# Banda Bahadur = Guru Gobind Singh?



## Sikh Chela (Aug 8, 2008)

I have heard talk of a theory presented some years ago that Banda Bahadur was actually Guru Gobind Singh Ji. I'm not sure of the name but there was a Sikh writer a few years ago who initially brought up this theory (If anyone knows his name, I would be very interested to know). At first, of course, I dismissed the thought immediately as a crazy conspiricy theory but over the years I have thought about it a lot and some 'coincidences' seem like they should be at the very least explored further.

Below I have listed the points which I believe could be used to support this theory:

1. Both Guru Ji and Banda were of approximately the same age. Written records indicate Guru Ji was born in 1666 and Banda in 1670... not a distinguishable difference in men at the age of 40.

2. Any written records that I have come across describe their physical features (height, build, etc) as being similar. In addition, any paintings or pictures that we have show them looking very similar (I realize this is a moot point because we don't have actual pictures of either, but nevertheless).

3. Why would Guru Ji pick an unknown stranger with whom he had no history to lead his Sikhs? Does this really make sense? As far as I have read, Guru Ji was a very rational man and for him to select an unknown hermit with no battle experience as his general casts some doubt in my mind.

4. I know we all believe that Guru Ji was a super-human being (had Guru Nanak's Jyot) but during his life he did show very human emotions and sometimes behaved in a very human way. If you rationally think about a man who has just lost his entire family, and especially the horrible bricking alive of his two young sons then how do you think this man would react? If it was me, I would seek revenge... much like Banda Bahadur did. It is sometimes hard for me to believe that Guru Ji would decide to sit idle at Nanded and appoint an unknown as the general of Sikh forces. What was he planning to do at Nanded while his beloved Sikhs spilled their blood? This action would be contradictory to the way Guru Ji behaved during his life. He was never one to sit idly by while others took up the charge. He was always the general, commanding his Sikhs.

5. Most records of Guru Ji's death indicate that he died in Nanded of stab wounds that were aggrevated as he strung up a stiff bow. There is no precise record (that I have found) that indicates what actually happened to his body. I know this is a topic of much debate but most sources say that he went in to a tent and his body disappeared. I can not rationally believe that his body just dissapeared, so what really did happen to his body?

Is it possible that Guru Ji decided to take up the cause in a different way and changed his name and rode to Punjab as Banda Bahadur? Is it possible that he was hurt enough by the cruelty of the situation and the mughal raj that he opted for revenge? I'm starting to feel that it may be possible.

A man of relatively the same age as Guru Ji, that looked similar to Guru Ji, and had similar leadership skills in battle took over the Sikh army at exactly the same time that Guru Ji died. He then proceeded straight to Punjab to punish the executioners of Guru Ji's father and sons. To me it seems like it could be a well executed plan on behalf of Guru Ji.

I hope I have not offended anyone and if I have then please forgive me and explain to me why I am so wrong or why what I have said is offensive to you.

Sat Sri Akal

Sikh Chela


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Aug 8, 2008)

interesting theory


----------



## Randip Singh (Aug 8, 2008)

I think Bandha's Sikh philosophy caused massive schisms in Sikhism, which led to many Sikhs not following his cause.

Edicts such as not to eat garlic or onion was something that a Bairagi of Vashnavite leaning would utter, and not Guru ji (who had no such hang ups).

His war cry of Fateh Darshan, caused a frackas amongst Sikhs.

There are many other things, and this is why you will find some Sikhs will refer to him as as only Bandha Bahadhur and NOT Bandha SINGH Bahdhur.


----------



## kds1980 (Aug 8, 2008)

Ok just answer my 1 question

What was the benefit to guru ji from becoming Guru gobind singh to Banda Bahadur


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Aug 8, 2008)

Banda Singh bahadur was arrested, brought to Delhi and executed. Thousands of Sikhs just "kept quiet" and never once called their GURU...GURU ?? why ?? Dont tell me not one recognised the GURU ??
how is it possible the Mughal Govt failed to recognise him as "GGS" if indeed this weird theory is true ?

To me this looks like a SPIN OFF from the NAMDHAREE THEORY of dehdharee gurus....they have their own "history" stating Guru Gobind Singh Ji escaped...lived for another hundred years or so hidden as Balak Singh and then passed over Gurgadhi to NAMDHAREE dehdharee "guru"..now into the 15th Gurudom.....Satguru jagjit Singh Ji. This theory is even more weird..GGS "hiding" ?? escaping ?? etc

Sikhs have very little authentic written history....and now a days with the Computerised IT revolution any tom/****/harry..or santa banta chhanta can write a book sitting at home and publish it so cheaply....ARM CHAIR/KEYBOARD ACADEMICS/AUTHORS/HISTORIANS..are aplenty....not everythign written in a"book" is true ??
JSGyani:inca:


----------



## Sikh Chela (Aug 8, 2008)

randip singh said:


> I think Bandha's Sikh philosophy caused massive schisms in Sikhism, which led to many Sikhs not following his cause.
> 
> Edicts such as not to eat garlic or onion was something that a Bairagi of Vashnavite leaning would utter, and not Guru ji (who had no such hang ups).
> 
> ...


 

I realize there are many things about Banda that do not coincide with the way that Guru Ji lived his life but as I pointed out earlier there are definitely some striking similarities.

As far as I am aware, while Banda was alive there was no division or rift among the Sikhs.  There were not many Sikhs that opposed him while he was alive, no more than opposed Guru Ji (example: 40 mukhtaa).  The factions of Tat Khalsa and Bandai Khalsa came about after he died not while he was alive.  I'm not aware of many sikhs 'not following his cause' while he was alive.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, something like a war cry of 'Fateh Darshan' could easily have been initiated by a man like Guru Ji and it is less likely that Banda would have initited this second war cry.  Think of all the changes that Guru Ji brought to Sikhism.  A man like Guru Ji was not afraid of change, he brought many things to Sikhism that were revolutionary but he was not questioned because he was the Guru.  In his lifetime he had become accustomed to changing the norm so it is possible that if and when he transformed his image to that of Banda he continued making these changes.


----------



## Sikh Chela (Aug 8, 2008)

kds1980 said:


> Ok just answer my 1 question
> 
> What was the benefit to guru ji from becoming Guru gobind singh to Banda Bahadur


 
There was a benefit.  Primarily that Guru Ji could exact revenge.  That is my whole point of why this 'crazy' theory makes some sense. 

I believe Sikhs of the time knew Guru Ji to be super-human.  He was a king, he had a raj (kingdom).  One day that raj was torn from him, along with everything else in his life... his family, his home, his freedom, etc.  My contention is that these events affected Gobind Singh (the man, not the guru) in a way that they would affect any other man, super-human or not.  How can any man not be emotionally affected while his two young sons have been bricked alive?  He was broken and disheartened as a man but did not want to tarnish the image of the Nanak Jyot in any way.  He realized that as Guru he could not seek the vengence needed to uproot the mughals.  This is why he decided that the Guru Gobind Singh would have to die (in the eyes of the people) and a new leader born (Banda) who could exact the needed justice with a steel heart and yes, some cruelty.


----------



## pk70 (Aug 8, 2008)

*Sikh Chela ji
There is a fiction which can be a reality, then there is a fantasies that bears no ground but imagination, even dreams are found to be true many times. Here is only one thing that proves you are only enjoying fantasy." Guru came to Punjab( as per your statement) to take revenge." He gathered a lot of people for his support, no one recognized him including those Muslims who had been hunting for Guru ji for a long time, failed to recognize him, Muslims who caught Banda Bahadur, couldnt recognize him who actually would have celebrated it by declaring" It is Sikhs Guru posing as Bhanda"  Mughal records shows a token  of honor was sent to Guru's wife, due to which some historians assumed him to be part of Mughal Army. Guru doesnt bear revenge. He was more worried about wellfare of Sikhs than the death of his sons. You and I can think like this because we are million away from Guru's state of mind. Why would he deceive his own wife to do that. It is sheer fantasy of that mind who is desparate to say" some thing new"  Sant Singh Sekhon, a leftist tried first this thing unsuuccessfully;nothing adds up neither historically nor religiously or socially.  Look at your own views, you admit, there is no authentic pictures of Guru ji or Banda Bahadur Ji, still you are comparing the features and looks ! You are just trying to share with us some body's fantansy I would call it " good try'*


----------



## Jaspreet08 (Aug 8, 2008)

This is quite a theory. I don't believe it, though. Here are couple points why I believe it to be false:

1) Dhan Dhan Maharaj Shri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib Ji would never have sought revenge. His rules of dharam yudh (religious war) clearly state that the this warfare should defensive and never aggressive. 
2) Satguru would have never sought to decieve his followers. How could the teacher of Truth be found to be a deceiver? Where does that leave his followers?

WJKK
WJKF

Jaspreet


----------



## Sikh Chela (Aug 8, 2008)

Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> Banda Singh bahadur was arrested, brought to Delhi and executed. Thousands of Sikhs just "kept quiet" and never once called their GURU...GURU ?? why ?? Dont tell me not one recognised the GURU ??
> how is it possible the Mughal Govt failed to recognise him as "GGS" if indeed this weird theory is true ? JSGyani:inca:


 

I actually agree with you somewhat on this point and it is one of the reasons that I have never stated that this theory is fact.

I don't know how the sikhs of the time would not recognize their Guru.  As far as the Mughal gov't that was hunting the Guru, I'm not so sure that any of them had actually seen the Guru.  If they had seen him they probably would have been close enough to capture/attack him.

Most accounts of Banda indicate that he was excellent at disguising himself... could this have anything to do with no one identifying Banda as Guru Ji?


----------



## Sikh Chela (Aug 8, 2008)

Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> To me this looks like a SPIN OFF from the NAMDHAREE THEORY of dehdharee gurus....they have their own "history" stating Guru Gobind Singh Ji escaped...lived for another hundred years or so hidden as Balak Singh and then passed over Gurgadhi to NAMDHAREE dehdharee "guru"..now into the 15th Gurudom.....Satguru jagjit Singh Ji. This theory is even more weird..GGS "hiding" ?? escaping ?? etc
> 
> Sikhs have very little authentic written history....and now a days with the Computerised IT revolution any tom/****/harry..or santa banta chhanta can write a book sitting at home and publish it so cheaply....ARM CHAIR/KEYBOARD ACADEMICS/AUTHORS/HISTORIANS..are aplenty....not everythign written in a"book" is true ??
> JSGyani:inca:


 
JS Gyani,

Respectfully, I feel it is quite unfair to classify this as a spin off of the namdharee theory.  I am not a believer in the namdharee beliefs and to be concise, I do not 100%believe the banda=GGS theory either... but I do think it should be questioned and together maybe we can understand what really happened to Guru Gobind Singh Ji as there is really no clear account that I know of.

The beauty of Sikhi and this forum is that we are learning from each other, as we are meant to.  Please do not take the easy way out and discount this theory by simply associating it with the namdharees.


----------



## pk70 (Aug 8, 2008)

As far as the Mughal gov't that was hunting the Guru, I'm not so sure that any of them had actually seen the Guru. If they had seen him they probably would have been close enough to capture/attack him.
*Sikh Chela jio,*
*
Then read the History, Guru Gobind Singh Visited Delhi to see Emperor Bahadur Shaw, it was a big deal, many of the right wing Muslims didn't like  it a bit, when after some years Banda Bahadur ji was brought to Delhi, there was none to recognize him?, Mughal govt. used to send their spies to any organization of interest. Claiming, Muslims never saw him is very naive statement. We are talking about a very short period. Saying things about Guru based on ones own personal feeling about loosing family is not a factual point. Sant Bhindrawala was kept alive  in Pakistan by some, in America, still some think Elvis is alive. Rumors should never be even considered worth a discussion to prove some thing. There are others who have based a sect on own fabricated story about Guru Gobind Singh ji. I wonder how Guru ji left Matta Sundri and lived for years to give gurgaddi to some one.* *Only thing that bothers me is to ignore Historical facts and keep weaving stories.*


----------



## Sikh Chela (Aug 8, 2008)

pk70 said:


> *Claiming, Muslims never saw him is very naive statement. We are talking about a very short period. Saying things about Guru based on ones own personal feeling about loosing family is not a factual point. Sant Bhindrawala was kept alive in Pakistan by some, in America, still some think Elvis is alive. Rumors should never be even considered worth a discussion to prove some thing. There are others who have based a sect on own fabricated story about Guru Gobind Singh ji. I wonder how Guru ji left Matta Sundri and lived for years to give gurgaddi to some one.* *Only thing that bothers me is to ignore Historical facts and keep weaving stories.*


 

I agree that it may be naive to state that the mughals never saw him but I was talking about the average mughal, not the elite few who may have stood face to face with Guru Ji.

Secondly, I agree that what I have stated about this theory is not entirely (or at all) factual and that is why it is called a "theory".  But I can assure you dear pk70 that what you read in history books is also not entirely factual either.  As another blogger mentioned before, the record of sikh history during these crucial years is not documented well by anyone, especially from the Sikh point of view.

And Lastly, never did I ever, nor would I ever, suggest that Guru Ji "gave the gurgaddi" to someone.  I believe that he passed the gurgaddi to the Guru Granth Sahib so that there would not be any confusion in the future as you are suggesting.

If you think I am ignoring 'historical facts' then please enlighten me and tell me where I can find these facts.  I am trying to find facts but all I find is stories of the Guru's body 'magically' dissappearing after his death.  He was a man, he knew it, and he died like a man.  During his life he stated over and over again that he was a man and anyone who thought of him as anything higher (ie. God) would be condemned to hell.  He did not believe in magic or chamatkars, and neither did his father Guru Teg Bahadur Ji so how did his body dissapear?  That may be the original question that sparked me to explore this theory further.


----------



## spnadmin (Aug 8, 2008)

Sikh Chela said:


> JS Gyani,
> 
> together maybe we can understand what really happened to Guru Gobind Singh Ji as there is really no clear account that I know of.
> 
> The beauty of Sikhi and this forum is that we are learning from each other, as we are meant to.  Please do not take the easy way out and discount this theory by simply associating it with the namdharees.




 Singh, Prithi Pal. _The history of Sikh Gurus_. Lotus Press, 158. ISBN 8183820751.


Soundar, Chitra. _Gateway to Indian Culture_. Asiapac Books (p) Ltd., 59. ISBN 9812293272.


----------



## pk70 (Aug 8, 2008)

If you think I am ignoring 'historical facts' then please enlighten me and tell me where I can find these facts. I am trying to find facts but all I find is stories of the Guru's body 'magically' dissappearing after his death. He was a man, he knew it, and he died like a man. During his life he stated over and over again that he was a man and anyone who thought of him as anything higher (ie. God) would be condemned to hell. He did not believe in magic or chamatkars, and neither did his father Guru Teg Bahadur Ji so how did his body dissapear? That may be the original question that sparked me to explore this theory further.
*Sikh Chela ji
I am not saying only you are ignoring History, it was hinted at Namdharis who ignored all the facts recorded; for example, passing away of Guru was recorded in Mughal records as per Dr. Ganda Singh, Dr Kirpal Singh known as historian. Mata Gujri lived alone till 1736 or so, How could Guru ji ignore her like this?, why would he zero every thing he established just to take revenge. Why Mughal records shows a token of honor was given to Mata ji. What is the base of this romur? Give me one fact, as you say, nothing was found in the tent, do you think, Mughal wpuld have believed like  that? The reason I gave example of sant Bhindrawala and Elvis was to just give example how people enjoy romurs. aad ji has given you a few sites, you may find there Historical facts available. Disappearance of His body might be just a plan of people around him for some thing but it wouldnt be easy  to believe for Mughal rulers and a lot of those who were after Guru ji with revengeful determination. It was  just a romur as it was in case of the people I mentioned above and later on some took advantage of it like Namdharis. The personality of Guru ji doesnt fit in that rumor any way; I remember communist scholar sant Singh Sekhon started it first time then without having any Historical facts he bowed out. Please dont think my comments are addressing you personally and I say you are coming up with this fantansy personally because you already explained about it. Only you are doing here is finding more weight in that romur and I disredit it as a simple " cooked up stuff"*


----------



## Sinister (Aug 9, 2008)

Sikh Chela ji

you must understand, 
A faith is designed in a defensive manner to keep out objective analysis (as in any organized religion...emotion creeps in). Religion and Religious Philosophy shows no mercy to rationality, especially when rationality stands in opposition to long held construction of realities.

that aside:
I see no rationality in your arguments either... your theory lacks substance.
(i think you feel that as well)

I think this post is about something much more deeper than just equating Banda Singh Bahadur to Guru Gobind Singh. 

It's a reflection and outburst of a need; in adding a human face to an otherwise alien philosophy made by alien characters.

I think your original intention was to bring out a human face to the guru's, which is never presented in the faith:
did guru gobind singh have feelings of revenge, hatred, love, anxiety, fear?
the religion is completely mute when it comes to expressing emotions...other than love...that is what this post is all about (I can see it, in the way Sikh Chela words his posts, which is remarkably similiar to mine)

this frustration, i have seen in many people.

And this is not a question that the history books can solve...individual analysis and interpretation is all that matters...how rational are you?...to what degree do you prescribe the guru's with a human character or a utopian character.

of co{censored}, avid believers do believe that the Guru's were capable of doing absolutely nothing wrong...so clearly in the eyes of Sikhs...the Guru's were not humans (because all humans have faults)...for them The guru is an alien construct (something that must not be judged, because judging requires ego, but whose authority must be submitted to and accepted, as is).

cheers


----------



## pk70 (Aug 9, 2008)

*How are you Sinister ji? Again we have disagreements to ponder over!*
  you must understand, 
A faith is designed in a defensive manner to keep out objective analysis (as in any organized religion...emotion creeps in). Religion and Religious Philosophy shows no mercy to rationality, especially when rationality stands in opposition to long held construction of realities.( quote)
*I concur; however, rationality still exists if one breaks those barriers constructed by institutionalizing forces*. *Many of the time, Guru Nanak asks you to weigh things in rationality instead of following blindly. Do you need quotes, let me know.
*I think your original intention was to bring out a human face to the guru's, which is never presented in the faith:
*Sinister ji, may I ask you what do you mean by human face? 
*did guru gobind singh have feelings of revenge, hatred, love, anxiety, fear?
*Those feelings can be deciphered through his actions during his dealing with those who totally apposed him; they were very obviously of an enlightened one. Many still couldn’t understand his decisions because of it.*
*Instruction of Guru to Sikhs” let the attacker go if he runs away in the battle; where is the revenge, this is verified in the History. Ready to fight with only 40 people at hand against thousands, Guru himself wrote about this  in Zaffarnama, where is the fear?
*the religion is completely mute when it comes to expressing emotions...other than love...
*Wrong, it speaks about fear, revenge literally while teaching love for Him, the difference is the window we look into before building love for Him; with love, righteousness is also promoted as well which gives new prospective to use those feelings you talk about..*
   (I can see it, in the way Sikh Chela words his posts, which is remarkably similiar to mine)
*You have surprised me here; I have found your posts based on rationality only not on rumors, what I have missed? I just cannot believe your comparison of your posts with this one. If rationality is missed, it is not Snister ji’s pos,t that was my impression so far.
*of co{censored}, avid believers do believe that the Guru's were capable of doing absolutely nothing wrong...so clearly in the eyes of Sikhs...the Guru's were not humans (because all humans have faults)...for them The guru is an alien construct (something that must not be judged, because judging requires ego, but whose authority must be submitted to and accepted, as is).
*If you don’t practice what you preach, why my rationality should accept you as my teacher? Same thing goes with Sikhs Gurus; they practiced what they preached and paid for it dearly, otherwise if they wanted, they would have forged alliance with all oppositions as many today’s Dera Gurus do. Thanks for at least open and very honest views,  a way above curtains of hypocrisy. *


----------



## Sinister (Aug 9, 2008)

pk70 said:


> *If you don’t practice what you preach, why my rationality should accept you as my teacher? Same thing goes with Sikhs Gurus; they practiced what they preached and paid for it dearly, otherwise if they wanted, they would have forged alliance with all oppositions as many today’s Dera Gurus do. Thanks for at least open and very honest views, a way above curtains of hypocrisy. *


 
they did pay for it dearly...something I honestly cannot deny

but the question that is still out there and conveniently left unanswered is:
did they fight injustice because they were human or did they fight because they were 'enlightened-humans'?

and what deserves more respect?
a human) who can do what they did?
or an enlightened soul who can do what they did?
(like i told sikh80 ji, im not simply a rationalist, There is a side of Romanticism to me...as their is in everyone)

did the guru’s exhibit humanly emotions: which include
Joy, Acceptance, Fear, Surprise, Sadness, Disgust, Anger, Anticipation, Optimism, Submission, Awe, Disappointment, Remorse, Contempt, Jealousy, Aggressiveness, Love?

Or were they above and beyond these emotions … if they were… then they were not humans…they were aliens…these emotions are what define humanity and human nature...every human has experienced these emotions at least once or more in their lifetime.

The fact my friend is this: We have grown so accustomed to seeing hypocrisy, that it makes us comfortable...its something so familiar that it is not alien. (such is the state of our miserable existence)…we search for hypocrisy (to make ourselves comfortable)…all humans are hypocrites! (at one point or another in their lives) And the people who claim to detest hypocrisy are usually the biggest hypocrites of all...rationally; we all look up to hypocrisy whenever we look up to achieving idealism.

reality can be a system for God, but it cannot be so for any human individual, because both reality and humans are incomplete, and all philosophical systems imply completeness. (Kierkegaard) 

*when we aspire to live up to a philosophical system (idealism) we are behaving like hypocrites.*

I am not here to openly judge the guru’s … they did what they did, according to what they saw was right at the time…and boy did they do!

That is where my respect lies (they took initiative..and that alone deserves some respect), The respect should not reside in the belief that they stopped boulders falling from mountaintops or fought injustice, battling under whelming odds. 

The respect should come from something much more inert...

It should be about adding the human face to religion; the more we talk about certain emotions and ignore the others, we lose out.

I think you get the gist of what I am saying. (i stop here 

cheers


----------



## pk70 (Aug 9, 2008)

*sinister ji, just last but not least !
Try a revolution against an established inhuman practices, I shall see you how often you will be able to preach a religion and support a revolution at the same time; if you do, it will be very hard to accept you one of common humans.  No wonder three centuries were not even enough. Avalanche of cover up by biased historians couldn't hide the truth, still so called followers breath the same punk smell Sikh Gurus asked not to do. I take it a measure of how big was the revolution at least !*


----------



## dalsingh (Aug 10, 2008)

To the original poster. I have never heard anyone saying Banda Singh may have been Dasmesh Pita before.

According to Moghul records they did share physical similarities but are people suggesting that Guru ji married again and the child slaughtered at Delhi was a sahibzada!

Also as pointed out before, Rattan Singh Bhangu claims that Banda introduced changes (i.e. the Khalsa war cry from Jo Bole So Nihal...Sat Siri Akal to Fateh Darshan, the uniform colour from blue to red and miscellaneous dietary habits.)  Why would Guru ji do this? Plus, according to this source there was some fracas between Bandai Sikhs and the Tat Khalsa. Remember many Sikhs who were  close associates with Dasmesh Pita were still around under Banda Singh. If they were one and the same - we would know.


----------



## vijaydeep Singh (Aug 10, 2008)

Gurfateh

In Bhangu's book Banda is not liked,if we visit sarbloh.info,this faction of Nihungs also do not like Banda.

Anyway manistram of Nihungs and Sikhs or Hajur Sahib call him Banda Singh Bahadur only and Gurudwara of him is located at lohgarh(near Jagadhari) and is manged by Budhadal.

Regarding Banda Singh's theory,we still have sect of Bandai Khalsa and is popular with Bairagis.Their headquarter is in Rohtak Haryana(they call themselve Banda Singh Bahadur Sikh Samprdaya).They say that as Banda became Son of Guru and his family linage still goes on.The present head of the sect,who claims from the Banda's family has name "Teja Singh Sodi" .Well during baptism in Nihungs we are told that from this day all of us will have sodi Gotra.

So as a Khalsa Banda was roop of Guru Gobind Singh Ji.Else his followers also consider him separate from the Tenth Master.


----------



## dalsingh (Aug 10, 2008)

vijaydeep Singh said:


> Regarding Banda Singh's theory,we still have sect of Bandai Khalsa and is popular with Bairagis.Their headquarter is in Rohtak Haryana(they call themselve Banda Singh Bahadur Sikh Samprdaya).They say that as Banda became Son of Guru and his family linage still goes on.The present head of the sect,who claims from the Banda's family has name "Teja Singh Sodi" .Well during baptism in Nihungs we are told that from this day all of us will have sodi Gotra.



This makes no sense as his son died in Delhi by all counts. So how could anyone be his blood descendant then?



> So as a Khalsa Banda was roop of Guru Gobind Singh Ji.Else his followers also consider him separate from the Tenth Master


I don't understand this bit - can you clarify?



Look we also have to factor in people  claiming all sorts of things for their own motives.

Why would someone want to, all of a sudden, bring this issue up? Has it any credible basis or is it just imaginative thinking?


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Aug 10, 2008)

Sikh Chela ji and others...

IMHO....Guru Ji was not living in a vacuum...right from His birth at Patna...people like Bhikhan Shah came to visit...and at the battle of bhangannee Pir Budhu Shah and his 700 mureeds fought on Guru Jis side..so there were lots and lots of mughals and muslims who saw Guru ji face to face...from very very close..and would know Him anywhere...leaving aside Sikhs and Hindus who also knew what Guru ji looked like....Guru Ji fought on the battlefront and came Face to Face with many of the greatest Generals of the Mughals....the brother in law of the Pir of Sadhaura was one of them sent from DELHI...so if Guru ji was not well recognised ??? how would he know who Guur Ji was ??/
2. Gurus were "humans"... who showed us the way to "conquer" human traits..like anger..sadness..jealousy etc etc etc BY PERSONAL EXAMPLE.  See How Guru Arjun ji sits on the sizzling hot plate and declares..Dosh na kahoon dehoh//Tera Bhanna MEETHA laggeh....His "human body" was definitley BURNING just as ours would..BUT NOT his "mind" ( as would yours and mine..because we as humans havent yet conquered anger/jealousy/saddnes..etc etc ).
3. Guur Ji did have a "look-alike"....this man (SANT SINGH) was dressed up in Guru Jis clothes, kalgi etc and left to defend the Garhhee of Chamkaur when Guru Ji was ordered by the Guru Khalsa panth in the form of the Panj Piyaras to leave the garrhee. Sant Singh did die  a MARTYRs death when the mughals attacked in full force later on..his body was initially thought to be Guru Ji's body...BUT the TRUTH SOON came OUT....so even the "ordinary mughals" also KNEW very well who Guru gobind Singh ji was !!!...other wise there was no need for the Ghani brothers to carry Him as UCHH da PIR through the mughal lines !!! what more proof is needed ?? In my mind this theory falls flat...flatter than the flattest pancake ...ever.

3. I do have an issue with "disappearing" bodies....the Body of Guru nanak ji Sahib...the body of Guru Arjun ji Sahib and finally the body of Guru Gobind Singh Ji ??? The Gurus didnt attach ANY SIGNIFICANCE to their own bodies.."DEH" is NOT IMPORTANT !! what happend after their PHYSICAL DEATH is ???? What happend BEFORE that is IMPORTANT..they passed on the GURGADHEE to the Successor GURU...and ther is NO DOUBT about this FACT in any Guru's history.
:happy:


----------



## vijaydeep Singh (Aug 10, 2008)

Gurfateh

Clarification.

1. As per Bhangu's book Banda survived the brutal assualt in Delhi and went to Jammu and married and from there the decnt started.Das thinks that he might not have surivived but could have had another wife in jammu.
2."So as a Khalsa Banda was roop of Guru Gobind Singh Ji.Else his followers also consider him separate from the Tenth Master "

As per Sarbloh Granth Sahib Ji.A Khalsa is special form(Roop hai Khas) of Tenth Master.So any true Sikh is same as Tenth Master(there is another Sakhi to see the mirrior das heard from missionary Jagjeet Singh Ji of Navan Shahar).And followers of Banda Singh Bahadur do not think that Tenth Master and Banda were one.For them both were separate personalities..Das just wanted to convey this.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Aug 10, 2008)

Here is something i came across today...
*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Saga of Banda Singh Bahadur:
    Triumph at Chapan-Chiri[/FONT]*
   [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]*     Dr. Sukhdial Singh**[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]*Untitled Document
*[/FONT]
 * Department of Punjab Historical Studies, Punjabi University, Patiala.   147002. Punjab.​ Though    there are so many battle-grounds in the Punjab where decisive battles were    fought, such as Chamkaur Sahib, Khidrana, Gurdas Nangal, Mudki, Sabraon,     Ferozeshah and Baddowa!, but these battle-grounds remind us only of our set-back     and defeat. The battle ground of Chapar-Chiri is the only battle-ground where     the Khalsa, under the leadership of Banda Singh Bahadur, fought a pitched       battle with the Mughal forces. This was the first battle of its kind in       the history     of the Sikhs, where they won and defeated the Mughals in clear terms. The       establishment of first Sikh rule, and the end of the Mughal rule was the   result of this war. 
 Chapar-Chiri is the local pronunciation       of Chappar-Jhiri which means the pond with cluster of trees (small forest).       The area of Chapar-Chiri villages     was     a grove with so many ponds. That is why this area was called as Chhapar-Jhiri.     Though the battle fought at this area was on a single day but, in :reality,     it     was a war which began with the sacking of Samana. Right from the victory     of Samana upto the victory of Chapar-Chiri, there were so many other battles     which     were     fought by the Khalsa with the Mughal forces. These were the battles of Sadhaura,     Ghurham, Kapuri, Shahabad and Banur. All these battles were in the continuation     of the victory of Sirhind. Banda Singh's ultimate aim was to punish Wazir     Khan and to conquer Sarhind. He wanted Sirhind to be crippled before attacking.     Kaithal Samana, Sadhaura, Ghurham, Shahbad, Kapuri and Banur were the main military     posts of the province of Sirhind. These military posts were working as the bulwark     for Sirhind, the Head-Quarter of the province. Before attacking Sirhind, Banda     Singh conquered all these military posts. In a way, he broke the bulwark of Sirhind.     Speaking about these battles Gokul Chand Narang writes: "Small as these     victories were, they served to encourage the followers of Banda and attracted     thousands to his flag by the time he advanced upon Sirhind."1 Thus,     Wazir Khan was crippled before the attack. The battle of Chapar-chiri was     the culmination     of all these battles.
 The identification of Chapar-Chiri       as the battle-ground was first given by William Irvine in his work, The       Later Mughals. He writes that an anonymous     Fragment of     Farrukh-Siyar-Nama (fo1.15a) states that the fight was near Chappar-Chiri.     There are two villages of this name Chappar-Chiri Kalan and Chappar-Chiri     Khurd, on     Sheet No. 48 of the Indian Atlas. They lie about 16 miles North-East of Sirhind     on the Patiyali Raod and are 10 miles North by West of Banur."2 According     to him, the battle was fought on 22nd of May, 1710. He writes that, in the     beginning, Wazir Khan appeared to have already gained the day. When suddenly     a crowd of     men were led by Banda Singh Bahadur to an attack on his rear. This bold movement     put heart into the Sikhs and, with loud cries, they fell in a compact body     on the Mughals who, for a time, held their ground. The Sikh swordsmen attacked     several     elephants and wounded them. Sher Muhammad and Khwaja Ali of Maler Kotla were     killed and confusion arose in the Mughal ranks. Wazir Khan, then eighty years     of age, continued to shoot his arrows at the Sikhs. At length he too was     killed by a musket shot. The baggage was plundered, the elephants captured     and the     body of Wazir Khan dishonoured and hung to a tree. Not a single Mughal escaped     with     anything but the clothes upon his back.3
    Alarm spread through the streets of Sirhind, an old and prosperous town,       inhabited by wealthy bankers and traders and many well-born Mohammadans             of the learned       class. Those who could do so, held. One of the first being Wazir Khan's       eldest son, who, leaving all his father's hoards behind him, made off to       Delhi with all his family. After a feeble defence of two days, the town was taken.       Everyone who, for want of carts or other conveyance, had been left behind, was       made prisoner.4 C.H. Payne writes that on approaching the city, Banda Singh Bahadur       was met by a large force under the viceroy Wazir Khan. A fierce encounter ensued,       in which the Sikhs were completely victorious. Banda engaged Wazir Khan into       a hand-to-hand fight and smote off his head with one blow of his sword. The Sikhs       entered Sirhind which they 'plundered, massacring many of the inhabitants       and wreaking a terrible vengeance on the murderers of the sons of Guru Gobind       Singh'.5
 Sirhind was a flourishing city       at that time. For centuries, it had been prospering its richness. Therefore,       beautiful gardens had been planted there.     The strong     forts, elegant havelies and lofty palaces had been constructed. Emperor Jahangir     liked this place so much that he selected this city for his residence. He     got the construction of air-cooled palaces in the mid of Aam*Khas-Bagh. It was     known at that time as Bagh-i-Hafzi. All these buildings were waiting for the     foot-steps of Banda Singh Bahadur after the battle of Chapar-Chiri. But, the     city of SIrhind did not motivate the Sikhs to rule, rather it reminded them of     tortured* sacrifices of their Guru's young sons. In view of this grief-stricken     memory, Banda Singh could bear the beauty of neither the garden nor the residence     of the palaces. The idea of making this city his headquarters was not in the     mind of the Khalsa. Instead of this, the Sikhs cut down the gardens, ruined the     forts, razed the havelies and set fire to the palaces. The Sikhs' anger     was not extinguished even after this devastation. They also resolved that     they would not leave there even a single brick. To fulfill this resolution     they     took every two bricks and struck these against each other. This process continued     for a long time even after the victory of Sarhind. Thus literally, whosoever     visited Sarhind took two bricks in his hands, struck these against each other     and threw the same either in the Satluj - if he went towards the west - or     in     the Ghaggar, if he went towards the east. The Khalsa also ploughed land with     the donkeys at the ruins of the city. To plough with the donkeys was, and     till day, considered utter dishonour of the place.
 Banda       Singh Bahadur did not allow that place to enjoy peace, the ruler of which       had maltreated his Guru. Had Banda Singh desired, he could have easily       used       this beautiful city as a centre of his State. But it appears that he did       not want       to construct his palaces over the ruins of Tenth Guru's sons.
    Some historians, such as Karam Singh and Ganda Singh, tried to take off             the responsibility of the devastation of the city of Sirhind from             Banda Singh       Bahadur's       shoulders by providing the excuse that it was done by only a few robbers       who had entered       his army with the object of loot and plunder. However, this is a wrong inception.       In a way, these historians have undermined the leadership of Banda Singh.       If Banda Singh had not protected the cities, conquered by him, from such       robbers,       then there could not be any meaning, as well as the utility of law and order       established by him in place of the Mughal administration.
 In fact,       the Sikhs destroyed the city because the idea of revenge was smouldering       in their mind eversince the two younger sons of Guru Gobind Singh were       bricked alive and the Guru's mother was put to death here by its Governor. The       Khalsa had a chance to teach a lesson to the ruler of Sirhind. The lesson was       taught by destroying the city, root and branch. The Khalsa hated Wazir Khand       to such an extent that it related its hate even to the city of Sirhind. The Khalsa       considered Sirhind as the "cursed city". It means that the       city of Sirhind was cursed by Guru Gobind Singh. That was the reason that       no Sikh       Chief       longed to take this city under his administration even when they again       conquered it in 1764. This did not relate only to Banda Singh, this was       related to       the other Sikh chiefs as well who followed Banda Singh in 1764-65. Ultimately,       the city of Sirhind was given to Bhai Budha Singh by a resolution passed       unanimously       in the assembly of the Sarbat Khalsa in 1764. Budha Singh further sold       it to Baba Ala Singh of Patiala, in lieu of a nominal price. Baba Ala Singh       also       did       not establish here his Head-quarters, rather he made Patiala the capital       of his State. 
 Banda       Singh Bahadur had complete control over his army, and there was no robber       in it. He had a well disciplined army under his command. This army         was so much         devoted to the cause that it saw nothing in the battlefield but a destruction         of the enemy. The baptized Khalsa was the backbone of his army. This       was an army of Saint-Soldiers who always repeated the name of the Lord       from         their lips and         always thought of war in their hearts. It was, in fact, comprised of       the true         and loyal Sikhs who had once sat at the feet of Guru Gobind Singh himself,         and had been touched by the Promethean fire which animated the great       Guru himself. They rallied round Banda Singh Bahadur in a spirit of devotion         and self-sacrifice         as well as to carry on the crusade against the enemies of their movement.         Contrary to looting and plundering, hundreds of them sold whatever they         had with them,         purchased arms, and flocked to the new leader with a determination 'either         to win the fight or to suffer martyrdom'. Banda Singh Bahadur infused         such a spirit into the hearts of these Khalsa Saint-Soldiers that even the         most powerful         and trained soldiers of the Mughal armies could not stand against them. His         personal magnetism, his undaunted courage and extraordinary valour, knit         these Saint-Soldiers,         closely to him.
 No robber       - or opportunist - could deceive the Khalsa or its leader. At Sirhind,       all the mosques and tombs stand in the same condition even today. The credit       goes to the Khalsa to save all these monuments. If the robbers were out       of       control then how could these tombs and mosques survive till today? Banda       Singh Bahadur's       first priority was to protect the religious places of the Muslim society. He       destroyed only the political establishment. He carried out even the funeral of       those Muslim soldiers who were killed in the war. No Mughal soldier's       deadbody was cremated, being un-Islamic. Rather they were buried with due       respect.
 q​  *References*​ 1. Transformation     of Sikhism, New Delhi, 1998, p. 102.
  2. William     Irvine, The Later Mughals, Vol. 1., p. 95.
  3.	Ibid.,     pp. 95-96.
  4.	Ibid.,     p. 96.
  5.	A     Short History of the Sikhs, Patiala, 2002 (reprint), p. 34.​


----------

