statements use different words. One speaks about culture and national identity. The other directly names Hinduism, Hindus and Sanatan Dharma. Their direction is the same: both place Sikh shahadat inside a religious or national story whose meaning is decided outside Sikhi.

The question is not whether Hindus may remember Guru Tegh Bahadur Sahib Ji with thanks. Of course they may. The question is whether defending a people gives those people the right to define Guru Sahib’s identity, teaching and shahadat.

Gurbani shows us why the answer is no.

ਦਇਆ ਕਪਾਹ ਸੰਤੋਖੁ ਸੂਤੁ ਜਤੁ ਗੰਢੀ ਸਤੁ ਵਟੁ ॥
ਏਹੁ ਜਨੇਊ ਜੀਅ ਕਾ ਹਈ ਤ ਪਾਡੇ ਘਤੁ ॥

da-i-aa kapaah santokh soot, jat gandhee sat vat;
ehu jane-oo jee-a kaa ha-ee, ta paade ghat.

Make compassion the cotton, contentment the thread, self-restraint the knot and truthful living the twist. This is the janeu of the inner being. If you have such a janeu, Pandit, put it on me.

Asa Ki Vaar, Salok Mahala 1 before Pauri 15, Ang 471. These are the opening two lines of the Salok.

The janeu is a sacred thread worn by some Hindus. Guru Nanak Sahib Ji compares the outer thread with the qualities that should grow within a person. He names compassion, contentment, self-restraint and truthful living. Self-restraint means the ability to control oneself. These qualities do not belong to only one community. They shape a truthful human life.

The Shabad does not tell the Sikh to hate anyone who wears a janeu. But it does not allow an outer thread to define spiritual truth. A Sikh can therefore defend another person’s right to wear the janeu. This does not make the janeu part of Sikhi.

Gurbani applies the same inner test to Muslim religious practice:

ਮਿਹਰ ਮਸੀਤਿ ਸਿਦਕੁ ਮੁਸਲਾ ਹਕੁ ਹਲਾਲੁ ਕੁਰਾਣੁ ॥
ਸਰਮ ਸੁੰਨਤਿ ਸੀਲੁ ਰੋਜਾ ਹੋਹੁ ਮੁਸਲਮਾਣੁ ॥

mihar maseet sidak musalaa, hak halaal kuraan;
saram sunnat seel rojaa, hohu musalmaan.

Let mercy be your mosque, faith your prayer mat and honest earning your Quran. Let the modesty that turns you away from wrongdoing be your circumcision, and good character your fast. In this way, become a Muslim.

Vaar Majh Ki, Salok Mahala 1 before Pauri 7, Ang 140. These are the opening two lines of the Salok.

Gurbani does not let Hindu ritual govern spiritual truth, and it does not let Muslim ritual govern it either. It tests both by the standard of truthful living. Neither community can claim the Guru simply because the Guru protects members of that community, uses words familiar to them or examines their religious practices.

Shabad must therefore govern how the historical chadar image is read. Chadar means a cloth or covering, and here it is used as an image of protection.

This research found an early written use of the chadar image in Sri Gur Sobha. The work is attributed to Sainapati, a poet linked to the court of Guru Gobind Singh Sahib Ji. In the edition prepared by Ganda Singh, the line reads:

pargat bhae Gur Teg Bahadar, sagal srisht pai dhapi chadar.

Guru Tegh Bahadur Sahib Ji appeared, and the chadar was spread over the whole creation.

The key words are sagal srisht: the whole creation. The words karam dharam also appear in the same chhand, or stanza. The following stanzas speak of sarab dharam, tilak, janeu, dharamsala and dharam het.

This early passage holds two truths together. Guru Sahib’s chadar covers the whole creation. At the same time, Guru Sahib’s historical stand protected people whose religious signs and way of life were under attack.

The words “whole creation” do not erase the people Guru Sahib defended. But those people do not own the Guru who defended them.

The Bachittar Natak passage often used in this discussion says tilak janju rakha prabh ta ka and dharam het saka jini keeaa. These words speak of protecting the tilak, a religious mark worn on the forehead, and the janeu. They also speak of a saka undertaken for dharam. Here, saka refers to an event remembered for great courage and sacrifice. This matters because the lines tell us what was being protected in that event.

But the lines do not say that Guru Tegh Bahadur Sahib Ji became part of the tradition whose marks he protected. The lines also do not name the Kashmiri Pandits. That connection comes from wider historical accounts recorded later.

The word dharam does not always mean exactly the same thing as the modern English word “religion”. We must read it in its setting, not force it into one narrow modern meaning. But the word alone cannot turn protection into membership of a religion. It cannot give one civilisation the right to claim Guru Sahib or his shahadat as its own.

The record does not support a neat sequence from srisht, to dharam, to Hind, and finally to Sanatan. Srisht and dharam already appear together in the early passage. We should not create a historical sequence that the evidence does not establish.

The first use of Hind di Chadar has not been established. The earliest example found in the sources checked for this essay is in the official report of a Punjab Vidhan Sabha debate on 6 December 1967. This proves that the phrase was in public circulation by that date, but not where or when it began. That unresolved point does not weaken the present finding: in current public language, defence is turned into religious membership, and thanks is turned into ownership.

This is not only an argument about old texts. Governments, courts and legislatures choose words that shape how future generations understand Sikh identity and Sikh shahadat.

Shabad has already given the Sikh measure. The law comes after it. Article 25 of the Constitution of India must therefore be read accurately, but its narrow legal scope must not be used to hide its wider harm.

Article 25 speaks in two directions. Explanation I expressly names “the Sikh religion” and deems the wearing and carrying of kirpans to be included in its profession. Explanation II again names people who profess the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion. Yet for Article 25(2)(b), it orders that references to Hindus must include those people and that references to “Hindu religious institutions” must be enlarged in the same way.

The Supreme Court has said that this expanded meaning is for the special purpose of Article 25(2)(b), “and for no other”. It would therefore be false to say that Article 25 generally declares Sikhi to be Hinduism.

But that legal limit does not make the wording harmless. Within the field where it operates, Hindu is the main constitutional word. Sikh people and Sikh religious institutions enter by being included within it. Sikhi is named, but it is not named equally.

The objection is not to social reform or equal access to the public religious institutions covered by the clause. Sikh identity requires no defence of caste exclusion. A secular Constitution can protect reform and equal access by naming Hindu, Sikh, Jaina and Buddhist people and institutions separately. Equal treatment does not require unequal naming.

The wider danger is not imagined. In 1966, while deciding a case about the Swaminarayan community, the Supreme Court connected Explanation II with what it called the “broad and comprehensive character” of Hindu religion. It then placed beside that constitutional wording four Hindu-named family-law Acts which apply to Sikhs.

In Bal Patil v. Union of India in 2005, the Supreme Court spoke of Sikhs and Jains as having been treated as part of a “wider Hindu community”. The case did not formally withdraw Sikh minority status. Its importance here is that, while deciding a Jain minority case, the Court used language that placed Sikhs and Jains inside a wider Hindu frame.

Neither judgment made a general legal declaration that Sikhi is Hinduism. That does not make the reasoning harmless. It shows limited constitutional wording entering a much wider judicial story about religion, culture and community.

Parliament separately enacted the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, the Hindu Succession Act 1956, the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956, and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956. Subject to its stated exceptions, each Act expressly applies to a person who is Sikh by religion. Each also directs that the word “Hindu” within the Act includes a person covered by the Act even though that person is not Hindu by religion.

These Acts apply to Sikhs in fields including marriage and divorce, intestate succession, adoption and maintenance, and minority and guardianship. Article 25 did not itself create them, and they do not depend upon Explanation II for their application. But in 1966 the Supreme Court itself placed the constitutional wording and these four Acts together. The Constitution and the statutes repeat the same method: Sikh identity is acknowledged, and Sikh people are then administered through a Hindu-named category.

The Anand Marriage Act validates qualifying marriages between persons professing the Sikh religion solemnised through Anand Karaj. Since the 2012 amendment came into force, section 6 has required State Governments to make rules providing an Anand Marriage Register. Registration under that provision avoids duplicate registration, but it operates “without prejudice to” the Hindu Marriage Act. It does not supply a separate Sikh law of divorce, succession, adoption, maintenance or guardianship.

The consequence is not merely a word printed on paper. When a Sikh enters a court under one of these Acts, the law recognises that person as Sikh by religion and then tells the court to read the word Hindu as including that Sikh. The objection is not to different communities sharing civil rules. Shared rules can be written and named as shared rules. The objection is to one religion becoming the legal heading beneath which other religions are placed.

This language also supplies a ready-made political claim. A public figure can remove Explanation II from its limited setting and announce that “the Constitution says Sikhs are Hindus”. That general claim is legally false, but the wording gives it a constitutional hook. The ordinary reader is left to untangle a distinction that the Constitution need never have created.

The reasonable inference from the whole record is not that one body secretly coordinated every clause, statute, judgment and speech. It is that, across decades and institutions, the same assimilating assumption has repeatedly appeared. Sikhi is acknowledged by name and then administered or narrated inside a Hindu or national frame. This is a structural pattern, not a series of harmless slips. The record does not disclose one common motive shared by every actor. It does disclose an effect that repeatedly points in the same direction.

This legal pattern supplies a frame through which Sikh shahadat is recast. Once Sikhi is placed inside a wider Hindu or Sanatan civilisation, Guru Tegh Bahadur Sahib Ji’s defence of Hindus is retold as a member of that civilisation protecting his own religion. Protection is turned into membership. Gratitude is turned into ownership. The chadar spread over the whole creation is narrowed into the flag of one civilisation.

The objection is neither new nor unreasonable. Without deciding the larger identity question raised before it, the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution recommended in 2002 that Explanation II be removed and that Hindu, Sikh, Jaina and Buddhist institutions be named separately.

On 25 February 2011, Sardar Sukhdev Singh Dhindsa introduced a private member’s Constitution Amendment Bill in the Rajya Sabha. Its statement of reasons said that the wording had caused “avoidable confusion about the independent identity” of the religions concerned. The Bill did not become law.

The responsible correction remains clear. Explanation II should be removed. Article 25(2)(b) should name the religions separately. Sikhs should not have to disappear inside the word Hindu before they can be included within a law for social reform or equal access.

A constitutional clause cannot alter Sikhi. Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji does not depend upon recognition from any state. But constitutional and statutory words can still affect Sikh institutions, family law, judgments, public teaching and political claims. They can help others misname Sikhi and then present absorption as unity or gratitude. That is real harm. It should not be excused as a technical matter.

The same state has already shown that more accurate official language is possible. In 2021, the Government of India issued rules for a commemorative coin bearing the words pargat bhae Guru Teg Bahadar, sagal srisht pai dhapi chadar. The coin does not correct Article 25 or undo the wider pattern. It does show that narrow and assimilating language is not unavoidable. Official bodies can speak of the chadar over the whole creation when they choose to do so.

Official words do more than remember history. They teach people how to understand it. A modern state may honour Sikh shahadat, but it may not fold Sikhi into another religion and then claim a seventeenth-century shahadat for a religious or national story imposed upon it later.

Many people inherit these phrases through family, school, public remembrance and shared Panjabi life. Repetition is not by itself proof of bad faith. A phrase can be repeated with love while carrying a claim that the speaker has never examined. We should correct the claim without contempt for the person and return patiently to Shabad and the historical record.

ਭੈ ਕਾਹੂ ਕਉ ਦੇਤ ਨਹਿ ਨਹਿ ਭੈ ਮਾਨਤ ਆਨ ॥
ਕਹੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਸੁਨਿ ਰੇ ਮਨਾ ਗਿਆਨੀ ਤਾਹਿ ਬਖਾਨਿ ॥੧੬॥

bhai kaahoo kau det neh, neh bhai maanat aan;
kahu Nanak sun re manaa, giaanee taahi bakhaan.

Says Nanak, listen, mind: one who frightens no one and is not frightened by anyone else’s threats should be called truly wise.

Salok Mahala 9, Salok 16, Ang 1427.

This teaches the Sikh how to respond. No Hindu should be treated as an enemy because this claim is questioned. Governments and public figures should be questioned without hatred. But we must not give up the Guru’s meaning simply to please political leaders or to avoid disagreement between communities.

Nirbhau means without fear, but it does not mean being hostile. Nirvair means without hatred, but it does not require us to remain silent.

The chadar covered the whole creation. In its historical setting, it sheltered people facing coercion in matters of faith and conscience. That defence did not make Guru Tegh Bahadur Sahib Ji Hindu, place Guru Sahib inside Sanatan dharam, or give Hinduism or a later Indian nation ownership of the shahadat. The same misuse occurs when praise of the Sahibzade, the four sons of Guru Gobind Singh Sahib Ji, is used to place them inside a religious or national story imposed upon them later.

A Sikh can protect another person without joining that person’s faith and without asking that person to become Sikh. Gratitude remains honest only when it leaves the Guru’s identity and authority untouched. When gratitude demands ownership, it becomes appropriation. The Gurus and the Sahibzade bore witness to truth under the Guru alone. No community or state may claim them as its property.

Verification and sources

Every Gurbani passage above can be checked by its Ang number: Raag Bhairau, Mahala 5, Ang 1136; Asa Ki Vaar, Salok Mahala 1 before Pauri 15, Ang 471; Vaar Majh Ki, Salok Mahala 1 before Pauri 7, Ang 140; and Salok Mahala 9, Salok 16, Ang 1427.

The Gurmukhi text of Gurbani comes first. Romanisation means writing Gurbani in English letters. Romanisation and the English meanings are learning guides. They do not replace the Gurmukhi or the need to read the whole Shabad in its proper setting.

• Gurbani: Ang 1136 at SearchGurbani, Ang 1136 with Professor Sahib Singh’s teeka at SriGranth, Ang 471, Ang 140, and Ang 1427.

• Early Sikh writings: Sri Gur Sobha, Ganda Singh edition, read alongside the 2014 Punjabi-English edition. Ganda Singh’s edition reads dhapi. The Punjabi text printed beside the 2014 English translation reads jaki. Both keep the important words sagal srisht. This essay quotes the Ganda Singh edition and records the difference openly. See also Bachittar Natak, chapter 5. This essay does not examine or decide the wider debate about the Dasam Granth.

• Later use of the phrase: Punjab Vidhan Sabha debates, 22 November to 14 December 1967. The first use of Hind di Chadar has not been established. The use on 6 December 1967 is the earliest one found in the sources checked for this essay and proves that the phrase was in public circulation by that date.

• Government record: Prime Minister’s Office, 21 April 2022, Ministry of Home Affairs / PIB, 1 March 2026, and official 2021 Coinage Rules.

• Constitution and judgments: Constitution of India, Article 25, Punjab Rao v. D.P. Meshram, Sastri Yagnapurushadji v. Muldas, Bal Patil v. Union of India, 2002 Constitution Review Commission report, and 2011 Constitution Amendment Bill.

• Family-law statutes: Hindu Marriage Act 1955, Hindu Succession Act 1956, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956, Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956, and Anand Marriage Act 1909.

Strong disagreement is welcome. Contempt is not.

Bhul chuk maaf karni Ji.

Gurjit Singh Sandhu
PanthSeva
London

ਪੁੰਨੀ ਪਾਪੀ ਆਖਣੁ ਨਾਹਿ ॥
ਕਰਿ ਕਰਿ ਕਰਣਾ ਲਿਖਿ ਲੈ ਜਾਹੁ ॥

punnee paapee aakhan naahi
kar kar karnaa likh lai jaahu

Plain-English sense: Virtue and wrongdoing are not settled by words alone. What we repeatedly do writes the account we carry.

Japji Sahib, Pauri 20, Ang 4, Guru Nanak Sahib Ji.

Verify: SearchGurbani · SriGranth · Dekho Ji · Sikh Samridhi /Darpan

Every day in Ardas, Sikhs remember the Singhs and Singhniyan who gave their heads but did not surrender their Sikhi:

ਜਿਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਸਿੰਘਾਂ ਸਿੰਘਣੀਆਂ ਨੇ ਧਰਮ ਹੇਤ ਸੀਸ ਦਿੱਤੇ ... ਸਿੱਖੀ ਕੇਸਾਂ ਸੁਆਸਾਂ ਨਾਲ ਨਿਬਾਹੀ

jinhaan singhaan singhaniaan ne dharam het sees ditte ... sikhee kesaan suaasaan naal nibaahee

From the Sikh Ardas (excerpt). SGPC Sikh Rehat Maryada

We remember those who were cut limb from limb, scalped, placed on spiked wheels and sawn apart.

They do not need our praise.

We need their measure.

Ardas is not a museum of Sikh suffering. It brings the sacrifice of earlier Sikhs into the life of the Sikh standing today. It asks what we are doing with the freedom they preserved.

We remember them. But are we wasting their sacrifice?

What did they protect?

Their sacrifice preserved more than the survival of a people called Sikh.

It preserved the freedom to live under the Guru.

Again and again, Sikhs refused the ruler’s claim to decide Sikh belief. They refused the mahant’s claim to own the Guru’s house. They refused to exchange Sikhi for comfort, office or release from prison.

The Gurdwara Reform Movement did not settle for kinder treatment from hereditary mahants. Sikhs organised, accepted imprisonment, faced lathis and gave their lives. They created a representative Sikh institution before the British Raj enacted the Sikh Gurdwaras Act.

They understood something we are in danger of forgetting:

A custodian is not an owner.

An office-holder is not the Guru.

A government does not become the author of Sikh religious order because it possesses the power to make laws.

The new surrender

Today, some leading Sikh voices discuss only which clauses of government control should be changed. They ask for better definitions, safer procedures and consultation before the next law is written.

Far fewer ask the first question:

Why should any government hold permanent power to write Sikh religious administration at all?

No government can control Shabad Guru. But a government can control elections, appointments, statutory institutions, registers, property systems and the legal machinery through which people claim to speak for Sikhs.

That power shapes public Sikh authority.

Changing harmful clauses may be necessary now. Granthis, paathis, committees and ordinary Sikhs should not remain exposed to dangerous provisions while the larger question is settled.

Seeking immediate protection is not defeat.

Treating amendment as the final answer is.

Defeat begins when controlled people accept the controller’s permanent right to control them and ask only for kinder terms.

Did the shaheeds sacrifice so that we could negotiate the terms of our control?

We inherit duty, not credit

A Sikh does not inherit the courage of the shaheeds through family, appearance or name.

Japji Sahib does not let us become virtuous merely by calling ourselves virtuous. Our actions write the account.

The word “Sikh” does not place the moral credit of earlier generations into our account. Their sacrifice places a duty into our hands.

This is not a judgment on every Sikh living today. The present generation contains courageous families, lawyers, human-rights workers, researchers, sevadars, journalists and young Sikhs trying to understand the history and institutions they have inherited.

Leadership cannot be judged by office alone. Some of the most important Sikh work has been done by people without high office, often at great personal cost.

The Sikh account is not empty. Sikhs won real victories, built institutions, preserved records and pursued justice.

But the account becomes overdrawn when leaders claim authority without a clear mandate, accept promises without securing delivery, and pass the cost to ordinary Sikhs and the next generation.

The question is not whether every Sikh today is unworthy.

The question is whether our institutions, leaders and public voices are worthy trustees of what earlier Sikhs placed in their care.

What are we leaving behind?

The next generation may inherit institutions that Sikhs cannot renew without government action.

Religious offices may remain tied to committee payrolls and political appointments.

Panjab, Delhi, Haryana, Maharashtra and Bihar may continue under separate systems, with no trusted worldwide Sikh process joining them.

And leaders may become skilled at negotiating clauses while forgetting to ask who has the right to write them.

That would be a terrible exchange.

Earlier generations handed us institutions built through sacrifice.

We would be handing our children institutions trained into dependence.

The diaspora also stands before this test

Sikhs outside India must not condemn Sikhs in Panjab from a safe distance. Panjab carries risks that many in the diaspora do not.

The diaspora also has its own failures: permanent committees, donor control, caste networks, personal rivalries and gurdwaras treated like private possessions.

But freedom creates responsibility.

Sikhs outside India possess legal protection, education, independent media, professional knowledge, money, technology and access to institutions in many countries.

These strengths should not be used to control Panjab from abroad. They should be used to work with Sikhs in India and help build one trusted worldwide Sikh process under Shabad Guru.

The answer is not Delhi control replaced by diaspora control.

The answer is a worldwide Sikh process that no single government, party, family, committee or country can own.

Our duty is different

Bhai Teja Singh Samundri Ji faced prison and died there.

The reform generation faced lathis, firing and death.

Some Sikhs in India still face serious risks for speaking and organising. But many of us, especially in the diaspora, are not being asked to pay the price earlier generations paid.

We are being asked to read, tell the truth, keep records, fund independent work, organise across countries, build institutions that can be trusted, and refuse the claim that government control is permanent simply because it has lasted for a long time.

Earlier Sikhs paid in blood because easier routes had been closed.

For many of us, the price now being asked is much smaller.

If we refuse even that price while praising those who paid with their lives, the question of worthiness begins to answer itself.

The test before us

The present Sikh generation is not condemned.

It is being tested.

Every generation faces a different duty.

Their duty required endurance and resistance.

Ours is to understand the system, end permanent government control over the laws and machinery of Sikh institutions, organise worldwide and leave stronger Sikh institutions to those who follow.

The shaheeds did not sacrifice so that we could inherit their honour.

They sacrificed so that Sikhs could remain free to live under the Guru.

Ardas keeps their sacrifice before us.

Our actions will decide whether we honoured it, or only repeated the words.

Source note

The detailed historical and legal case concerning government control of Sikh institutional machinery is set out in Amended by Empire, Province and Parliament. Never by the Panth.

The longer audit of authority, leadership, unfinished settlements and the cost passed to ordinary Sikhs is developed in The Account Is Overdrawn (forthcoming). It argues that the Sikh account contains real courage and achievement, but becomes overdrawn when unfinished obligations and preventable costs are passed to ordinary Sikhs and the next generation.

Correction note

If a date, historical claim, quotation, attribution, transliteration or plain-English sense is shown to be wrong, PanthSeva will correct it publicly and record the correction with a dated notice.

Strong disagreement is welcome. Contempt is not.

Bhul chuk maaf karni Ji.

Gurjit Singh Sandhu
PanthSeva
London