10-30-2006, 10:18 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-30-2006, 10:23 PM by Bharatvarsh.)
Bodhi does that really matter, when we are deciding something like this we need to go by what the majority in the Sikh community thinks and they indeed think they are a separate community.
Even I know some Sikhs who think they are Hindus, infact Ranbir Singh Sekhon the HHR president is a Sikh (not Amritdhari), but he is just one person from the community, the majority rejects any Hindu identity and have done so for the past 100 years and we still have Hindus delusionally insisting that they are Hindus.
Haven't you ever heard of the saying that "You can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink."
If a Hindu is so convinced about the Hindu identity of Sikhs, let him/her undertake a detailed study to refute all the arguements and the supporting points that Sikh writers put up for a separate identity.
If you are interested, go through the following article:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Na Koi Hindu Na Koi Musalman?
- by Kartar Singh
In the Bhai Bala Janam Sakhi reference is made of an exclamation of a prophetic nature by Nanak's (Vedic) teacher Pandit Brajnath to Nanak's father, Mahta Kalu: "O Kalu! The knowledge of the four Veda are becoming lost in this world; your son has become manifest to bring to light the four Veda." Although it may be argued that this was a Hindu or Brahminical attempt to Hinduise the image of Nanak, according to Sikh tradition Akal Purakh too said the same, and it was admitted by Nanak. Bhai Mani Singh (an orthodox Khalsa Sikh who was one of Guru Gobind Singh's closest disciples and at one time, the head Granthi of Harimandir Sahib), related in his highly authoritative work, the Pothi Janam Sakhi of Guru Nanak (1730 CE), that in a state of meditation, Nanak became one with Brahman and went to visit Him in Vaikuntha (the abode of Vishnu). Lord Vishnu asked whether Nanak had finished his work or whether there was anything still left to do. Nanak answered:
"By your grace, I have turned the wheel of the Dharma of the 'name of Truth' in three directions of India, and the fourth direction of the west remains. In that fourth direction, the Mlecchas are guilty of the murder of cows and Brahmins. They have defiled all the pure bathing places (on the banks of rivers) and pilgrimage sites of the Hindus. They are idolaters and they call the tombs and walls of Mecca and Medina, the house of Allah, and worship it. And even still, they don't consider themselves idolaters while they themselves worship stones. Thus, if it be Your will, then (after) going to Mecca and Medina to give those Mlecchas the teachings of the 'name of Truth', I shall return."
Having said this, the Almighty Lord Visnu replied to Nanak:
"There is no difference between you and Me. In the beginning of creation I gave the four Veda to Brahma but because of the lies and bad deeds of the individuals of Kaliyuga, the knowledge of the Veda has been lost. Therefore returning from there, in the form of worship of the 'name of Truth', produce the fifth Veda in the common language, so that the individuals of Kaliyuga may be redeemed."
The fifth Veda referred to here is the Granth Sahib, whose believed method of receipt is very much indifferent to the Vedic one. Bhai Mani Singh also relates the discourse between Guru Nanak and Pir Muhiyuddin at the time of the Guru's trip to Baghdad. The Pir was under the impression that the Guru had started a new 'religion' in the Semitic sense of the word, to which Nanak clarified:
"In the world, the Hindus have forsaken the Dharma of the Veda, so we/I have come for the protection of the Dharma of the Veda. Just as you have existed for the protection of the din, in that way the Creator has sent us/me for the protection of Dharma"
Guru Gobind Singh filled his foremost composition the Dasam Granth (=the tenth book) with Puranic stories of various avatars, the largest accounts being those of Krsna and Rama. The mythology laid down in the Hindu texts concerning Manu, the legendary father of mankind and his apparent authorship of the Manusmrti is too described by the Guru:
"The Beginning of the Story of Manu-Raja Avatar. Sri Bhagauti Ji Sahai. Quatrain. Everyone became followers of the Jain religion and abandoned acts of Dharma. Everyone abandoned the service of Hari and no one believed in the Almighty Guru.
1. Sadhu folk became un-sadhu-like and everyone abandoned acts of Dharma. Then Akal-Purakh (the timeless Being) gave the command and according to that command, Visnu again performed his task (of taking avatar).
2. Taking the form of King Manu, Visnu was incarnated and in the world, spread the Manusm¤ti. He put all those on the bad path onto the good one and freed them from sinful acts.
3. In the form of Raja (King) Manu, Visnu took avatar, and again performed all acts of Dharma. Whoever performed sin, was now killed and in this way, the King performed the task of putting all the subjects on the good path.
4. The sinful (ones) were finished at that moment and all the subjects were given teachings on Dharma. (Now everyone) obtained the education of the Name and (the virtue of) charity and in this way, the King enabled the abandonment of Jainism.
5. Only those who fled far away from King Manu's kingdom were able to remain in Jainism; the rest of the subjects went on the path (of Dharma). Thus leaving the bad path, they took on the path of Dharma.
6. Manu Raja was the avatar of Visnu and he put the whole world on the prevalence of acts of Dharma. He put all those on the bad path onto the good one. Instead of sinful activities, he put everyone towards Dharma.
7. Couplet. All those who were on the bad path came onto the good one and in this way, stayed away from the Jains. From this work, Raja Manu's fame filled in the whole world.
8. 'Here endeth the 16th avatar Manu-Raja of Sri Bacitra Naak.16. Auspicious truth'."
It is thus determinable here, the Guru's attitude towards the Smrti texts as indirectly divine teachings where Dharma is rooted. Sikh texts too gave instructions to the Sikhs to observe the sacred texts of Hindus as their own. Bhai Kesar Singh Chibbar's Bamsavali Nama Dasam Patsahiam Ka [14.88-90] says:
âThis way the Muslims killed lacs of Sikhs, looted the Sikhs and defiled them from Dharam. Say Sikhs! What good deeds have the Muslims earned? Even if (after) seeing and hearing this, no Sikh understands, may Dharamraj fear from this kind of indiscrimination. Each person's deeds will go with them. Our Dharam and their honesty will show beauty. We Sikhs (must) study Gurbani, the Ved-Shastras and the Purans, and those Muslims (are to) perform circumcision, (Ramadan) fasts and study the Qu'ran. Everyone shall reap the fruits of their actions. Those who do bad will lose and those who do good will win."
In the Sau Sakhi text, the Sikh is instructed to, "Take upon (himself) the Ved, Sastra and the Guru's word." Page 1243 of the Adi Granth insists that, "The Veda describes the good (punu) and sinful (papu) deeds, the cause of heaven and hell." The question of identity arises with the Gurus. Had the Gurus rejected their Hinduness if at all they did set up a distinct religious system? Allegories offer an answer to this:
At the age of 38 years, Guru Nanak went to bathe in a nearby river and disappeared for three days. News had dissipated that Nanak had drowned but the Janam Sakhis maintain that Baba Nanak had been taken to Vaikunha, the abode of the 'Almighty' Visnu to meet Him and to receive His instructions. Three days later, when Nanak reappeared a conglomerate of people congregated to whom he uttered as is found in the B40 Janam Sakhi, "There is no Hindu, there is no Musalman." It is suggested that by this proclamation Sikhism was formed yet as far as I am aware, there is no explicit indication of this in any of the Sikh texts. Even if the Guru had claimed that the Sikh panth had started for 'Sikhism' would have been absent in his vocabulary, then as we have seen, it was simply a panth of Dharma. I refrain at this point from offering an explanation for Baba Nanak's "Na koi Hindu, na koi Musalman" as it becomes self-evident further on.
In Mecca, the religious city of Islam in which non-Muslims are forbidden to enter, Baba Nanak was asked to identify himself to which he answered, "(If I) say (I) am a Hindu, (you will) kill (me, but) I am not a Muslim; a puppet (made) of five elements, Nanak is my name." Nanak here does not identify himself as a Muslim; he was neither born of Muslim parents, nor did he accept the fundamental tenets of Islam. Yet he hasn't affirmed that he is not a Hindu
The 15th Sakhi of the Adi Sakhian, tells that:
"Guru Nanak visited the wasteland of Mecca. On the way, he met some Fakirs who asked him, "What is your name?" The Baba (Nanak) said, "Sirs! My name is Nanak." Then they said, "Are (you) a Hindu or Musalman?" Baba (Nanak) replied, "Sirs! (I) am Hindu." (When) Baba (Nanak) said (this), they stood aside. Then they said, "Nanak! This path is not for the Hindus." Baba Nanak said, "Why Sirs! Why is this path not for the Hindus?" Then they said, "In this country is the reign of the Sayyids . They kill the Hindus; they don't let them go."
Bhai Mani Singh provides an account in his Pothi Janam Sakhi of the Guru's trip to Afghanistan:
"Then Baba ji and Mardana and Bala, wandering around arrived (in) Kabul (at) the place of Asa Devi then on hearing Baba ji's name, many Pirs (=Muslim old men/saints) and Fakirs and Sardars that were there, came and on coming, said, "You are a Hindu Fakir and this land is of the Musalmans. So tread carefully." Then Baba (Nanak) said, "the light of the Divine is one in all, and that which is the body...so to this body, performing circumcision (=sunnat) calls (one) a Musalman, and wearing the sacred thread and the frontal mark (=tilak) calls (one) a Hindu but I/we are the witness of this body."
The Guru again utters as above, "(If I) say (I) am a Hindu, (you) will kill (me)...." We find that the inhabitants of Kabul already know of Nanak and that he is a Hindu. The soul is thought of as the witness of the body, thus the Guru here identifies himself with the soul. This therefore makes sense of 'Na koi Hindu, na koi Musalman' for in essence atman has no labels. The same was the attitude in devotionalism towards caste.
Even as late as the martyrdom of Guru Tegh Bahadur, Emperor Aurangzeb offered the ninth Guru the option to accept Islam or death. Bhai Santokh Singh in his text, the Guru Pratap Suraj 12.64.34-35, composed in 1843 CE describes what was said by the Guru before refusing to accept Islam and thus death:
"Hearing this, the hero Sri Tegh Bahadur in fulfilling his Dharma gave the answer, 'My Dharma (is) Hindu, (It is) so dear (to me) how can I leave it. In (this) world (and) the other it is the giver of happiness. (There is) no other like it (which can) be accepted. That impure and foolish minded individual (who thinks of) abandoning it, he is undoubtedly wicked. This type of person experiences extreme grief in this world and by giving punishment (to him), Yamaraja is not even satisfied. I am good-minded, why (should I) leave it? (I) am forever devoted to the protection (of) Dharma."
http://geocities.com/hindutatva/sikh_hindu.html<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That looks nice yes but there are indeed Sikh chronicles dating back from before British take over that clearly state that Guru Gobind by his creation of Khalsa had indeed separated them from both the Hindus and Muslims.
The following is reportedly what Guru Gobind said when he created the Khalsa, the author cites, a Muslim chronicle Tawarikh-i-Hind in which it is supposedly found:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I wish you all to embrace one creed and follow one path, obliterating all differences of religion. Let the four Hindu castes, who have different rules laid down for them in the shastras, abandon them altogether and mix freely with one other. Let no one deem himself superior to another. Do now follow the old scriptures. Let none pay heed to the Ganges and other places of pilgrimage which are considered holy in the Hindu religion or adore Hindu deities like Rama, Krishna, Brahma and Durga, but all should have faith only in Guru Nanak and his successors. Let men of four castes receive my baptism, eat out of the same vessel and feel no disgust for each other.
http://www.globalsikhstudies.net/pdf/invas...f%20relious.pdf<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now the above author is a plain liar and hater of Hindus as can be seen by his rubbish about Hindus driving out Buddhism from India (for which he offers no supporting details).
But how does the above quote from a medieval chronicle go down with the prevalent tradition that the Guru performed a yajna to the Devi?
Things are never black and white in many cases.
Also in the article by Kartar Singh he quotes the reply of Guru Tegh Bahadur to Aurangzeb where he categorically declares himself to be a Hindu, the quote is indeed authentic to the extent that it exists, but it is from Guru Pratap Suraj compiled in 1843 CE by Bhai Santokh Singh, which means that it was written 168 years after Guru Tegh Bahadur died, no other work puts those words in his mouth and some work written 168 years later will not be taken seriously by any authentic historian.
On the other hand the quote from Bhai Mani Singh's Gyan Ratnavali is a serious blow to Sikh separatists, Bhai Mani Singh was a direct disciple of the 10th Guru and compiled the Dasam Granth, he was the first jathedar of Har Mandir and was later tortured to death by Muslims.
If Hindus are serious then let the one's interested spend some time and energy to come out with a scholarly work dealing with all the arguements and supporting quotes put forward for a separate Sikh identity.
So things are never that simple.
Even I know some Sikhs who think they are Hindus, infact Ranbir Singh Sekhon the HHR president is a Sikh (not Amritdhari), but he is just one person from the community, the majority rejects any Hindu identity and have done so for the past 100 years and we still have Hindus delusionally insisting that they are Hindus.
Haven't you ever heard of the saying that "You can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink."
If a Hindu is so convinced about the Hindu identity of Sikhs, let him/her undertake a detailed study to refute all the arguements and the supporting points that Sikh writers put up for a separate identity.
If you are interested, go through the following article:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Na Koi Hindu Na Koi Musalman?
- by Kartar Singh
In the Bhai Bala Janam Sakhi reference is made of an exclamation of a prophetic nature by Nanak's (Vedic) teacher Pandit Brajnath to Nanak's father, Mahta Kalu: "O Kalu! The knowledge of the four Veda are becoming lost in this world; your son has become manifest to bring to light the four Veda." Although it may be argued that this was a Hindu or Brahminical attempt to Hinduise the image of Nanak, according to Sikh tradition Akal Purakh too said the same, and it was admitted by Nanak. Bhai Mani Singh (an orthodox Khalsa Sikh who was one of Guru Gobind Singh's closest disciples and at one time, the head Granthi of Harimandir Sahib), related in his highly authoritative work, the Pothi Janam Sakhi of Guru Nanak (1730 CE), that in a state of meditation, Nanak became one with Brahman and went to visit Him in Vaikuntha (the abode of Vishnu). Lord Vishnu asked whether Nanak had finished his work or whether there was anything still left to do. Nanak answered:
"By your grace, I have turned the wheel of the Dharma of the 'name of Truth' in three directions of India, and the fourth direction of the west remains. In that fourth direction, the Mlecchas are guilty of the murder of cows and Brahmins. They have defiled all the pure bathing places (on the banks of rivers) and pilgrimage sites of the Hindus. They are idolaters and they call the tombs and walls of Mecca and Medina, the house of Allah, and worship it. And even still, they don't consider themselves idolaters while they themselves worship stones. Thus, if it be Your will, then (after) going to Mecca and Medina to give those Mlecchas the teachings of the 'name of Truth', I shall return."
Having said this, the Almighty Lord Visnu replied to Nanak:
"There is no difference between you and Me. In the beginning of creation I gave the four Veda to Brahma but because of the lies and bad deeds of the individuals of Kaliyuga, the knowledge of the Veda has been lost. Therefore returning from there, in the form of worship of the 'name of Truth', produce the fifth Veda in the common language, so that the individuals of Kaliyuga may be redeemed."
The fifth Veda referred to here is the Granth Sahib, whose believed method of receipt is very much indifferent to the Vedic one. Bhai Mani Singh also relates the discourse between Guru Nanak and Pir Muhiyuddin at the time of the Guru's trip to Baghdad. The Pir was under the impression that the Guru had started a new 'religion' in the Semitic sense of the word, to which Nanak clarified:
"In the world, the Hindus have forsaken the Dharma of the Veda, so we/I have come for the protection of the Dharma of the Veda. Just as you have existed for the protection of the din, in that way the Creator has sent us/me for the protection of Dharma"
Guru Gobind Singh filled his foremost composition the Dasam Granth (=the tenth book) with Puranic stories of various avatars, the largest accounts being those of Krsna and Rama. The mythology laid down in the Hindu texts concerning Manu, the legendary father of mankind and his apparent authorship of the Manusmrti is too described by the Guru:
"The Beginning of the Story of Manu-Raja Avatar. Sri Bhagauti Ji Sahai. Quatrain. Everyone became followers of the Jain religion and abandoned acts of Dharma. Everyone abandoned the service of Hari and no one believed in the Almighty Guru.
1. Sadhu folk became un-sadhu-like and everyone abandoned acts of Dharma. Then Akal-Purakh (the timeless Being) gave the command and according to that command, Visnu again performed his task (of taking avatar).
2. Taking the form of King Manu, Visnu was incarnated and in the world, spread the Manusm¤ti. He put all those on the bad path onto the good one and freed them from sinful acts.
3. In the form of Raja (King) Manu, Visnu took avatar, and again performed all acts of Dharma. Whoever performed sin, was now killed and in this way, the King performed the task of putting all the subjects on the good path.
4. The sinful (ones) were finished at that moment and all the subjects were given teachings on Dharma. (Now everyone) obtained the education of the Name and (the virtue of) charity and in this way, the King enabled the abandonment of Jainism.
5. Only those who fled far away from King Manu's kingdom were able to remain in Jainism; the rest of the subjects went on the path (of Dharma). Thus leaving the bad path, they took on the path of Dharma.
6. Manu Raja was the avatar of Visnu and he put the whole world on the prevalence of acts of Dharma. He put all those on the bad path onto the good one. Instead of sinful activities, he put everyone towards Dharma.
7. Couplet. All those who were on the bad path came onto the good one and in this way, stayed away from the Jains. From this work, Raja Manu's fame filled in the whole world.
8. 'Here endeth the 16th avatar Manu-Raja of Sri Bacitra Naak.16. Auspicious truth'."
It is thus determinable here, the Guru's attitude towards the Smrti texts as indirectly divine teachings where Dharma is rooted. Sikh texts too gave instructions to the Sikhs to observe the sacred texts of Hindus as their own. Bhai Kesar Singh Chibbar's Bamsavali Nama Dasam Patsahiam Ka [14.88-90] says:
âThis way the Muslims killed lacs of Sikhs, looted the Sikhs and defiled them from Dharam. Say Sikhs! What good deeds have the Muslims earned? Even if (after) seeing and hearing this, no Sikh understands, may Dharamraj fear from this kind of indiscrimination. Each person's deeds will go with them. Our Dharam and their honesty will show beauty. We Sikhs (must) study Gurbani, the Ved-Shastras and the Purans, and those Muslims (are to) perform circumcision, (Ramadan) fasts and study the Qu'ran. Everyone shall reap the fruits of their actions. Those who do bad will lose and those who do good will win."
In the Sau Sakhi text, the Sikh is instructed to, "Take upon (himself) the Ved, Sastra and the Guru's word." Page 1243 of the Adi Granth insists that, "The Veda describes the good (punu) and sinful (papu) deeds, the cause of heaven and hell." The question of identity arises with the Gurus. Had the Gurus rejected their Hinduness if at all they did set up a distinct religious system? Allegories offer an answer to this:
At the age of 38 years, Guru Nanak went to bathe in a nearby river and disappeared for three days. News had dissipated that Nanak had drowned but the Janam Sakhis maintain that Baba Nanak had been taken to Vaikunha, the abode of the 'Almighty' Visnu to meet Him and to receive His instructions. Three days later, when Nanak reappeared a conglomerate of people congregated to whom he uttered as is found in the B40 Janam Sakhi, "There is no Hindu, there is no Musalman." It is suggested that by this proclamation Sikhism was formed yet as far as I am aware, there is no explicit indication of this in any of the Sikh texts. Even if the Guru had claimed that the Sikh panth had started for 'Sikhism' would have been absent in his vocabulary, then as we have seen, it was simply a panth of Dharma. I refrain at this point from offering an explanation for Baba Nanak's "Na koi Hindu, na koi Musalman" as it becomes self-evident further on.
In Mecca, the religious city of Islam in which non-Muslims are forbidden to enter, Baba Nanak was asked to identify himself to which he answered, "(If I) say (I) am a Hindu, (you will) kill (me, but) I am not a Muslim; a puppet (made) of five elements, Nanak is my name." Nanak here does not identify himself as a Muslim; he was neither born of Muslim parents, nor did he accept the fundamental tenets of Islam. Yet he hasn't affirmed that he is not a Hindu
The 15th Sakhi of the Adi Sakhian, tells that:
"Guru Nanak visited the wasteland of Mecca. On the way, he met some Fakirs who asked him, "What is your name?" The Baba (Nanak) said, "Sirs! My name is Nanak." Then they said, "Are (you) a Hindu or Musalman?" Baba (Nanak) replied, "Sirs! (I) am Hindu." (When) Baba (Nanak) said (this), they stood aside. Then they said, "Nanak! This path is not for the Hindus." Baba Nanak said, "Why Sirs! Why is this path not for the Hindus?" Then they said, "In this country is the reign of the Sayyids . They kill the Hindus; they don't let them go."
Bhai Mani Singh provides an account in his Pothi Janam Sakhi of the Guru's trip to Afghanistan:
"Then Baba ji and Mardana and Bala, wandering around arrived (in) Kabul (at) the place of Asa Devi then on hearing Baba ji's name, many Pirs (=Muslim old men/saints) and Fakirs and Sardars that were there, came and on coming, said, "You are a Hindu Fakir and this land is of the Musalmans. So tread carefully." Then Baba (Nanak) said, "the light of the Divine is one in all, and that which is the body...so to this body, performing circumcision (=sunnat) calls (one) a Musalman, and wearing the sacred thread and the frontal mark (=tilak) calls (one) a Hindu but I/we are the witness of this body."
The Guru again utters as above, "(If I) say (I) am a Hindu, (you) will kill (me)...." We find that the inhabitants of Kabul already know of Nanak and that he is a Hindu. The soul is thought of as the witness of the body, thus the Guru here identifies himself with the soul. This therefore makes sense of 'Na koi Hindu, na koi Musalman' for in essence atman has no labels. The same was the attitude in devotionalism towards caste.
Even as late as the martyrdom of Guru Tegh Bahadur, Emperor Aurangzeb offered the ninth Guru the option to accept Islam or death. Bhai Santokh Singh in his text, the Guru Pratap Suraj 12.64.34-35, composed in 1843 CE describes what was said by the Guru before refusing to accept Islam and thus death:
"Hearing this, the hero Sri Tegh Bahadur in fulfilling his Dharma gave the answer, 'My Dharma (is) Hindu, (It is) so dear (to me) how can I leave it. In (this) world (and) the other it is the giver of happiness. (There is) no other like it (which can) be accepted. That impure and foolish minded individual (who thinks of) abandoning it, he is undoubtedly wicked. This type of person experiences extreme grief in this world and by giving punishment (to him), Yamaraja is not even satisfied. I am good-minded, why (should I) leave it? (I) am forever devoted to the protection (of) Dharma."
http://geocities.com/hindutatva/sikh_hindu.html<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That looks nice yes but there are indeed Sikh chronicles dating back from before British take over that clearly state that Guru Gobind by his creation of Khalsa had indeed separated them from both the Hindus and Muslims.
The following is reportedly what Guru Gobind said when he created the Khalsa, the author cites, a Muslim chronicle Tawarikh-i-Hind in which it is supposedly found:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I wish you all to embrace one creed and follow one path, obliterating all differences of religion. Let the four Hindu castes, who have different rules laid down for them in the shastras, abandon them altogether and mix freely with one other. Let no one deem himself superior to another. Do now follow the old scriptures. Let none pay heed to the Ganges and other places of pilgrimage which are considered holy in the Hindu religion or adore Hindu deities like Rama, Krishna, Brahma and Durga, but all should have faith only in Guru Nanak and his successors. Let men of four castes receive my baptism, eat out of the same vessel and feel no disgust for each other.
http://www.globalsikhstudies.net/pdf/invas...f%20relious.pdf<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now the above author is a plain liar and hater of Hindus as can be seen by his rubbish about Hindus driving out Buddhism from India (for which he offers no supporting details).
But how does the above quote from a medieval chronicle go down with the prevalent tradition that the Guru performed a yajna to the Devi?
Things are never black and white in many cases.
Also in the article by Kartar Singh he quotes the reply of Guru Tegh Bahadur to Aurangzeb where he categorically declares himself to be a Hindu, the quote is indeed authentic to the extent that it exists, but it is from Guru Pratap Suraj compiled in 1843 CE by Bhai Santokh Singh, which means that it was written 168 years after Guru Tegh Bahadur died, no other work puts those words in his mouth and some work written 168 years later will not be taken seriously by any authentic historian.
On the other hand the quote from Bhai Mani Singh's Gyan Ratnavali is a serious blow to Sikh separatists, Bhai Mani Singh was a direct disciple of the 10th Guru and compiled the Dasam Granth, he was the first jathedar of Har Mandir and was later tortured to death by Muslims.
If Hindus are serious then let the one's interested spend some time and energy to come out with a scholarly work dealing with all the arguements and supporting quotes put forward for a separate Sikh identity.
So things are never that simple.