Thread by @taranje90781943

🧵#BandaSinghBahadur
This is a lengthy thread that covers the falsehoods and errors made by Ratan Singh Bhangu against Banda Singh Bahadur in his book "Panth Prakash". This thread will debunk all of the lies that Panth Prakash stated.

Given the length of the thread, I will advise you to start by unrolling it and reading it in PDF format.
Was Banda Singh Bahadur Anti-Sikh?
This lie for the very first time was spread by Ratan Singh Bhangu in his book,

Panth Prakash which was totally biased against Banda Singh Bahadur. Later other Sikh historians also carry forward the remarks of Ratan Singh Bhangu.
If Banda Singh had abandoned the Sikh religion and turned anti-Sikh then why not even one contemporary source confirms this?

If the follower of Guru that too someone as influential as Banda is saying that, he is no longer the follower of the Guru then this news should have been spread like fire. But, surprisingly not a single contemporary source mentions this,

instead the Muslim sources says Banda was a true disciple of Guru Gobind Singh.
Now, let’s debunk Panth Prakash and expose the lies created by Rattan Singh Bhangu to destroy the image of one of the greatest Khalsa warrior Baba Banda Singh Bahadur.

The sources I’m going to use are Mughal imperial, Muslim and British eyewitness sources. This is not some 140 years later sources mentioned by our friends.

Lie-
According to Panth Prakash, Banda had abandoned the Sikh religion and started calling himself anti-Sikh and not loyal to Guru, which means he was not a Sikh anymore, nor his followers who were called Bandai Singh were loyal to the Guru.

Reality-
After the surrender of Banda Bahadur and his Sikhs in the siege of Gurdas Nangal, they were paraded to infuse fear in the minds of the inhabitants.

Muslim eyewitness says that the Sikhs were singing the sacred hymns from their holy scripture.

If the Banda and his Singhs had turned anti-Sikhs then why were they singing hymns of the holy book?
Another Muslim eyewitness says "Banda and his Sikhs, the brave disciples of the Guru Gobind Singh were eager to attain martyrdom".

Now, this is very important as this Muslim writer mentions about Guru Gobind Singh which means he knew about Sikh history and how much the Sikhs historically are loyal to their Guru.

The question arises that if the Banda and his Sikhs had betrayed or abandoned the Guru as mentioned for the first time after 129 years in Panth Prakash, then why didn’t this Muslim eyewitness wrote the same like these people had abandoned the Sikh religion and were no more -

loyal to their Guru, instead he wrote the brave disciples of Guru Gobind Singh were eager to attain martyrdom.
According to Panth Prakash , the news of Banda being anti-Sikh and his threats to destroy Guru Gobind Singh's Khalsa had been circulated.

However, the question now arises if Banda was believed to be anti-Sikh, and this news was circulated then how is it possible that not a single contemporary writer mentions this? Instead, every Muslim or British contemporary source claims that Banda was a true disciple of Guru.

Why are the accounts are calling him a disciple Sikh? Why not anti-Sikh or traitor of his Guru?

The Sikhs of Banda chanting Waheguru Waheguru as mentioned by the eyewitness.

One must take into account theologically that only a baptized Sikh can baptize others, and here in a Muslim source it is clearly recorded that Banda Singh Bahadur was baptizing the Musalmans and Hindus into Sikh faith.

This is another instance of non-Sikh sources demonstrating that Banda Singh Bahadur was baptized.
Even the writer of Siyar-ul-mukhatein who never left any chance to criticize the Sikh Gurus writes that Banda was a pure Sikh.

Now, if Banda had spoken ill about the Guru or Khalsa then this writer must have definitely written about it . But, he didn’t wrote anything sort of that instead he praised the Sikhs who attained martyrdom.

If Ratan Bhangu after 129 years got such an exclusive history that Banda was anti-sikh, then all the contemporary writers of the 18th century were also living in Mughal era why didn’t they got to know about this news? Why didn’t they write anything about Banda leaving Sikhism?

Because there was no such history, Rattan Singh made this story on his own to discredit Banda Singh Bahadur just because he used Fateh Darshan as greeting instead of Waheguru Ji ka Khalsa.
Now, I will debunk the lies of Panth Prakash one by one using contemporary sources.

Lie- Bhai Nand Lal advised Mata Sundri to negotiate with the Mughals
Mata Sundri asked Bhai Nand Lal to send a writing to Banda Singh Bahadur.

Reality-
This account of Rattan Singh does not stand the scrutiny of historical investigation. Bhai Nand Lai who is said to have persuaded Mata Sundari to write letter to Banda Singh, died earlier. According to Dastur-ul-Insha, Bhai Nand Lai died in 1713 AD at Multan.

Encyclopaedia of Sikhism and Kulyat-i-Bhai Nand Lai also give the same date of his death." All account agree that Bhai Nand Lal died in 1713 AD in Multan. The Emperor Farrukhsiyar entered Delhi as a Mughal Emperor on 12th February 1713 AD.

Bhai Nand Lai could not be at Delhi in the year 1712, 1713 and 1714 because all accounts are of the view that Bhai Nand Lai spent his last years of his life at Multan where he had opened a school and he died in 1713 AD three years before the death of Banda Singh Bahadur in 1716.

All the Hukamnamahs written by Mata Sundariji are available and had been published by Punjabi University, Patiala and edited by Dr. Ganda Singh. Nowhere we find Liiy Hukamnamahs of Mata Sundari addressed to Banda Singh Bahadur.

First available Hukamanamah of Mata Sundari is dated 1717 about a year after the death of Banda Singh Bahadur. Continued👇

According to Das Guru Mahal, Mata Sundariji during the years of the rising of Banda Singh Bahadur, had migrated to Mathura after leaving her residence inside Ajmeri Gate, Delhi where she used to live. After her stay in Mathura, she came to Delhi to live near Turkman Gate.

A Gurdwara at this site has also been erected in the name of Mata Sundari.
Under these circumstances the writing of letter to Banda Singh Bahadur by Bhai Nand Lai on behalf of Mataji does not appear to be correct. Hence the question of Banda's disobedience to Mataji does not rise

Lie-
Farukshiyar and Mughals turned pro-Sikh

Reality

If Farukshiyar had turned pro-Sikh then why his officials asked this poor lady to beg infront of the emperor and announce that she don't have any relation with the Sikh Gurus, then her son's life will be spared.

Lie-

Mughals sent a war drum and a royal standard as emblems of sovereignty

Reality

Rattan Singh Bhangu went so deep into his imagination and boasting that here he made a severe mistake by saying that the Mughals sent a war drum and openly assuring them of sovereignty.

Anyone familiar with Mughal history would know that if the Mughals are engaging in diplomatic negotiations or offering gifts as a gesture of goodwill, then this is a very significant event that should undoubtedly be documented in Mughal daily records, newspapers, or biographies.

If Mughals got the hint of Tat-Khalsa vs Banda then why the contemporary Muslim writers couldn’t get this hint?
The muslim writers always notes the slightest of movement of the Mughal empire.
Not a slightest detail of this event can be discovered in any contemporary account.

Ratan Singh Bhangu was the first to make this claim 129 years later.

Moreover, read the first line that says Farukshiyar got to know about the detail news about Tat Khalsa vs Banda.

Now, if the detail news was sent to the emperor then where is the letter?

As the traditions goes by the messenger of the Mughals sends a letter about the news, but no such letters are found anywhere nor any Muslim writer claims any such incident, because no such incident happened it was all manifesting in the dreams of Ratan Singh Bhangu.

Lie –
Mata Sundari the wife of Guru Gobind Singh negotiated with Farukhshiyar
Reality -
Dr. Ganda Singh have thoroughly searched all available records for Emperor Farrukh Siyar's so·called negotiations with Mata Sundri, but he have not been able to find anything,

not even the slightest hint or a cursory allusion, to support the account of the Prachin Panth Prakash. The official Rotnamchas, the Tazkirat·u.·Salatin of Kamwar Khan, the Farrukh Siyar N amah 01 Muhammed Ahsan ljad, the Farrukh Siyar N amah and the Mana""ar·ul·Kalam of Siva Das

, the Chahar Gulshan of RaiChatarman, the ·Muntakhib·ul·Lubab of Khafi Khan, the 1 brat N amah and theTarikh·i·Mu1lammadi of Mirza Muhammad Harisi, the Tazkirat-IIZ-MlIluk of Yahiya Khan, and the other works of the contemporary writers,

the biographies of the contemporary Amirs and private persons, the later works like the Siyar-uHllllakheri" of Ghulam Hussain Khan, the Umdat-ul-TaU'arikh of Sahan Lal, the T,rrikh-i-Pllnjab of Bute Shah, the Tarikh-i-Sikhall of Khushwaqt Rai,

the histories of the Punjab and the Sikhs by M'Gregor, Thornton, Kanhiyalal, Muhammad Latif and others and the" works of the Sikh writers like the Mahma Prakash of Sarup Das, and the Suraj Prakash of Santokh Singh are all silent on this point.

It is impossible to believe that so important a subject as the Emperor's negotiations with the wife of Guru Gobind Singh, for the subjugation of so formidable a foe as 'Banda' was then considered to be, could have escaped the notice of one and all writers on the subject,

from official diarists and chroniclers down to the writers of private histories, personal Tazkirahs and biographical sketches of Amirs and other notable persons. The Tazkirat-us-SaZatill gives almost the daily details of news received Irom the front against Banda Singh and

the orders issued and the reinforcements uespatched, but there is no mention therein of these negotiations. On the other hand in those very days when the so-called negotiations are said to have been in progress,

sharp reproof was administered to Abd-us-Samad Khan on the 15th Rabi-ul-Awwal, 1127 (20th March,'7'5), and at the same time Qamr-ud-Din Khan, son of Muhammad Amin Khan, Afrasyab Khan the third Bakhshi, Muzaffar Khan, Raja Udet Singh Bundela, Raja Gopal Singh Bhadauryia and

some other nobles were sent to reinforce him.' 11 The Mahma Prakash, the Suraj Prakash, the Chahar Gu/shan, the Tarikh-i-Muhammadi of Harisi and some other works contain the detaIls of Mata Sundri's life at Delhi,

but no one mentions about this negotiations which is impossible if any negotiation did held because earlier also there were negotiations between Guru Gobind Singh and Mughals, and all these accounts have proudly mentioned that especially the Muslim authors because Muslim authors

always feels a sense of pride when any non-muslim tries to negotiate with the Muslim state. Then, how can they miss the chance of mentioning this treaty when the negotiating party was Sikhs. So, the negotiation story of Mata Sundari is all false peddled by Rattan Singh Bhangu

just like his other stories against Banda Bahadur Ji.
Lie -

Khalsa soldiers deserted Banda Singh Bahadur

Reality

There is no slightest truth in this argument because we do not find the slightest cleavage on this account, and, to the last, it has not been found that even one man deserted his standard. Continued 👇

Not only this. There was none even from amongst those who were captured on the way from Lahore to Delhi to desert him. They could say that they were only the followers of Guru Govind Singh and not the adherents and accomplices of Banda Singh, the innovater, the traitor

who had carried on the struggle against the Mughals in contravention of Mata Sundri's instructions. If, the resolutions were passed by the side of Mata Sundri as per Panth Prakash that the Sikhs should no longer keep any relation with Banda, and the Mughals are on the Sikhs side,

then these Sikhs should have definitely asked the officials that we are the Sikhs of Gurus we have no relation with Banda, leave us as we've negotiation with you. But no such thing happened. On the other hand, we find the Khalsa cheerfully sacrificing themselves, along with him,

to the last man at Delhi. The so·called feud that is alleged, by Bhangu Rattan Singh in the Prachin Panth Prakash.
No-one abandoned Banda, this can be proved by the contemporary account which says Bhai Baj Singh and Bhai Fateh Singh were also part of the Sikhs who attained

martyrdom that day along with Banda Singh.
Now, Bhai Baj Singh if anyone knows was one of the five panj pyara of that time, which further proofs that Banda Singh was not anti-sikh, otherwise what Baj Singh a panj pyara was doing with Banda who was anti-Sikh?

This on the other hand also proofs that no-one deserted him. Also, Bhai Fateh Singh was the Sikh who beheaded Wazir Khan.
Also, if we for once takes Panth Prakash as true then this Banda Vs Tat Khalsa was going on from last 3-4 years. But, then it's surprising what Baj Singh was

doing with Banda? Banda stated as in Panth Prakash was going to end the Khalsa, then what a Panj Pyara of Khalsa doing with Banda the anti-Sikh ?
Lie-

According to Panth Prakash, Khalsa Sikhs were promised sovereignty as a gesture after helping the Mughals

Reality

An official announcement was made to kill each and every Sikh indiscrimately after Banda Bahadur was killed.

Conclusion
Ratan Singh Bhangu was so biased in his writing that he made so many claims which were illogical and not possible, there are some more lies that Banda killed each and every Sikh in his camp to offer a sacrifice to the goddess which is again nowhere mentioned in any

contemporary source.His episodes related to Banda Bahadur specially during the later history of Banda are filled with lies and lies.
There are many inaccuracies and mistakes in Panth Prakash, so to check the authenticity and accuracy of any book it should be compared with

contemporary sources.
I remember someone quoting that the Sikhs were calling Banda with names like Bishnoi etc, I don't know what's the source of this but there were some notorious elements within the Khalsa who even mocked Guru Gobind Singh when he lost his 4 sons.

If they can mock the Guru then who is Banda Singh Bahadur?
The claim that Banda Singh Bahadur was ex-communicated from Sikhism is also absurd, because Banda never did anything anti-sikh. There are no proofs that he left Sikhism or ever became anti-Sikh Guru.

Yes, he tried to modify some aspects of Sikhism but that those not means he was anti-sikh.

Also, if Banda was an anti-sikh then why his present day descendants are Sikhs? Why are they amrit dhari?
They claim Banda Singh was an Amrit-dhari and loyal to Guru.

Moreover, look at the pictures of Guru Nanak Dev and Guru Gobind Singh ji in the dera of Baba Banda Singh Bahadur.
Also watch his interviews where he is clearly saying Banda Singh Bahadur was a loyal follower of Guru, but the modern day Sikh historians have painted him as traitor

Link for the interview-

Still confused ?

Then see the seal of government of Banda Singh Bahadur dedicated to Guru Nanak and Guru Gobind Singh.

The inscription on his seal and his coins is an everlasting monument of his overflowing devotion to Gurus.

According to contemporary news report- Akbar-i-Darbar-i-Mualla.
Nanak·Govind Singh whom he proclaimed to be the fountains of his Deg and Tegh, or Plenty and Power. At the last and the most trying moments of his life, under the pain of death, when life was promised to him if he

would renounce his faith, 'his constancy was wonderful to look at,' writes a contemporary.
With regard to Fateh Darshan - that was never continued during the life of Banda Singh Bahadur. It was abandoned. Moreover, it is not Fateh Darshan, it is Fateh Darshni. In Persian,

Fateh Darshani means that Fateh which is uttered at the time of Darshan, that was not such a serious thing which could warrant punishment.

In this way it is clear that Banda Singh Bahadur was wrongly blamed.

Instead of appreciating his great sacrifices he had made, he had been maligned and disgraced by those people who did not agree with him on one account or the other.

With the exception of his innovation of 'Fate" Darshani' and the celebration of his marriage,

there is nothing in the whole history of his life to warrant the allegations levelled against him by some of the recent writers, Sikhs and others, who have prejudiced the people against him. He had a spotless morality and led a very pure life, and,

true to the Rahit of the Khalsa which he himself inculcated in his hukamnamahs, he enjoined upon his men never to attack 'the honor of women' of the conquered enemy.

Why Ratan Singh Bhangu peddled all these lies ?

It is true that Banda introduced a new war-cry, called Fateh Darshan; but it was not intended to replace the original salutation, which was Wahegur Ji ka Khalsa Wahiguru ji ki Fateh. But in practice, slowly and gradually, it came to be used and replace it.

This was condemned by the Khalsa. There is no truth, however, in the other allegations against him. There is nothing in the contemporary or the earliest available records to show that he ever proclaimed himself to be a Guru in succession to Guru Govind Singh or that he ever used

a cushion, like the Gurus, in the sacred precincts of the Darbar Sahib at Amritsar.
The orthodox Sikh writers like Ratan Singh Bhangu exaggerated his replacement of the greetings and presented Banda Singh as anti-Sikh, to claim his point he peddled 100’s of lies but his each and

every lie is debunked in this post.

Das Taranjeet Singh

@UnrollHelper