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 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