A Reply to Dr.

Jasbir S Mann's doubts on Sri Dasam

Granth
Dr. Harbhajan Singh

Dr Balbir Singh Sahitya Kendra, Dehradun (Punjabi University Patiala)

(translated by Bhai Prabhjot Singh, UK)

From the Original write up in Punjabi

A California based writer Dr. Jasbir Singh ‘Mann’ (orthopaedic doctor by profession)
and some writers under his leadership have been casting doubts in minds of the
Sikhs regarding objectives of Sri Dasam Granth by spreading baseless rumours. With
an ill-intention of propagating his groundless assumptions, he has once again
launched a vicious attack with a 50-odd pages article named "Guru Granth Sahib; as
the only Sikh canon (Presently Published Sri Dasam Granth and British Connection)
REJOINDER TO “Sri Dasam Granth Sahib; the Second Canon of the Sikhs”. There is
absolutely nothing new in Dr. Mann’s article. It is not even appropriate to say that it
is an ‘old wine in new bottle’. Rather, it is ‘oldest of wines in oldest of bottles’. The
sole objective behind writing this article is to keep lying repeatedly so that it could
finally appear to be the truth. Perhaps Dr. Mann is incapable of concocting new
rumours, that is why he is repeating the same falsehood in desperate attempt to
give some credibility to it. Although he gives the illusion of being unbiased in his
writings, it is said that he is bribing people to write against Sri Dasam Granth. In
order to conceal his true identity under the mask, he writes, “Two viewpoints have
been circulating in Panthic and Sikh studies circles about Dasam Granth. One view
gives total acceptance and agrees that Guru Gobind Singh Ji wrote all compositions
present in the Published Granth. 2nd view point is of total rejection of this Granth.
Present author disagrees with both view points..”. Dr. Mann is of the belief that Sri
Dasam Granth in its entirety is a creation of the British. Nowhere in the article does
he prove that the British made additions of so-and-so compositions in Sri Dasam
Granth; instead, he keeps repeating that there no Granth called ‘Sri Dasam Granth’
existed in 18th Century, that the British got it prepared in the beginning of 19th
Century. He also does not mention that so-and-so compositions have been added
and how the British political system of the time or Christianity could profit by
creating these fake compositions. It is surprising that although I have already
refuted his allegations in my published book, but instead of providing answers to any
of my work, he has once again attempted to cover his baseless hypothesis with the
cloak of truth. I will attempt to uncover this stubborn falsehood of Dr. Mann in the
following pages.

In an attempt to mislead the Sikh Sangat, the adversaries of Sri Dasam Granth are
repeatedly creating terror waves by alleging that there is danger from Sri Dasam
Granth to the Guruship of Sri Guru Granth Sahib. Following this malicious intent of
creating scare in hearts and minds of the Sikhs, Dr. Mann has titled his baseless
article as ‘Guru Granth Sahib; as the only Sikh canon’. I have not met even a single
supporter of Sri Dasam Granth that considers Sri Dasam Granth to be bigger and
more important than Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Every Gursikh, from times of Bhai
Kesar Singh Chibber to the present-day Sikhs, has considered and respected Sri
Dasam Granth as the smaller Granth. However, I can also say with absolute
conviction that I have not met any adversary of Sri Dasam Granth that has full faith

www.sridasamgranth.com
in completeness of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. They have doubts on Ragmala, Bani of
the Bhatts, Bhagat Banis, and objections against compositions of Bhai Gurdas Ji.
They are determined to malign the names of members of the Guru’s family, Bhai
Nand Lal Ji and many other great personalities. Thus, there is a real danger to the
Guruship of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji from Dr. Mann and his team of critics. Can Dr.
Mann tell the name of any one supporter of Sri Dasam Granth, including those who
do Parkash of this Granth, that has ever doubted the completeness of Sri Guru
Granth Sahib Ji? I also strongly object to his use of the word ‘Cannon’ for Sri Granth
Sahib Ji, because it does not translate to ‘Guru Granth’ at all. I had provided the
dictionary meaning and description of the principle behind using this word but Dr.
Mann did not provide any answers although he has surely hurt the Sikh sentiments
by repeated use of the word associated with Western culture. [Translator's note: This
is what appears in Dr. Harbhajan Singh's book regarding the word 'Cannon': "The
Random House Dictionary of the English Language' has given the following meaning
of this word: 1. an ecclesiastical rule or law enacted by a council or other competent
authority and, in the Roman Catholic Church, approved by the pope. 2. the body of
ecclesiastical law 3. the body of rules, principles, or standards accepted a axiomatic
and universally binding in a field of study or art. 4. a fundamental principle or
general rule. 5. a standard; criterion. 6. the books of the Bible recognized by any
Christian church as genuine and inspired. 7. any officially recognized set of sacred
books. 8. any comprehensive list of books within a field 9. Literature, the works of an
author...]. Dr. Mann has written a lot of irrelevant stuff from here and there, but I
want to focus myself on the questions raised by him. He argues that two
fundamental questions need to be resolved regarding the objectives of Sri Dasam
Granth:

Question 1: Based on Academic Benchmarks:

a.When was this Granth written.

b. The history of this Granth.
c. Who was its writer?
d. The internal consistency of this Granth.

Question 2: The Granth that Malcolm reported in 1810 A.D. and later rectified and
edited by the ‘Sodhak Committee’: Was there any Granth named ‘Dasami Patshahi
Da Granth’, associated with Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji and with all the compositions,
available in the 18th Century, whose Parkash used to take place in Gurdwaras of
Punjab and Delhi? The academic proofs of participation of British in the the
preparation, order and propagation of this Granth cannot be neglected, therefore any
committee concerned with the verification of authenticity claims should keep this in
mind.
After elaborating on the above doubts, Dr. Mann presents the following ‘Table of
Knowledge’:

1. Does any literary resource informs us of any debate regarding Sri Dasam Granth
Sahib in the 18th Century?

2. Academic issues regarding Bhai Mani Singh’s Bir, Patna Bir and Anandpuri Bir?

3. Is it true that Dasam Granth appeared in the 19th Century? Was Dasam Granth
present in Punjab, Delhi and neighbouring areas in the 18th Century?

www.sridasamgranth.com
4. Is it right that Dasam Granth in its present published form was mentioned for the
first time in 1810 A.D. in Malcolm’s book, “Sketch of the Sikhs”?

5. Is it a historical fact that the British propagated and established the Banis of
Dasam Granth in order to weaken the Sikhs and the Sikh rule?

6. The dates within Dasam Granth?

7. Did the British popularised recitation of presently parkash’d Bir in order to destroy
independent existence of the Sikh faith?

8. Did Atma Ram Nirmala of Calcutta had any associations with the Nimala Mahants
of Patna?

9. The relationship between Tribhangi Chhand of Akal Ustat and Atma Ram?

10. Proofs of the establishment of superiority of ‘Bachittar Natak’ over Sri Guru
Granth Sahib by the British during the end of 18th Century?

11. Proofs of involvement of British Govt. in the composition of Dasam Granth

(Devnagri) in 1847?

12. The analysis of academic issues regarding ‘Khaas Daskhati Patrey’?

13. Sikh Code of Conduct and Dasam Granth in 1925 A.D?

14. The Guruship given by Guru Gobind Singh Ji to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji? (Guru
Granth is the sole Canon of the Sikhs.)

15. Sodhak Committee and Dasam Granth?

16. The debate regarding the authenticity of Dasam Granth in 18th Century?

17. The Hukamnama issued by Akal Takht on 6th June, 2008?

The following are replies to the above contrivances by Dr. Mann:

1. Does any literary resource informs us that there was any debate regarding Sri
Dasam Granth Sahib in the 18th Century?

In answer to this question, Dr. Mann writes that according to Bhai Kahn Singh
‘Nabha’, debate on Dasam Granth started immediately after preparation of its Bir by
Bhai Mani Singh in 1726 A.D. However, this Dasam Granth Bir survived its original
form because Bhai Mehtab Singh fulfilled his oath to kill Massa Rangad. Dr. Mann is
unhappy that by doing so, an individual pledge took over the principles of Tenth
Guruji. It would have been better if some collective decision was taken regarding this
issue. The writer further says that just like Bhai Mani Singh had cancelled the Bir of
Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji that was prepared by the compiler, similarly Banis like
Charitropakhyan and Hikayats should have been kept separated when he compiled
Dasam Granth. It is Dr. Mann’s opinion that although we consider Bhai Mani Singh as
Panth-Rattan because of him being a Gursikh, still he has committed grave sin (by
compiling Dasam Granth) which has done immense damage of the Sikh Panth. The
writer believes that the Bir prepared by him is not available at all. The Bir attributed

www.sridasamgranth.com
to him appears in 1818 A.D, and is presently in Delhi. The writer raises a question –
By the end of 1740 A.D, Mata Sundri Ji and Mata Sahib Kaur Ji had given all weapons
of Sixth and Tenth Guruji to the Sikhs (Currently on display at Rakabganj Sahib)
then why they did not give any Bir of Dasam Granth, Khas Patar or any picture to
the Sikhs? Dr. Mann further says it is a historical fact that Baba Banda Singh, Nawab
Kapur Singh, S. Jassa Singh Ahluwalia and other Misl leaders gave no respect to the
Granth of Dasavi Patshahi. The writer has following doubts regarding this Bir:

a. How can Bhai Mani Singh, who compiled the Paath of Aad Granth in 1706 A.D,
scribe the Paath of Banno Bir 20 years later?

b. Where was this Bir from 1713 A.D to 1818 A.D?

c. Does this Bir contain Swayiye (33), Shabad Hazare, Khalsa Mehma and Zafarnama
in Persian only?

d. Some chhands in this Bir are either omitted or added as compared to the
Parkash’d Bir.

Answer: In regards to Dr. Mann’s question: ‘Does any literary resource informs us
that there was any debate regarding Sri Dasam Granth Sahib in the 18th Century?’, I
would like to say that if Dr. Mann had even an ounce of honesty, truthfulness and
honesty in him towards Sikh Panth, the question should have been like this: ‘Is there
any literary resource available FROM 18th Century that informs there was any
debate regarding Sri Dasam Granth in that century’. If Dr. Mann insists on proofs
from the 18th Century regarding the naming and compilation of Sri Dasam, how can
he then accept ‘Mahan Kosh’ published in 1930 as the literary proof, when it is
absolutely clear that Bhai Kahn Singh ‘Nabha’ has not talked about its source
anywhere? If Dr. Mann refuses to accept evidence by Bhai Kesar Singh ‘Chibber’ in
‘Bansavali Nama Dassan Patshahian Ka’ (1769 A.D) as a concrete proof, then why I
should believe a Granth composed in 1930 as a proof? And even though Bhai Kahn
Singh ‘Nabha’ has not committed this sin, Dr. Mann is still trying to falsely accuse
him with his heinous lies, and by doing so, is soiling the name of such a highly
respected person of the Panth. By giving proper references to Bhai Kahn Singh
‘Nabha’s’ ‘Mahankosh’ in my book ‘Sri Dasam Granth-Karta Sambhandhi Vevad Di
Punar Sameekheya’, I have made it absolutely clear that his name is being falsely
attached to this lie. Same stance is against Gyani Gyan Singh and similar slanderous
attitude has been adopted against Malcolm’s writings. If there was any truth in Dr.
Mann’s claims, he would give answers to my comments. Why did he not muster
courage to do so? I am forced to give a strong ‘No’ to the above question because
Bhai Kesar Singh Chibber clearly writes that the debate was regarding the reordering
of Banis and separation of Bhagat Banis from Sri Guru Granth Sahib; it was not
concerning the compilation of Sri Dasam Granth.

Honest readers can judge the level of reasoning and morality of Dr. Mann just from
this: On one hand, Dr. Mann says that Malcolm got Sri Dasam Granth composed
from Atma Ram Nirmala around 1810 A.D. and that in 18th Century, this Granth was
not present anywhere in Punjab, Delhi and nearby areas, and on the other hand he is
stressing that ‘debate started on Dasam Granth immediately after preparation of its
Bir by Bhai Mani Singh in 1726 A.D’. If this Granth was not present till the end of
18th Century, If Bhai Mani Singh never prepared such a Bir, then how can debate
regarding it happen in 1740 A.D? And which Bir survived in its original form after

www.sridasamgranth.com
Mehtab Singh was able to fulfil his oath? Dr. Mann slams serious allegation against
Bhai Mani Singh and Khalsa Panth of the time by saying that Bhai Mani Singh caused
damage to the Panth by preparing this Bir and by making a unanimous decision
based on an individual oath proved detrimental to the Panth. The following becomes
clear from these words of Dr. Mann:

a. The first Bir of Sri Dasam Granth was scribed by Bhai Mani Singh.

b. Sri Dasam Granth existed in 1740 A.D. c. The entire Khalsa Panth of the time had
no awareness of Gurmat. Bhai Mani Singh caused massive damage to the Panth.

The above words of Dr. Mann prove that he considers himself superior not only to
Sikhs under the guidance of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji but to the entire Panth too. Dr.
Mann. also accepts that Panth Khalsa had rejected Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji’s Bir
prepared by Bhai Mani Singh, but made a mistake by not rejecting his Dasam Granth
Bir. This belief of Dr. Mann has uprooted the basis of all his theories. In claiming so,
he has accepted that: 1. Bhai Mani Singh is the compiler of Sri Dasam Granth. 2. The
difference of opinion in Sikh Panth was regarding the reordering of Bani of Sri Guru
Granth Sahib Ji. 3. Sri Dasam Granth was accepted in its original form i.e. Panth
unanimously accepted it as Guruji’s composition. I accept all three claims with open
arms because my beliefs are exactly the same too. The above three points are the
principle reasons for my belief that Sri Dasam Granth is Guruji’s composition. It is
definite that its compilation was done by Bhai Mani Singh. The dispute within the
Panth was concerning reorder of Banis of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and the theory
regarding Bhai Mehtab Singh Ji’s oath is principally wrong because Panth did not
accept Bhai Mani Singh Ji’s work in its original form; instead, as Dr. Mann. says, the
reordering of Banis as done by Bhai Mani Singh was rejected by the Panth after a
lengthy and thoughtful discussion. The only reason why Sri Dasam Granth Sahib was
not rejected was because the entire Panth unanimously accepted it to be the work of
Guruji and there was absolutely no doubt regarding its Banis in anyone’s mind.

Dr. Mann and other adversaries of Sri Dasam Granth have been repeatedly pushing
ahead the argument that the history of above-mentioned Bir by Bhai Mani Singh can
be traced till 1818 A.D., therefore it cannot be regarded as Bhai Mani Singh’s Bir?
Can Dr. Mann. tell who had the possession of Kartarpuri Bir and at what times? Can
he tell which particular Bir did Guru Gobind Singh Ji gave Guruship to? Can he tell
where has the Bir prepared by Guruji at Damdama Sahib gone? In this manner,
tomorrow someone can reject the Guruship of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, just because
the Bir to whom Guruship was bestowed is not available. In reality, Sikhs had lost
the possession of Bhai Mani Singh’s Bir during Vadda Ghalughara, and later came
back in Panth’s possession via some Muslim. This Bir has all the characteristics as
that of Bhai Mani Singh’s Bir. The Grandson of Bhai Mehtab Singh, who received the
history of Sikh affairs as part of family heritage, gives us the following important
information in ‘Panth Parkash’ regarding the loss of Birs during Vadda Ghalughara:

ਜ਼ੋਰ ਪਾਇ ਿਸੰ ਘ ਬਹੀਰ ਿਨਕਾਰੀ। ਘੇਰਯੋ ਬਹੀਰ ਬਹੁ ਤੁੰ ਮਣ ਭਾਰੀ।
ਿਤਨ ਮ ਗੰ ਥ ਤੁਰਤ ਥੇ ਦੋਇ। ਇਕ ਅੰ ਿਮਤਸਰੀਏ ਦਮਦਮੀਏ ਜੋਇ।
ਘੇਰ ਲਯੋ ਿਤਨ ਅਗਯ! ਆਇ। ਜੁਦੈ ਜੁਦੈ ਤੇ ਦਏ ਕਰਾਇ।
ਧਰ ਗੰ ਥ ਤਿਹਂ ਲੜੇ ਮਝੈਲ। ਰਖਤ ਹੁਤੇ ਥੇ ਸ਼ਸਤਰ ਗੈਲ।
ਘੜੀ ਕੁ ਲੜੇ ਿਫਰ ਲੀਨ+ ਮਾਰ। ਿਫਰ ਦਮਦੀਅਨੁ ਪਰ ਧਰੀ ਤਲਵਾਰ।

www.sridasamgranth.com
ਪਾਉ ਘੜੀ ਤਿਹਂ ਤੇਊ ਲੜੇ। ਿਬਨ ਹਥੀਆਰ ਹੁਤ ਕਯਾ ਕਰੇ। (ਪਦ 111-12)

It is important to carefully understand the above lines by ‘Bhangu’. He says that two
Granths always accompanied the ‘Khalsa Dal’. One was Amritsariye and other was
Damdamiye. Both separately got under siege because enemy forces were much
greater in number. After placing the Granth on the ground, security forces of Majha
Region fought bravely with the enemy for some time, but all got killed in the end.
After that Damdamiya got attacked. Being unarmed, they fought for a little while.
This way, both Granths fell into enemy hands in the battlefield. These two Granths
cannot be two saroops of Sri Aad Granth. With critical reasoning one can know the
implied meaning of Damdamiya and Amritsariya. Some consider these two as
Granths, but from the martyrdom of Majhail and Damdamiya forces they appear as
two separate groups of the Sikhs. Actually, Damdama Sahib has been a Nihang
Cantonment right from the time of arrival of Guru Gobind Singh Ji at that place.
Gyani Gyan Singh Ji writes that original Dasam Granth containing the Banis of Guru
Gobind Singh Ji (i.e. Bhai Mani Singh’s Dasam Granth Bir) used to be with Buddha
Dal but fell into hands of Durrani’s soldiers during Vadda Ghalughara, as:

ਅਸਲ ਦਸਮ ਗੁਰ ਵਾਲਾ ਗੰ ਥ। ਰਿਹਤ ਿਬਧ ਦਲ ਮੈ ਮਧ ਪੰ ਥ।

ਘਲੂਘਾਰਾ ਜਬ ਵਡ ਭਯੋ। ਗੰ ਥ ਦੁਰਾਨੀ ਸੋ ਲੀਉ।

Any malicious attempt to prove this Granth as Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is highly
condemnable because there was always Parkash of Sri Guru Granth Sahib at
Harmandir Sahib and also by numerous Udaasi Sants etc. at Gurdwaras spread all
over the country. It is impossible to claim that Aad Granth Ji used to be in Buddha
Dal because its Parkash used to take place at numerous Guru Ghars everywhere.
There was a Bir with Dhirmaliyas and Banno Vali Bir and its numerous copies were
with many Sikhs. How can one say that a Bir, whose Parkash is associated with Sri
Harmandir Sahib, Amritsar and its copies established in all four corners of the
country, be only in possession of the Buddha Dal? On the other hand, before the
efforts of Baba Deep Singh, only Bhai Mani Singh Ji’s Bir was available in the Sikh
Panth. The special affection and respect of Nihang Singhs for Sri Dasam Granth is
not hidden from anyone. Therefore, the Granth present in Buddha Dal as told by
Gyani Gyan Singh can be none other than ‘Sri Dasam Granth’.

The Damdamiya and Amritsayia of ‘Bhangu’ can be identified from the special
relationship of Buddha Dal with Damdama Sahib and existence of Sri Dasam Granth
in Buddha Dal. Damdamiya can be a special jatha of Nihang Singhs that had the
responsibility of sewa and care of Sri Dasam Granth. Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji has
had an unbreakable relation with Sri Amritsar Sahib Ji as first Parkash of this Sri
Granth took place there. Also, Bhai Mani Singh had established a Taksaal there to
teach Gyaanis the paath and meanings of Sri Aad Granth Ji. It seems that in Khalsa
Dal, Gyanis from Amritsar used to be in sewa of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji; they would
recite paath, Do Kirtan and Katha etc. to the Khalsa and a special unit of Majhails
would remain on guard to protect this Sri Granth. The other Damdamiya jatha was
on guard for the protection of Sri Dasam Granth. This way, it becomes absolutely
clear from Bhangu’s words that two Birs fell into the hands of Durrani’s forces during
Vadda Ghalughara. One Bir was of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and other was Bhai Mani
Singh’s Bir which had Banis from both Granths compiled in it. To be stubborn and
remaining in denial of history of this Bir is neither rational nor wise.

www.sridasamgranth.com
Dr. Mann, who has got used to making illogical and weird arguments, says that ‘By
the end of 1740 A.D, Mata Sundri Ji and Mata Sahib Kaur Ji had given all weapons of
Sixth and Tenth Guruji to the Sikhs (Currently on display at Rakabganj Sahib) then
why they did not give any Bir of Dasam Granth, Khas Patar or any picture to the
Sikhs?’ Can he prove which Birs of Sri Guru Granth Sahib were given by them and to
which Sikhs? If Dr. Mann had used a little bit of discretion then this fact would be
absolutely clear that the ‘Khas Patars’ that had reached Mata Sundari Ji with Bhai
Mani Singh Ji’s efforts were placed carefully at appropriate place in the Bir. What
other ‘Khas Patars’ were with Mata Ji that had to reach Dr. Mann via the Sikhs so
that he could look at the evidence and give his stamp of approval on Sri Guru
Maharaj’s Bani? Dr. Mann writes: ‘it is a historical fact that Baba Banda Singh,
Nawab Kapur Singh, S. Jassa Singh Ahluwalia and other Misl leaders gave no respect
to the Granth of Dasavi Patshahi.’ I ask Mann sahib this: Banda Singh Bahadur did
not have Sri Guru Granth Sahib when left from Hazoor Sahib, we do not have any
proof that he had Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji with him during the attack on Samana,
Sadhora and Sarhind. Do we infer from this that Banda Singh Bahadur gave no
importance to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji? If we believe Dr. Mann’s argument that
Sikhs went against principles of Guruji by accepting Sri Dasam Granth in 1740 A.D,
can he kindly tells us whether the above-mentioned Sikhs existed at that time or
not? Does this semi-educated scholar not even know that Sardar Kapur Singh was
Nawab of Sikh Panth from 1733 A.D to 1753 A.D? If there was a debate in 1740 A.D
regarding Sri Dasam Granth and it was accepted by the Panth, then it definitely
happened under the presidency of S. Kapur Singh. S. Jassa Singh Ahluwalia was
about 22 years old at that time and there is every possibility of his presence in that
Panthic gathering also. Making false accusations that these individuals did not
respect Sri Dasam Granth, despite knowing that a unanimous decision was taken by
entire Panth in the presence of S. Ahluwalia and under the leadership of S.Kapur
Singh, is indeed a grave and heinous crime.

‘Mann Sahib’ has studied Malcolm’s work in detail, in fact in such incredible detail
that whatever is not written on any page of his book, he has been able to extract out
from the book’s soul. Please read these words from the book: “When
the chiefs and principal leaders are seated, the Adi Granth and Dasama Padshah ka
Grant’h are placed before them. They all bend their heads before these scriptures,
and exclaim, Wa ! Guruji ka Khalsa ! Wa ! Guruji ka Fateh !”

2. Regarding Bhai Mani Singh’s Bir, Dr. Mann. expresses this doubt: a. How can Bhai
Mani Singh, who compiled the Paath of Aad Granth in 1706 A.D, scribe the paath of
Banno Bir 20 years later? b. Where was this Bir from 1713 A.D to 1818 A.D? c. Does
this Bir contain Swayiye (33), Shabad Hazare, Khalsa Mehma and Zafarnama in
Persian only? d. Some chhands in this Bir are either omitted or added as compared
to the Parkash’d Bir.
Our belief: a. The Bir that Guru Gobind Singh Ji got scribed by Bhai Mani Sahib must
have reached Sri Hazoor Sahib and Guruship must have been bestowed to it. There
is no possibility of another copy of it in Bhai Mani Singh’s possession. The copies of
Sri Aad Granth that were easily available in the Panth were taken from Banno Vali
Bir. Unlike Sri Guruji, Bhai Mani Singh did not possess the knowledge of all three
worlds that he could remember the entire Bir by heart after scribing it just once.
Thus, there is nothing unusual about him scribing paath from Banno Vali Bir. How
can Dr. Mann, who on one hand is calling him a forgetful Sikh who caused great
damage to the Panth, expect him to be equipped with spiritual powers of Sri Guruji
that could not make a single mistake?

www.sridasamgranth.com
b. The answer has been given above.

c. If Bhai Mani Singh could not find some Banis at that time, or if Zafarnama appears
in Persian, then these facts establish the antiquity of that Bir. The Janam Sakhi
associated with Guru Nanak Dev is brief as compared to other Janam Sakhis. It is
with time that Sakhis got diversified. Similarly, the original and brief saroop of Sri
Dasam Granth Sahib must be associated with Bhai Mani Sahib. If that saroop had
more Banis in it than the saroops written later, only then it would be imperative to
doubt its oldness. The oldest form of Zafarnama should also be in Persian because it
is absolutely impossible that Aurangzeb or members of his court could read
Gurmukhi script. The Gurmukhi script of Zafarnama is definitely added later for those
Sikhs who could not read Persian. It is highly surprising that the pseudo-scholars of
Sri Dasam Granth are calling the original Zafarnama irrelevant and giving more
importance to its Gurmukhi transliteration instead. Therefore, the missing Banis and
Zafarnama in Persian script are proofs of its antiquity, the denial of this is a sure sign
of lack of ability to reason.

d. If some Chhands are incomplete then why don’t Dr. Mann present suggestions
before the Panth regarding completion of paath? Why is he bent on reducing the
paath instead? He presents Bhai Kahn Singh ‘Nabha’’s views, but Bhai Sahib has only
told to locate more verses of Akal Ustat but has said nothing about reducing
anything. I will sincerely support Dr. Mann if he presents before the Panth the
suggestion that we should complete those verses that are removed from the
published Bir. Dr. Mann should also pay attention to the fact that whatever
characteristics have been described by Kesar Singh Chibber in his ‘Bansavalinama’
regarding Bhai Mani Singh’s Bir, they all match the Bir that is popular in the name of
Bhai Mani Singh. Despite this, even if some stubborn people of Dr. Mann’s mindset
reject this Bir as Bhai Mani Singh’s, it is proved that this Bir would be a copy of the
original Bhai Mani Singh’s Bir.

In respect to Patna Bir, Dr. Mann. is of the opinion that there is no history associated
with it – there is no information about its writer etc. and its history cannot be traced
beyond Sukha Singh.

a. If this Bir was present in Patna till the end of 18th Century, then why could not
Colebrooke locate a copy of it as that area was under British rule?

b. Since there are additional compositions in this Bir as compared to the Granth in
possession of Colebrooke, therefore it is a later work than the Dasam Granth With
Colebrooke (1783 A.D.)?

c. The year of compilation of this Bir has been given as 1698 A.D. inits table of
contents, while ‘Zafarnama’, a composition of 1706 A.D, has been scribed by the
original writer.

d. Gyani Gyan gives 1775 A.D. as its year of compilation.

e. There are extra Banis in this Bir.

Answers and Solutions to Dr. Mann’s doubts:

a. One cannot be in denial of the existence of this Bir even if we keep in

consideration Mann’s contrivance that there is no history associated with it. Either

www.sridasamgranth.com
Dr. Mann should research its history or follow the prevalent tradition. The third way
is to get its ink, paper scientifically tested. There are many precious literary
resources all around the world that have no history associated with them. Despite
that, they are respected by scholars. It is not appropriate to say that it has got no
history. The writer has himself given appropriate dates along with each and every
composition and more than once in compositions like Krishnavtar. What is any need
of asking its history when one knows that the original writer had finished writing all
compositions by 1698 A.D. The dates to compositions as given by this writer match
those of other Birs. The writer of this Bir is Bhai Sukha Singh who was a granthi
Singh at Sri Patna Sahib and it has been compiled at Patna Sahib. If no other proof is
acceptable then at least Gyani Gyan Singh’s date of 1775 A.D. should be accepted. If
everything mentioned above is true, which other historical detail is needed? Dates of
compositions are known, name of compiler is known, place of compilation is known,
writer is known, time-period of composition is also known. What other concrete proof
does Dr. Mann need that could complete the history of this Bir? Therefore, we are of
the opinion that even this argument of Dr. Mann is neither factual nor properly
constructed. b. Dr. Mann says that ‘If this Bir was present in Patna till the end of
18th Century, then why could not Colebrooke locate a copy of it as that area was
under British rule?’ I challenge Dr. Mann to present before the Sangat any order of
the British Govt. of that time which says that any Englishman could take possession
of any literary text from any place of worship. First things first, Dr. Mann should
prove whether Colebrooke stayed sufficiently long enough at Patna Sahib to get such
a massive Granth copied? It is plausible that maybe there was no other copy of this
Granth of Dasam Pita at Patna Sahib, and priests could not give away the only Bir
available with them. Therefore, to say that because Colebrooke was not given the
Granth, it cannot be there at all is a totally wrong and deceiving statement to make.
c. Dr. Mann is of the opinion that ‘Since there are additional compositions in this Bir
as compared to the Granth in possession of Colebrooke, therefore it is a later work
than the Dasam Granth With Colebrooke (1783 A.D.)’. If we accept this logic of Dr.
Mann, then the Bir associated with Bhai Mani Singh’s name is proved to be the
oldest. The existence of extra Banis in Patna Vali Bir does not mean it was written
much later. In fact, there were many other compositions popular in the name of
Guru Gobind Singh Ji that were not in Bhai Mani Singh’s Bir. Gyani Gyan Singh has
written the following in this context:

ਗੰ ਥ ਗੁਰੂ ਥੇ ਬਹੁ ਬਨਵਾਏ। ਜਾਨੌ ਿਜਿਤਕ ਨਾਮ ਿਦਹੁੰ ਗਾਏ। 73 ।

ਪਰਬ ਅਠਾਰ3 ਭਾਰਥ ਕੇਰ।ੇ ਭਾਖਾ ਕਰੇ ਗੁਰੂ ਿਬਨੁ ਦੇਰ।ੇ
ਿਤਨ ਮ ਸੇ ਹ ਦਸ ਪਿਸਧ। ਆਠ ਲੋ ਪ ਹੋਏ ਿਕਿਸ ਿਬਧ। 74 ।
ਜੋ ਪਟਲੇ ਸ਼5ਰ ਅਿਬ ਬਨਵਾਏ। ਕਰੇ ਅਠਾਰ3 ਪੂਰੇ ਸਾਏ।
ਪੁਨ ਗੁਰੁ ਸਰਬ ਲੋ ਹ ਇਕ ਕਥਾ। ਪੇਮ ਸੁਮਾਰਗ ਔਰ ਤਥਾ। 75 ।
ਨੀਤੀ ਸਾਗਰ ਥਾ ਪਕਾਸ਼ਾ। ਉਪਿਨਸ਼ਦ3 ਕੀਨੀ ਥ7 ਭਾਸ਼ਾ।
ਗੋਿਬੰ ਦ ਗੀਤਾ ਔਰ ਪਭਾਖੀ। ਯਿਹ ਸਿਭ ਸੁਨੀ ਵਡਨ ਤੈ ਸਾਖੀ। 76 ।
ਗੁਰੁ ਕੇ ਰਚੇ ਿਸਖ ਬਹੁ ਭਾਨ9। ਸਾਚ ਝੂਠ ਸਿਭ ਗੁਰੁ ਹੀ ਜਾਨ:।
ਇਤ;ਾਿਦਕ ਬਹੁ ਗੰ ਥ ਰਚਾਏ। ਥੇ ਸਿਤਗੁਰੁ ਹਮ ਸੁਨਯੋ ਮਹ3ਏ। 77 ।

Therefore, Bhai Sukha Singh did not add extra Banis in Sri Dasam Granth with any
malicious intention; the common Sikhs were of the belief that are many more
compositions of Sri Guru Gobind Singh. Gyani Gyan Singh, who is Dr. Mann’s trusted

www.sridasamgranth.com
author, writes he had heard from elders that there were many other compositions by
Guru Gobind Singh Ji which are not available in prevalent Birs of Sri Dasam Granth.
Sodhak Committee did extensive analysis and corrected the paaths, reordered and
validated the Banis. c. Dr. Mann also doubts the Patna Sahib Bir because the year of
compilation of this Bir in its table of contents has been given as 1698 A.D., while
‘Zafarnama’, a composition of 1706 A.D, has been scribed by the original writer. My
belief is the Vikrami Samvat 1755 given in the table of contents of this Bir is not its
compilation period; rather, it denotes the first completion of Sri Dasam Granth,
which is proved by the completion of composition ‘Ramavtar’ by 1755 Samvat. All
other Banis have been composed prior to this composition. It is abolutely clear from
the photocopy of this Bir’s table of contents provided by Dr. Mann that this Samvat
denotes the completion of ‘Ramavtar’. The following is written at the beginning of
this Bir’s Table of Contents:

“< ਸੀ ਵਾਹਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕੀ ਫਿਤਹ। ਸੀ ਭਗਉਤੀ ਜੂ ਸਹਾਇ। ਤਤਕਰਾ ਸੂਚੇ ਪੱਤ ਸੀ
ਿਗੰ ਥ ਜੂ ਕਾ ਬਾਣੀ ਪਾਿਤਸਾਹ ਦਸਵ= ਜੂ ਕੇ ਿਗੰ ਥ ਕਾ ਸੰ ਬਤ 1755 ਿਮਤੀ ਅਸਾੜ
ਬਦੀ 1 ਕੋ ਿਗੰ ਥ ਿਲਿਖਆ।”

There is absolutely no doubt left regarding this Samvat when we compare it to the
following lines of ‘Ramavtar’:

ਸੰ ਮਤ ਸਤਹ ਸਹਸ ਪਚਾਵਨ। ਹਾੜ ਵਦੀ ਿਪਥਿਮ ਸੁਖ ਦਾਵਨ।

ਤ5ਪਸਾਿਦ ਕਿਰ ਗੰ ਥ ਸੁਧਾਰਾ। ਭੂਲ ਪਰੀ ਲਹੁ ਲੇ ਹੁ ਸੁਧਾਰਾ। (ਰਾਮਾਵਤਾਰ 860)

Therefore, it is definite that the Samvat given in table of contents denotes

completion of all Banis (excluding ‘Zafarnama’) of Sri Dasam Granth and not the date
of compilation of this Bir. In the absence of any of the above evidences, we can say
that the date 1755 A.D. as given by Gyani Gyan Singh can be right and Dr. Mann’s
claim that British got Sri Dasam Granth Sahib prepared in the beginning of 19th
Century proves to be absolutely baseless. It is also important to mention that this
Samvat of ‘Ramavatar’ is the last of all the Samvats. Bhai Kesar Singh Chibber has
also determined it to be the Samvat of Sri Dasam Granth Sahib’s completion. The
Samvat given in the table of contents in Patna Sahib Bir verifies it. When there is
evidence available within this Bir regarding its completion by Sri Guruji and two
other early evidences are also available that prove Sri Guruji completed it in 1755
Samvat, How can Dr. Mann then serve lies upon lies in front of the Panth by
blatantly ignoring these proofs? Not only the ending section provides the above
Samvat regarding this Bani’s completion, the writer has also clearly described the
completion at its end:

ਸਾਧ ਅਸਾਧ ਜਾਨ> ਨਹੀ ਬਾਦ ਸੁਬਾਦ ਿਬਬਾਦ।

ਗੰ ਥ ਸਕਲ ਪੂਰਣ ਕੀਯੋ ਭਗਵਿਤ ਿਕਪਾ ਪਸਾਿਦ। (ਰਾਮਾਵਤਾਰ 861)

The fact that date of completion in table of contents is associated with a Bir
completed in 1755 A.D. during Guruji’s time makes it clear that the writer of Patna
Sahib Bir must have had access to extremely important and puratan pothis of Dasam
Guruji’s Bani. Thus, the importance of this Bir increases even more.

www.sridasamgranth.com
As far as the issue of inclusion of ‘Zafarnama’ composed in 1706 A.D by Sri Guruji is
concerned, this question fails to hold its merit when the above discussion is kept in
mind. The argument, that its completion cannot be accepted because ‘Zafarnama’ a
composition of 1706 A.D. is included in it, is nothing but a superfluous objection. The
first completion of Sri Aad Granth took place in 1604 A.D. Afterwords, Sri Guru Tegh
Bahadur Ji’s Bani was added. Sri Aad Granth was completed in 1604 A.D as well as in
1706 A.D. After all, no one doubts the completeness of Sri Aad Granth which were
Parkash at Sri Harmandir Sahib in 1604 A.D. Even then, the Sikhs had reverently
sung in the praise of the all-complete Sri Granth:

ਅੰ ਿਮਤ ਜਲੁ ਛਾਇਆ ਪੂਰਨ ਸਾਜੁ ਕਰਾਇਆ ਸਗਲ ਮਨ>ਰਥ ਪੂਰੇ ॥

3. Dr. Mann’s third question is: Did Dasam Granth appeared in 19th Century and was
this Granth available in the areas of Punjab and Delhi in the 18th Century? My
answer in reply to this question is Dr. Mann should be aware that this Granth did not
appear in the 19th Century. Dr. Mann’s own words state that Colebrooke had
obtained a copy of it in 1783 A.D. Has Colebrooke, Malcom or any other scholar
written anywhere that that Granth (in the possession of Colebrooke) was written in
1783 A.D. too? Colebrooke had only obtained a copy of it in that year. If Colebrooke
had obtained a Bir of this Granth in 1783 A.D., then there is absolutely no possibility
of it being written by Atma Ram Nirmala or any other Nirmala under the conspiracy
of Malcom in 1810 A.D. If Dr. Mann is really that interested in becoming a scholar of
Dharma-Shastars, he should hand over the responsibility of checking patients to
some other bone specialist and search for Colebrooke’s Granth instead. Then he
should get its paper, ink and handwriting analysed to confirm its exact date of
compilation. And only after collecting all the relevant facts he should claim that it
was created in 19th Century instead of 1783 A.D. If this Granth was not available
anywhere in Punjab or Delhi then why did Malcom write that Colebrooke was more
fortunate than me because he was able to obtain Birs of both two Granths, while I
could only obtain Sri Aad Granth’s Bir? Dr. Mann knows full well that the Granth for
which he
curses Bhai Mani Singh was written in Delhi only. What is the credibility of Dr.
Mann’s argument when the whole history of the compilation of this Granth is
associated with Delhi?

4. The next question of Dr. Mann is: Is it right that Dasam Granth in its present
published form was mentioned for the first time in 1810 A.D. in Malcolm’s book,
“Sketch of the Sikhs”? Firstly, the writer cleverly tries every trick in the book to
deceive the average reader, but reality is he is not clever enough to put scholars and
intellectuals in any doubts. I say, what is the need of raising issues regarding
published or unpublished Bis when the discussion is clearly focussed upon whether
Banis of the Sri Dasam Granth are Sri Guruji’s compositions or not. I am hereby
presenting before the reader Dr. Mann’s question as it appears in his article: ‘Is it
correct that Presently published Dasam Granth was first introduced in Literature by
Malcolm in 1810 AD in his book titled ‘Sketch of the Sikhs ?’ It is important to
request to the readers that the mistake of writing first capital letters of words
‘Presently’ and ‘Literature’ is not mine. I have written many times before that
adversaries of Sri Dasam Granth are rather interested in writing articles but most of
them have no idea about the art of writing. At least this is the impression one gets
upon reading Dr. Mann’s strange English. While he has not been able to master the
correct use of upper case and lower case letters, he has surely received lessons from
someone on how to slander great works of highly respected personalities. Returning

www.sridasamgranth.com
back to the main question: Can Dr. Mann tell the readers how could a Granth that
was carefully revised and reordered by the Sodhak Committee in 1897 A.D. find its
mention in any work prior to Malcolm’s book written in 1810 A.D? Malcolm has not
presented the order of Banis of Sri Dasam Granth either which could be tallied with
the order accepted by Sodhak Committee. Seems like Dr. Mann is caught up in his
own web of tricky questions. His question should have been: Does any discussion
regarding the Bani of Sri Dasam Granth and its sources appear in any literary
sources prior to Malcolm? Dr. Mann knows well the discussion of this Bani appears in
Granths like Sri Guru Sobha, Gur Bilas Patshashi 10 (both), Mahima Parkash etc. and
that Kesar Singh Chibber has also described its compilation in detail. He had
absolutely no scope of asking whether the Bani of Sri Dasam Granth was discussed
by anyone else before Malcolm or not. So he devised this method to confuse and
perplex Sangat instead. Dr. Mann should make clear first whether he is opposing the
Banis of Sri Dasam Granth, or the reordering done by the Sodhak Committee?

5. Dr. Mann’s next question is: Is it a historical fact that the British propagated and
established the Banis of Dasam Granth in order to weaken the Sikhs and the Sikh
rule? is nothing but another cock-and-bull story. Rulers with devious intentions are
against the warrior spirit of a particular sect, and not saint aspects of it. The naam
simran and kirtan of the Sikhs was no threat to the British Govt. Instead, they were
terrified by their fondness of weapons and their warrior form. They had no threat
from the Bani of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, albeit they would have surely been weary
of commitment of the Sikhs for ‘ShastarNaam Mala’. Continuous Jaaps of ‘ਛਤੀ ਕੳ◌ੋ ਪੂਤ
ਹB ਬਾਮCਣ ਕੋ ਨਾਹੀ, ਅਿਤ ਹੀ ਰਣ ਮਿਹ ਤਬ ਜੂਝ ਮਰB, ਅਿਸ ਿਕਪਾਿਣ ਖੰ ਡੋ ਖੜਗ’ etc. and paaths of ‘Chandi Di
Vaar’ could also be cause of concern for them. A philosophy like ‘Raj Karega Khalsa’
could be a potential challenge to their rule and not ‘Guru Maaneo Granth’. How could
a politically advance race like the British encourage Sikhs to recite ‘ਖਗ ਖੰ ਡ ਿਬਹੰ ਡੰ ਖਲ ਦਲ
ਖੰ ਡੰ ’ and cause destruction of its enemy? How could they encourage Sikhs to recite
the name of weapon-carrying Sarbloh form of Kaal Purakh? It is absolutely clear that
no race can let its enemy recite Banis that would invoke the warrior spirit to fight
and die for one’s faith. Till Malcolm’s time, the British had such little knowledge of
Sikh faith that were incapable of injecting any corruption in it. Malcolm does not
even know what's the difference between first and second Bhai Gurdas. Rattan Singh
Bhangu also tells us that English at that time were trying to gain knowledge of
fundamentals of Sikh faith from outsiders like Boote Shah that had absolutely no
knowledge about the Sikhs. They also had no idea about the relations between Sikhs
and Muslims of the time. They were not even aware of the sort of injustice a Muslim
writer would do to Sikh history in his writings. How could a race that had negligible
knowledge of the Sikhs at the time compose such a diverse Granth and popularise it
amongst the Sikhs? Dr. Mann has accused Bhai Mani Singh of making a big mistake
by compiling this Granth. If this entire effort is that of the British then the relations
between Bhai Mani Singh and the British will have to be explained instead. Thus, Dr.
Mann should know the historical truths. It is not appropriate to accept baseless
theories and fact-less arguments to be historical facts. If we consider this Granth to
be written by the British just because Malcolm discusses a few verses of Sri Dasam
Granth, then what about Sri Aad Granth whom he quoted and discussed extensively?
Do we also take this Sri Granth to be devised by the British as part of some political
plan? Just have a look at the crudeness of Dr. Mann’s work: He illustrates the
missionary policy of the British by mentioning an article written by some missionary
in 1814 A.D. This article is neither written by Wilkins, nor by Malcolm. There is also
no mention of ‘Dasam Granth’ anywhere in the article. The raise question against the

www.sridasamgranth.com
authenticity of a Granth that Colebrooke had obtained in 1783 A.D, he should give
proofs of any British conspiracy from period prior to1783 A.D and not some evidence
after that date. The lines quoted from this article by Dr. Mann do not reflect any ill-
feelings of that missionary or the British towards the Sikhs. Dr. Mann has given the
following lines as an example: “It is devoutly to be desired, that nothing may be
done on the part of Christians to introduce their religion among the nations of India,
which shall tend to impress a belief that Christianity is less tolerant, mild and pacific,
or in any respect less worthy of reception than the religion of Nanac. Besides, the
account we have of the principle doctrines of the Seeks, should excite our gratitude
to the common Father of our race, that he has, in one way or another, diffused some
correct ideas of himself, more extensively, than has been generally known or
supposed by Christians.” In reality, the writer wishes propagation of Christianity in
those areas of Hindu faith where the feeling of nationality is missing. He warns other
missionaries against propagation attempts in nationalist factions like the Sikhs and
that Christianity may appear smaller in front of them. He also makes it clear that the
doctrines we look forward to spread with Christianity are already firmly established
within Sikh faith, perhaps even more strongly than in Christianity. We should be
content in knowing that the Sikhs share the Christian concept of Universality and
there is no purpose of preaching Christianity if a race has already got good qualities
that it stands for? With above lines, Dr. Mann’s lie in this self-constructed theory has
laid itself bare.

Dr. Mann has presented some comments of Warren Hastings regarding the nature of
the Sikhs, but there is nothing anti-Sikh about them. He writes that Sikhs are good
candidates for military recruitment but could not develop to their full potential mainly
because of their carefree nature and internal feuds. However, they do get get
together as one whenever they sense any common threat. Dr. Mann coats these
words of Warren Hastings with his lies need to be examined carefully. He says, 'The
British knew full well that Sikhs constantly fight amongst each other, but they do get
together whenever they see a common threat, this is because of their carefree
nature and faith on Sri Guru Granth Sahib'. Nowhere has Hastings mentioned Guru
Granth Sahib, or Sri Dasam Granth, or Guru Granth Sahib Ji as the reason of unity
amongst the Sikhs. Dr. Mann has stubbornly tried countless times to make his
rubbish lies walk on the path of truth. The following argument of Dr. Mann is a
complete lie too: 'Majority of Sri Dasam Granth Birs have been found in PEPSU
(Predominately Malwa area of Punjab) because this area fell under the political
influence of the British first, and as such they could get Dasam Granth propagated
and preached in this area by the Nirmalas and Shaheeds who were under their
control but could not get it parkash'd in Harmandir Sahib.' The reality, however, is
Sri Dasam Granth was already available at Patna Sahib before the advent of British
in Punjab. Can Dr. Mann tell that if the British could get this Granth immediately
parkash'd at all the Gurdwaras in this region upon their entry, then why they were
able to get Sri Dasam Granth parkash'd at Harmandir Sahib even after ruling on
Amritsar for more than 100 years? In reality, affairs at Sri Harmandir Sahib follow
their traditional Maryada. Whilst Sangat gathers after parkash in other Gurdwaras,
they assemble before parkash at Sri Harmandir Sahib, then Parkash takes place
approximately at the same time when Sri Guru Arjan Dev Ji would come in the
Sangat. Nobody gives out 'Jaikara', 'Agya Bhayaee Akaal Ki... Bache Sharan Jo Hoe'
Dohra is also not read. Have the British introduced these customs too? Sri Dasam
Granth had more influence in areas which had high concentration of Nihang
Cantonments.It is absolutely illogical and wrong to forcefully associate British with
the presence of high volumes of Sri Dasam Granth in that area, because Damdama
Sahib was the centre of Nihang Singhs during that period.

www.sridasamgranth.com
The self-contradictory claims of Dr. Mann are more than enough to illustrate his lack
of knowledge. On one hand Dr. Mann says Malcolm is an important figure who has
tried to present Dasam Granth to to of more importance than Sri Guru Granth Sahib.
On the other hand, he uproots this theory himself by saying "Malcolm gives clear
message that Guru Granth Sahib Ji is the only canon." If Malcolm is the creator and
preacher of Dasam Granth, then why he is giving so much importance to Guru
Granth Sahib? Actually, it is not Malcolm's fault, Dr. Mann has deviously tried to
falsely make Malcolm the creator of Sri Dasam Granth. Dr. Mann's unstable mind and
intellect works in weird way. He gives evidences to Malcolm's words from credible
and trustworthy sources. However, in the same breath he criticises his book by
changing its title to 'unreliable Sketch of Sikh'. Dr. Mann should explain to the
readers why 'you have trusted' this unreliable and infamous book. Earlier this
perplexed Dr. Mann had said - Malcolm had got Sri Dasam Granth prepared from
'Atma Ram Nirmala'. Now he writes: "Britishers assisted in creating, compiling and
then, popularizing ‘Dasami Patshahi Ka Granth’ through Nirmala, Shahid Taxals and
Acalis which was transliterated from a document called ‘Nanak Panthi Kabhya.
probably with the help of Atma Ram at Calcutta." According to Dr. Mann, the British
got Sri Dasam Granth prepared with the help of Nirmalas, Shaheed Taksaals, and
Nihang jathas, meaning the entire panth was conspiring against the Sikhs. Poor
Malcolm has said that he could not find anyone in Punjab who could explain Sikh
philosophy, history and Gurbani in a proper way. But Dr. Mann, a staunch adversary
of Sri Dasam Granth in totality, has used his false logic to portray as if every Sikh
Samprada of the time was conspiring with Malcolm for the total destruction of the
Sikh Panth. By using these false arguments, Dr. Mann is trying to prove that Malcolm
caused divisions amongst the Panth. Dr. Mann has got no concrete evidence nor any
solid argument to justify his claims. He is operating on the basis that innocent Sikhs
can join his Guru-Slanderer camp by constant lies, and by bribing some with travels
to foreign countries and getting them to speak against Guruji.

6. Another very weak logic of Dr. Mann is that if Sri Dasam Granth was indeed
written by one person, then all Samvats in the Bir would appear in the a
chronological order but that did not happen in its current published form. 1698 A.D.
is on page 254, 1688 A.D. on page 354, 1687 A.D. on page 386, 1688 A.D on page
579 and 1696 A.D. is on page 1388. It is his own understanding that is the cause of
this illusion. If the Banis were ordered according to their period of composition, then
'Birha Natak' of Krishnavtar composed in 1687 A.D would have appeared first, then
first part 'Raas Leela' of Krishnavtar and then the concluding part of this composition
would have appeared. After reading Krishnavtar, it becomes absolutely clear that it
was composed in fragments. That is why, the composer has called 'Birha Natak' a
Granth in itself, and not a chapter of a Granth, as:

ਸਤਹ ਸੈ ਚਵਤਾਲ ਮੈ ਸਾਵਨ ਸੁਿਦ ਬੁਧਵਾਰ॥

ਨਗਰ ਪ3ਵਟਾ ਮੋ ਤੁਮੋ ਰਿਚਯੋ ਗੰ ਥ ਸੁਧਾਰ॥
ਖੜਗ ਪਾਨ ਕੀ ਿਕਪਾ ਤੇ ਪੋਥੀ ਰਚੀ ਿਬਚਾਰ॥
ਭੂਲ ਹੋਇ ਜਹਂ ਿਤਹਂ ਸੁ ਕਿਬ ਪੜੀਯਹੁ ਸਭੈ ਸੁਧਾਰ॥ (Krishnavtar 983-84)

There is no mention of 'Dasam Sakandh' of 'Bhagwat Puraan' in the above line

because the writer of Sri Dasam Granth had to write concluding part of 'Raas leela' in
order to complete 'Dasam Sakandh'. If Krishnavtar was written systematically in one

www.sridasamgranth.com
go, then writer would have informed us the ending of a katha or chapter like in 'Raas
leela':

ਸੱਤਹ ਸੈ ਪੈਤਾਲ ਮੈ ਕੀਨੀ ਕਥਾ ਸੁਧਾਰ॥

ਚੂਕ ਹੋਇ ਜਹ ਤਹ ਸੁ ਕਿਬ ਲੀਜਹੁ ਸਕਲ ਸੁਧਾਰ॥ (Krishnavtar 755)

We are informed of completion of 'Dasam Sakandh' katha at the end of 'Krishnavtar',

something that was not done when writing the Samvat of 'Raas Leela' or 'Birha
Natak', as:

ਸਤਹ ਸੈ ਪੈਤਾਲ ਮਿਹ ਸਾਵਨ ਸੁਿਦ ਿਥਿਤ ਦੀਪ॥

ਨਗਰ ਪਾਵਟਾ ਸੁਭ ਕਰਨ ਜਮਨਾ ਬਹੈ ਸਮੀਪ॥
ਦਸਮ ਕਥਾ ਭਗੌਤ ਕੀ ਭਾਖਾ ਕਰੀ ਬਨਾਇ॥

The entire situation is now in front of you. If Dr. Mann's ordering had been followed
then first 'Birha Natak' would appear, then 'Raas Leela' and 'Judh Prabandh' next.
Anyone who would read such a jumbled up composition would curse the writer for
lack of knowledge. Maybe Dr. Mann would have like that but slandering of their
Gurus is never appealing to wise Gursikhs. That is why, the sections written during
different time periods have been arranged in a logical order. If Dr. Mann's suggestion
was to be followed, then 'Charitropakhyan' of 1696 A.D. would appear after
'Krishnavtar' and 'Ramavatar' after that. Which would violate the period of the birth
of Ram and Krishan and the actual sequence of 'Krishnavtar' would get broken
because 'Birha Natak' would have appeared even before the birth of Krishna. And
'Charitropakhyan', which was a separate pothi before would have entered in the
stories of Avtars and spoiled the plotline. But of course, all this would satisfy Dr.
Mann because he would get many other arguments to make. By the way, Dr. Mann
has said nothing about ordering of Banis that do not have period of composition
mentioned? Dr. Mann, just dare to apply this same formula on Sri Guru Granth Sahib
Ji. Instead of Japp, there would be Jaidev, and Farid Ji instead of Rehras. Banis of
many bhagats would have appeared before Guru Sahibs' Bani and Swavaiye of
Bhatts would have been before the bani of Guru Teg Bahadur Ji. And in 'Sidh Gost'we
would have to research just which Padds were said at which Sumer Mountain and
which Gorakh Deras by Guru Nanak Dev Ji. Sikhs would have given a totally different
shape to 'Sidh Gost'. So Dr. Mann can keep his destructive sources of knowledge to
himself because wise Sikhs will never accept them. Actually, these foolish theories of
Dr. Mann will expose entire anti 'Sri Dasam Granth' camp in front
of the 'Khalsa Panth', everyone will find out their bad intentions.

7. Dr. Mann's next question is - Did the British popularised recitation of presently
parkash’d Bir in order to destroy independent existence of the Sikh faith?
We are in total disagreement with this argument because Sri Dasam Granth is the
source of unique identity of the Sikh Panth. If there is no threat to the Sikh Panth
when Guru Nanak Dev Ji s called 'ਤੂ ਤਾ ਜਿਨਕ ਰਾਜਾ ਅਉਤਾਰੁ' in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji; if
Panth has not converted into worshipper of Ram by repeatedly doing paath of 'ਜਸਰਥ
ਰਾਇ ਨੰਦੁ ਰਾਜਾ ਮੇਰਾ ਰਾਮ ਚੰ ਦ' ; then how can Sikh be slave of any other ideology if he reads
'ਰਾਮ ਰਹੀਮ ਪੁਰਾਨ ਕੁਰਾਨ ਅਨ+ਕ ਕਹ ਮਤ ਏਕ ਨਾ ਮਾਿਨਯੋ' ? If Sikh's faith on Akaal Purakh has stayed
strong even by singing 'ਧਿਨ ਧਿਨ ਤੂ ਮਾਤਾ ਦੇਵਕੀ ॥ ਿਜਹ ਿਗਹ ਰਮਈਆ ਕਵਲਾਪਤੀ', then how can he

www.sridasamgranth.com
get buried under the weight of Shaastars by recitations of‘ਿਕਸਨ ਿਬਸਨ ਕਬਹੂ ਨਾ ਿਧਆE’? If
Sikh has remained a Sikh after reciting names like Murari, Govardhan, Gobind,
Saaringdhar, Saaringpaan, etc. from Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji on daily basis, then
how can a Sikh sink into Snaatanvaad if he becomes Kharag Singh who can grab
Krishna by hair and make all Devtas of Hindu faith follow him? Hindus (especially
Punjabis) give a lot of respect to Sri Guru Granth Sahib's Bani but they have not
acknowledged and respected Sri Dasam Granth as some Granth that eulogises Devi-
Devtas. And they just cannot give such respect anyway, as Ram in Sri Dasam Granth
is not a God but a mere human that keeps doubting the character of his virtuous
wife. Sri Krishan Ji suffers from evils like drinking,etc. It is understandable if Hindus
object but why would British be scared of uniqueness of Sikhs? It was in the self-
interest of the British to divide locals on the basis of caste and religion so that they
could establish and secure their foreign rule. How could they shoot themselves in the
foot by strengthening their enemy themselves, the vast Hindu nation? To even think
of that about shrewd British politicians is sheer ignorance. The British had kept their
army units separate according to their race so that they could not unite as one
against the British. Therefore, the theory that British made efforts to diffuse Hindu
ideology into Sikh religion is also meaningless and devoid of any factual information.

8. Dr. Mann asks: Did Atma Ram Nirmala of Calcutta had any associations with the
Nimala Mahants of Patna? Dr. Mann is a strange scholar - he asks one question and
gives completely different answers altogether. Without answering the above
question, he constructs another question asking why Atma Ram has given wrong
information regarding the date of Amrit Sanchar and establishment of Khalsa. In
reality, it is Malcolm who has wrongly presented the above information and not Atma
Ram, Dr. Mann is forcibly trying to accuse Atma Ram of committing this crime. He
says: Agreeably to this author (Probably Atma Ram as Malcom was consulting him).
For Dr. Mann, it is this 'probability' that is concrete evidence, basis of critical analysis
and unbreakable logic. With this 'probability', Dr. Mann can refute the descent of
Guruji Maharaj, and I can also say that 'probably' a person with the name of Dr.
Jasbir Singh Mann does not exist on this earth. To convert impossibility into
possibility in this crude manner cannot be called research for it is nothing more than
ramblings of a stubborn mind. Atma Ram did not do proofreading of Malcolm's work,
how can we consider him guilty? Nowhere has Malcolm written that he has heard or
read everything he has written from Atma Ram. Malcolm has just written in the
foreword that upon reaching Calcutta, he has been able to gain understanding of Sri
Aad Granth and some other tracts from a Sikh called Atma Ram Nirmala. Malcolm
must have asked about Sikhs from many people and it is inappropriate to think there
was some conspiracy behind his limited knowledge. Dr. Mann has once again
associated Malcolm's inaccurate statement, that Bhai Gurdas Bhalla has called Sri
Guru Gobind Singh the 19th Avtar, with Atma Ram instead. Even if Atma Ram has
discussed Bhai Gurdas Ji, how is Atma Ram responsible for this confusion? This was
Malcolm's mistake that he could not realise there are two Bhai Gurdas Ji. And how
could he when Panth is still printing Bhai Gurdas II's Vaar as the 41st Vaar with
original 40 Vaars of Bhai Gurdas Ji I to this date? If Sikh Panth is not aware of this
mistake, thus it is neither Malcolm's fault nor there is scope of any conspiracy by
Atma Ram Nirmala. The fact that Malcolm's had just surface-level knowledge of Sikh
faith becomes clear after reading his work. Dr. Mann favours works of western
writers over those of Sikh writer and considers them to be superior piece of
evidence. The fundamental basis of our argument is we have more faith on the
works of Sikh writers than on writer of any other race. Therefore, it is limited
knowledge of Malcolm that is responsible; one cannot deduce that a scholar like

www.sridasamgranth.com
Atma Ram would knowingly pass wrong information. Of course, it would be a
different matter if Malcolm had cited Atma Ram as a reference in his writings.

The argument that Nirmala Sants have held their control on Takht Patna Sahib is
also flawed. The Sikh tradition at Patna Sahib starts from times of Guru Nanak Dev
Ji. The sewa of this Takht is with local Sikhs to this date. Nirmala Sants have never
had influence on Hazoor Sahib or Patna Sahib. If Dr. Mann thinks otherwise, then he
should bring concrete evidences forward instead of saying things like, probably Atma
ram stayed at Calcutta, probably he had associations with priests of Patna Sahib,
probably Patna Sahib was under the control of Nirmalas. Such flights of fancy cannot
be called scientific research, although it can surely turn the research into a joke.
Even if Nirmala Mahatma have done sewa of this Takht, then what is wrong with
that? Are they haters of the Panth? Dr. Mann forgets that Gyani Gyan Singh Ji, whom
he quotes as evidence at various places, was a Nirmala scholar himself.

9. Dr. Mann considers Atma Ram to be the writer of some verses of Tribhangi
Chhand of Akal Ustat. I would like to humbly inform readers that I have extensively
clarified this doubt on pages 69-79 of my book, ਸ਼ੀ ਦਸਮ ਗੰ ਥ ਸਾਿਹਬ-ਕਰਤਾ ਸੰ ਬੰ ਧੀ ਿਵਵਾਦ ਦੀ
ਪੁਨਰ-ਸਮੀਿਖਆ'. Dr. Mann should have used his logic and reasoning to reply to my
analysis instead of repeating his baseless theories again. Instead of considering his
stubborn arguments as supreme, he should read my above-mentioned book instead
and carry the debate forward.

10. Dr. Mann writes: There are proofs of the establishment of superiority of
‘Bachittar Natak’ over Sri Guru Granth Sahib by the British during the end of 18th
Century? The main basis of his argument is Malcolm's book, 'Sketch of the Sikhs'.
This argument of Dr. Mann is completely baseless and false. Actually, In the 3rd
chapter of his book, Malcolm has talked about Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji's teachings first
and the philosophy of Guru Gobind Singh Ji later. It is not surprising if a non-Sikh
finds difference between weapons-clad Guru Gobind Singh Ji and Guru Nanak Dev Ji.
Despite that, Malcolm's not completely unaware of the continuity and common goals
between the two. From pages 97 to 110 of this chapter, Malcolm discusses the
philosophy of Guru Nanak Dev Ji with Sri Aad Granth as its basis. And from page
111-114, he discusses the behaviour of Sri Guru Gobind Sahib Ji with Sri Dasam
Granth as the basis. The discussion on Sri Aad Granth and Guru Nanak Dev Ji covers
12-13 pages while Dasam Granth is discussed on 3-4 pages only, then how is Dasam
Granth given more importance in this work? There is not even a single line which
could suggest more importance is given to the ideas in Dasam Granth over the
philosophy of Sri Aad Granth. In fact, Malcolm clearly states that Puranic stories in
Dasam Granth are associated with Hindu faith, but he also clarifies that the
philosophy of Guru Gobind Singh Ji is completely different from that of Hindus.
Following are few extracts from his book: "Its author has borrowed largely from the
Sastras of the Brahmens, and the Koran." (Page 120)..."Guru Govind has separated
his followers for ever from the Hindus.." (Page 121).."-the destruction of the
distinction of casts, the admission of proselytes, and the rendering the pursuit of
arms not only admissible, but the religious duty of all his followers. Whereas, among
the Hindus, agreeable to the Dherma Sastra, (one of the most revered of their
sacred writings,) carrying arms on all occa- sions, as an occupation, is only lawful to
the Cshatriya or military tribe." (Page 121).. "Courage is thoughout this work, placed
above every other virtue. (P. 121)Thus, at once founding the sect of Siks, he struck
the whole world with awe : overturning temples and sacred places, tombs and
mosques, he levelled them all with the plain : rejecting the Vedas, the six Sastras

www.sridasamgranth.com
and the Koran, he abolished the cry of Namaz and slew the Sultans ; reducing the
Mirs and Pirs to silence.. the Brahmins, the Pandits, and the Jotishis had acquired a
relish for worldly things ; they worshiped stones and forgot Supreme. Thus, the
Muhammedan and Hindu, remained involved in delusion and ignorance, when the
third sect of the Khalsa originated in purity" (Pages 123-124). The above words of
Malcolm are enough to strip naked the lies propagated by Dr. Mann. If any Atma
Ram has indeed taught such things to Malcolm, then we salute his love for the Sikhi.

Actually, the British had made efforts to get both Granths translated because they
had clearly seen Sikhs hold both these Granths in high esteem and that the Granth is
the axis of their faith. If they were trying to propagate Dasam Granth, then Trumpp
would have translated Dasam Granth first and not Sri Aad Granth, but situation is
actually the opposite. Therefore, Dr. Mann's theories have no factual credibility and
are based on complete lies.

Dr. Mann also claims that Malcolm has divided Sikh Panth into Khalsa Panthis and
Nanak Panthis. Malcolm has no bad intention nor ignorance in implying this. There
were many factions after the creation of Khalsa that kept undying faith on Guruji and
Gurbani without adopting the Khalsa Saroop. Nirmalas, Muslim Ragis, Nirmalas,
Sevapanthis and many Sehajdhari Sikhs are examples of this. Sehajdhari Sikhs were
considered inseparable part of the Panth till the advent of Singh Sabha Lehar. The
Siklighars and Vanjaras, who have not taken the Sikhi Saroop, are still counted
amongst Nanakpanthis and not in Amritdhari Khalsa. Therefore, calling Malcolm as
enemy of the Panth is inappropriate.

11. Dr. Mann's next doubt is: After Sikhs lost to English in 1846 A.D., which
individual wrote Dasam Granth in Devnagri script in 1847 A.D on the orders of British
Governor General of India? Actually, there is a handwritten copy of Sri Dasam
Granth in Devnagri script available in the Punjabi-Sindhi handwritten section of India
Office Library, London. According to the information attached, this Bir was written by
Pandit Radha Kishan, and was presented to Paris Exhibition Society at Imperial
Exhibition organised in 1855 A.D. Pandit Radha Kishan's father and grandfather were
both members of Maharaja Ranjit Singh's court. Sanskrit scholar Radha Kishan was
the teacher of Raja Hira and Dalip Singh. The following words in English can be seen
written on the Bir:

sent to the Imperial Exhibition at Paris for works of arts and Industry by the Punjab
committee Lahore. (following this, there are signatures of Commissioner and
Superintendent, and 1856 A.D is given underneath)
The following are doubts raised by Dr. Mann:

a. The Imperial exhibition was organised from 15th May to 15th November in 1855
A.D., how could this Bir, sent from India in 1856 A.D., be included into this
exhibition?

b. If this Bir was written for the purpose of including it in the Imperial Exhibition,
then why was it not exhibited in the Imperial Exhibition held in London in 1851 A.D.?

c. Following Governor General's order, why was it written on the Bir that Guru
Gobind Singh as the founder of Sikh Panth? Why did a scholar like Pandit Radha
Kishan gave permission for this?

www.sridasamgranth.com
On casual glance, the above doubts of Dr. Mann appear to be genuine, but on closer
inspection they are just as empty, full of ignorance and baseless as his other
questions. Following are the replies to his questions:

a. There is no doubt that the above exhibition was held in 1855 A.D. but owing to
lack of intellect, Dr. Mann is incapable of understanding why 1856 A.D is written on
the Bir. In reality, this label must have been etched on the Bir for identification after
it was brought back from the exhibition to be placed in the library. Maybe Dr. Mann
is not aware of the difference between 'sent' and 'sending'. "ਜੇ 1856 ਈ. ਿਵਚ ਭੇਜੀ ਜ3ਦੀ ਤ3
ਿਲਿਖਆ ਜਾਣੀ ਸੀ sending. sent ਦਾ ਅਰਥ ਹੈ ਭੇਜੀ ਗਈ ਸੀ।".

Dr. Mann is able to identify the Commissioner and Superintendent mentioned on the
label. They think these are those officials of the British Government who would have
signed to allow the Bir to be sent from India, whereas reality is he was the officer of
'Imperial Commission' who had organised the above exhibition. Dr. Mann can verify
on the internet that there was such commission, and it had a commissioner and
there were rules and guidelines of the commission too. Actually, Dr. Mann has not
been able to understand the label that was attached to the Bir after completion of
the exhibition that's why he is knowingly concocting facts.

b. The next question: If this Bir was written for the purpose of including it in the
Imperial Exhibition, then why was it not exhibited in the Imperial Exhibition held in
London in 1851 A.D.? Firstly, Radha Kishan did not write this Bir on the orders of
Governor General. The following is information given on it:

In conformity to the orders of the Governor General of India, this volume named
“The Granth Sahib” published by Gooroo Gobind Singh the founder of the Sikh faith,
is hereby presented to the Paris Exhibition Society by Pundit Raddha Kishan A
footnote is given at the word 'The Granth Sahib': “A work of the same name is
published by Gooroo Nanuck, it may not therefoe be taken to be the same”

After the capture of Punjab, the curiosity of learning more about Sikhism definitely
increased among western scholars. That's why they sent any relevant material they
came across to such exhibitions. Was it necessary that the British had to exhibit it in
1851 A.D only? And if they did, what is the guarantee that Dr. Mann would not ask
question that why was it exhibited in Britain in 1851 A.D. and not in the exhibition
held in Paris in 1855 A.D.? He would have surely seen British conspiracy behind this.
Therefore, in my opinion, it is not a concrete basis of argument but due to his lack to
knowledge, Dr. Mann is under the belief that it was sent under the orders of
Governor General of India.

* Dr. Mann's next allegation is not appropriate either: Following Governor General's
order, why was it written on the Bir that Guru Gobind Singh as the founder of Sikh
Panth? Why did a scholar like Pandit Radha Kishan gave permission for this?
Actually, the British had the Khalsa Saroop of the Sikhs in front of them, the saroop
that considers Guru Gobind Singh Ji to be its father. If even to this day an Amrit
taking Sikh pledges that he will consider Guru Gobind Singh Ji as his spiritual father,
and the entire Panth considers Guru Gobind Singh Ji to be the founder of Khalsa, and
Vaisakhi to be day of establishment of the Khalsa, then what big blunder did the
British of the time commit if they called Guru Gobind Singh Ji to be founder of
Sikhism due to lack of knowledge? This way, someone like Dr. Mann can get up and
start asking why Guru Gobind Singh Ji is the creator of Khalsa and not Guru Nanak

www.sridasamgranth.com
Dev Ji? They will then start thinking of conspiracies behind it and in the end it will
Dasam Patshah Da Granth as the main culprit once again. I fail to understand why
Dr. Mann is so irritated by Guru Gobind Singh Ji's name and his Bani. Is the Sikh
Saroop given by the Tenth Guruji not acceptable to him or that he finds it hard to
follow the Maryada as given by Guru Gobind Singh Ji.

12. Dr. Mann doubts the authenticity of 'Khaas Daskhati Patrey'. There is nothing
new in his arguments regarding this. He repeatedly brings forward the old questions
raised by Dr. Ratan Singh Jaggi, and I have given detailed critical analysis to this
question in my published book already. In brief however, I would just like to say that
the by making Dr. Jaggi's argument as the base, Dr. Mann's argument that these
'Pattars' have been created with the conspiracy of Sukha Singh/Charrat Singh is
absolutely baseless because there is no 'Khas Pattar' in Sukha Singh Bir, only copies
of 16 Pattars has been attached. The Khas Pattars must have been in Patna Sahib Bir
if Sukha Singh had indeed conspired against the Panth. I have already made clear in
my book that Moti Bagh Bir, which has 7 Khas Pattars in it, cannot be the one which
Gyani Gyan Singh talks about because he mentions 5 Khas Pattars while this Bir has
gone 7 Pattars. The facts, like the presence of these Pattars in Bir compiled by Bhai
Mani Singh, the verification of it by Bhai Kesar Singh Chibber, the concrete tradition
regarding such Pattars and the commonality between writing of Hukamnamas and
Khas Pattars, present solid evidence regarding the authenticity of these Pattars. In
no way these Pattars would be available in Bhai Mani Singh Bir had they been
created by Sukha Singh/Charrat Singh because Bhai Mani Singh Bir was not present
in front of the scribe of Patna Sahib Bir, a fact that is proven by the different order in
these two Birs. Kesar Singh Chibbers writes that a Sikh of Lahore had possession of
the 7 Khas Pattars identical to the ones he had seen in Delhi. The adversaries of Sri
Dasam Granth can never prove that Patna Sahib Bir and Moti Bagh Bir were both
scribed by one writer or by Sukha Singh/Charrat Singh, because the sequence of
Banis in these two Birs is totally different from each other. For the sake of proof, the
Banis in Moti Bagh Bir have the following order: Jaap, Bachittar Natak, Chandi
Charitar (Ukat Bilas), Chandi Charitar 2, Chaubis Avtar, Brahmavtar, Rudravtar,
Paarasnath, Shastarnammala, Akaal Ustat, Gyan Prabodh, Vaar Durga Ki,
Charitropakhyan, Asfotak Kabit, Swaviye, Bisanpadey, Sadd, Zafarnama (Gurmukhi),
Zafarnama (Persian). The Patna Sahib Bir has the following order: Jaap, Akal Ustat,
Swaviye, Bachittar Natak, Chaubis Avtar, Chandi Charitar (Ukat Bilas_, Brahmavtar,
Gyan Prabodh, Chandi Charitar 2, Rudravtar, Bisanpadey, Chakka Bhagauti Ju Ka,
Shastarnammala, Vaar Durga Ki, Charitropakhyan, Asfotak Kabit, Bhagwant Gita,
Sansaahar Sukhmana, Shabad (in Raags), Vaar Maalkos Ki, Vaar Durga Ki, Vaar
Bhagwati Ji Ki and Zafarname (Gurmukhi). Such huge differences in the Banis and
the difference in their order and cannot have been done by writers of the same
family. Another important fact to remember is if Sukha Singh had got the Patna
Sahib Bir scribed and his son Charrat Singh had got the Moti Bagh Bir prepared, then
the latter Bir would have additional Banis in it, but the situation is quite the opposite.
Therefore, it is impossible that these two Birs were scribed by members of the same
family. Thus, all the false theories created against 'Khaas Patars' prove absolutely
baseless and nothing more than fragments of imagination.

13. Dr. Mann has used the Panth-accepted Gurdwara Act of 1925 A.D. and the 'Sikh
Rehat Maryada' as base to criticise Sri Dasam Granth. Any replies to his pathetic
argument means one will have to lower own standards of intellect. I am just going to
present the definition of a Sikh as per the 'Sikh Rehat Maryada': "Any woman or man
keeps faith in one Akaal Purakh, Ten Guru Sahiban, Sri Guru Granth Sahib and the
Bani and teachings of ten Guru Sahibs, believes in Amrit of Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji

www.sridasamgranth.com
and does not believe in any other religion, is a Sikh." And: "Gurbani Katha: Katha
can be done..the Bani of Ten Guru Sahibs, Bhai Gurdas Ji, and Bhai Nand Lal Ji."
Further: "The lifestyle of Gursikh: a. Consider only Ten Guru Guru Sahibs, Sri Guru
Granth Sahib and Bani of Ten Gurus to be the emancipator". We can clearly see that
'Sikh Rehat Maryada' specifically stresses on having faith on Bani of Guru Sahibs, it
is not restricted to the Bani in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji alone. The opposition is
deliberately trying to mislead the Sikhs.

14. Dr. Mann writes that Guru Gobind Singh Ji gave Guruship to Guru Granth Sahib
Ji only. The whole Panth is in unanimous agreement with this fact, nobody has even
an ounce of doubt regarding this fact. There is no other Granth that is equal to him,
and neither do Sikhs give the same respect given to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji to any
other Granth. Bhai Kesar Singh Chibber has expressed the viewpoint of the Panth by
saying: Both Granths are GurBhai. The bigger brother is Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. He
has been blessed with the Tikka of Guruship. Dasam Granth Ji are smaller brother to
them.

There can be no doubt regarding the Guruship of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Yes, one
can rightly doubt that, like Sri Dasam Granth, critics can start doubting Sri Guru
Granth Sahib Ji also. I have to say I have not come across any Hukamnama by Guru
Gobind Singh Ji that issues the order of burning all other Granths after giving
Guruship to Guru Granth Sahib Ji. The Guruship of Guru Granth Sahib Ji means the
Shabad is the Guru, the Shabad gets the respect, and Shabad is supreme. Anyone
who has established this in their hearts respects the knowledge, he respects and
sings praises of every type of knowledge present in this source, he keep every
religious Granth in high regard and does not disrespect them. How can such a
person disrespect the Granths of his own religion? In contrast, the enemy of the
Shabad and the literature cannot be a true Sikh of Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Guru
Gobind Singh Ji had created a big movement to take the Shabad-dependent Sikhi to
its peak. He had decorated his court with knowledgeable poets of unique mindsets.
There was complete freedom in his court to write essays on Upnishads, Gita,
Mahabharat, Ramayana, etc. Compositions like Singhasan Bateesee got respect too.
Religious Granths, literary works, and folklores all got respect in his court, because it
was all for the Shabad. If he gave Guruship to the Shabad, then he also did darshan
of Brahm in His various manifestations. The enemy of the Shabad cannot understand
the concept of Shabad-Guru, then how can they claim to the followers of Sri Guru
Granth Sahib Ji?

15. The allegations regarding the Sodhak Committee are absolutely baseless, I do
not consider it is important to give replies to them.

16. The answer to the 16th question of Dr. Mann is again the same, the answer to
which has been provided above.

17. Dr. Mann attempts to forcibly assign Gyani Gyan Singh's evidence against Sri
Dasam Granth. He presents the following lines to prove that 'Dasam Guru Ji Vaala
Granth' refers to the Bir of Sri Aad Granth that Guruji got compiled at Sri
Damdama Sahib:

ਅਸਲ ਦਸਮ ਗੁਰ ਵਾਲਾ ਗੰ ਥ। ਰਿਹਤ ਿਬਧ ਦਲ ਮ ਮਧ ਪੰ ਥ।

ਘਲੂਘਾਰਾ ਜਬ ਵਡ ਭਯੋ। ਗੰ ਥ ਦੁਰਾਨੀ ਸੋ ਲੀਉ।

www.sridasamgranth.com
ਅਬ ਸੋ ਕਾਬਲ ਮਧ ਜਾਨ>। ਬੜੀ ਧਰਮਸ਼ਾਲਾ ਮੈ ਮਾਨ>।

Dr. Mann would not have misunderstood if he had carefully read the above sentence
without any bias (which he claims to be). How can it be that Sri Guru Granth Sahib is
established in 'Buddha Dal'? Sri Guru Granth Sahib has been Parkaash at Sri
Harmandir Sahib well before any organised gallant warrior Dal was properly formed
in the Panth. If Gyani Gyan Singh had to refer to Guru Granth Sahib, he would have
surely written ‘ਰਿਹਤ ਹਿਰਮੰ ਿਦਰ ਮਿਹ ਮਧ ਪੰ ਥ'. The absurd claim that the Parkaash of Guru
Granth Sahib Ji only took place in Buddha Dal cannot be that of Gyani Gyan Singh;
the adversaries of Sri Dasam Granth have become habitual of making such
statements. If Dr. Mann is still adamant, then we are also free to present before the
readers the following lines of Gyani Gyan Singh:

ਜੋ ਅਿਬ ਗੰ ਥ ਦਸਮ ਗੁਰੁ ਕੇਰਾ। ਕਿਹਲਾਵਤ ਮਧ ਪੰ ਥ ਉਚੇਰਾ।

ਸਤ3 ਸੈ ਅਠਤੇ ਸਾਲ । ਰਚੀ ਬੀੜ ਇਸ ਕੇਰ ਿਬਸਾਲ । 80 ।
ਤਾ ਕਾ ਭੋਗ ਹਕਾਯਤ ਪਰ ਹੈ। ਜਾਨਤ ਿਸਖ ਗੁਰੂ ਕੇ ਬਰ ਹ।

The readers can compare these to the lines above. The above lines are definitely
referring to Sri Dasam Granth. Under no circumstances it can be the 'Sri Aad Granth'
of Guru Gobind Singh Ji because it does not contain even a single verse by him. His
Granth can only be that which has exclusively got verses by him only. There is an
important fact to note: Gyani Gyan Singh Ji says that the Bhog of highly respected
Bir of Guru Gobind Singh's Bani (compiled in 1778 Samvat) is at Hikayats, the
eminent Sikhs of Guruji know this fact. Now Dr. Mann can decide for himself whether
he falls in the eminent Sikh category or deprived Sikhs.

In the end, one has to say that Dr. Jasbir Singh Mann pretends to tread on unbiased
path, while the fact is he is the main co-ordinator of anti-Sri Dasam Granth
movement. He has observed that Sri Dasam does not promote Brahmanical ideology,
that it cannot be a creation of Shaakat poets because there is no mention of the
Avtars of Shiv as revered by Shaakats. In desperation, he has tried to adopt
gandhian philosophy to exploit the anti-british sentiments of the people by falsely
claiming that Sri Dasam Granth is a creation of the British. He is not aware that
everyone, be it Hindu Kings, Muslim rulers, or other enemies of Sikh Panth, have
been against Guru Gobind Singh Ji because the enemies were afraid of weapon-
carrying Khalsa. These adversaries pretend to be respect Guru Nanak Dev Ji, but
have been disrespecting our Tenth Master. If the British were against the Sikhs, then
they would have surely devised policies against Guru Gobind Singh Ji, his Bani, his
Bana, and his weapon-carrying Khalsa; they could never be supportive of Sri Dasam
Granth. I speculate that these haters will soon suspect Americans and Russians
behind the creation of Sri Dasam Granth. Then countries like China, Korea, Africa,
and Japan, etc. would have to wait patiently for their turn. Please accept this Sewa
for now, rest some other time.

www.sridasamgranth.com
------------------
More information and further reading:

See original document and other articles at:

http://www.scribd.com/people/view/6907193-dasamgranth-com
U

Visit: www.sridasamgranth.com for videos, audio, articles on the Bani of Sri Guru
HU UH

Gobind Singh ji.

www.sridasamgranth.com