The God of Dasam Granth – Part Two

In this second of a three-part series on Dasam Granth, KARMINDER SINGH examines dietism and sect-ism within Indian spiritualties

| Opinion | 14 Sept 2016 | Asia Samachar |

Sharan-DG2By Karminder Singh PhD (Boston)

In Part One of the series aimed at examining the God of Dasam Granth (DG); the following facts were established from within the compositions of DG:

  1. The primary God of the Dasam Granth (DG) is Mahakaal and the secondary God is Durga.
  2. The writers of a vast majority of DG are poets named Raam, Syam and Nul. Poet Syam’s name as the writer appears across 151 pages of DG while Ram’s appears across 14 pages. Their names also appear jointly across 15 pages of DG suggesting that they worked together. Poet Nul is the writer of one composition. Readers would note that the word “Nanak” as writer does NOT appear even ONCE in the entire DG.
  3. The obeisance of these three writers to Mahakal and Durga (the male and female forms of Shivji) suggests that they are adherents of the Vaam Margee SECT of Shivji.
  4. Large portions of the core rachnas of DG are lifted from the Markandey Puran and Shiv Puran. Both Purans are written in obeisance of Shivji. Markandey, a devotee of Mahakaal, Durga and Shivji – is highly revered amongst devotees of the Vaam Maragee SECT. The writers of DG have acknowledged such lifting, even mentioning the chapters that are lifted, at the end their rachnas.
  5. These purans – acting as the primary sources of DG – thus provide the LINK and CONTINUITY between the God of these purans (Shivji) and that of DG being the one and same. Shivji is the God of the two purans, and Mahakaal and Durga (two halves of Shivji) are the Gods of DG.

It is worth reiterating that the method of deriving the above mentioned facts relied on using the DG as a primary source. Such a choice of method is not dismissive of secondary sources. It is to allow the reader direct access to the verses within DG where the ideas of these series of essays are coming from.



When examining SECT-ism within Indian spiritualties, the following three principles stand out:

  1. Full and UNCONDITIONAL obeisance towards the primary Deity of the Sect. This means that while there is a plethora of devi devatas within Indian the spiritual system; a Sect is based on a single devta as its primary Isht (God, protector and object of obeisance and prayer). A follower of a Shivji Sect would therefore consider Shivji as its primary Isht or God, and his selected avtars/ incarnations the secondary God/(s).
  2. Rejection of Other Deities. SECT-ism further requires the devotees of a particular Sect to REJECT, as far as possible, other deities of their obeisance. This second principle augments the first. A follower of a Sect of Shivji would be fully loyal to Shivji, but would NOT, for instance, pay obeisance to Vishnu or Bhrama (or any of their avtars/incarnations).
  3. SUBJUGATION or co-option of other spiritualties. When sects get established and institutionalized, the need to subjugate other rival Sects becomes necessary.  This is generally accomplished through two basic ways:

a) Making rival deities appear to be adherents / disciples of the Deity of  the Sect and / or

b) Making rival deities to be in obeisance to the primary / secondary Deity of the Sect.

A follower of a Sect of Shivji would thus strive (much at the chagrin and displeasure of other Sects) to (i) make other deities and their incarnations appear to be disciples of Shivji, and (ii) show other deities and their incarnations as paying obeisance, coming before, or seeking assistance from Shivji.

SEE ALSO: The God of Dasam Granth – Part One 

SEE ALSO: The God of Dasam Granth – Part Two

SEE ALSO: The God of Dasam Granth – Part Three

Such subjugation or co-option can usually be found within the spiritual literature as well as oral traditions of the Sect that is undertaking the subjugation.

It can also involve a mix of RE-WRITING or RE-INTERPRETING of the spiritual narratives of other Sects. It can involve DISTORTION of the spiritual truths of other Sects. It can further involve the creation of “new truths” or “previously non-existent realities” pertaining to the other rival Sects. The overall objective remains the same, namely subjugation, irrespective of the method employed.



Given that Part One of this series postulated that Mahakaal and Durga were the primary and secondary Ishts or God of DG, (who are also the Gods of the Vaam Marag Sect of Shivji) it remains for examination if the above three principles are found within the writings of DG.



An instance of the rejection of Hindu Gods considered rivals to Shivji within the spirituality of DG is captured on page 309 as follows:

ਚੌਪਈ॥ ਮੈ ਨ ਗਨੇਸ਼ਹਿ ਪ੍ਰਿਥਮ ਮਨਾਊਂ ॥

Chaupayee. Mein Na Ganeshey Pritham Manaun.

I do not accept Ganesh as my primary God.  

 ਕਿਸ਼ਨ ਬਿਸ਼ਨ ਕਬਹੂੰ ਨਹ ਧਿਆਊਂ ॥

Kishen Bishen Kabhu Neh Dhiayu

I will not ever worship Krishen and Vishnu.

ਕਾਨ ਸੁਨੇ ਪਹਿਚਾਨ ਨ ਤਿਨ ਸੋਂ ॥ 

Kaan Suney Pehchaan Na Tin So

I hear of them with my ears, but I recognize them not.

ਲਿਵ ਲਾਗੀ ਮੋਰੀ ਪਗ ਇਨ ਸੋਂ ॥੪੩੪॥

Liv Lagee More Pug En So. ॥ 434॥

My contemplation is on the feet of the following entity.

It is clear that the author of verse 434 (Poet Syam) is REJECTING the obeisance of other (rival) deities and Gods. The author seems bent on his conviction given the contemptuous language of the third verse – I hear of them with my ears, but will not recognize them.

The verse immediately following this contemptuous one states clearly where the author’s spiritual loyalty lies.



ਲਿਵ ਲਾਗੀ ਮੋਰੀ ਪਗ ਇਨ ਸੋਂ ॥੪੩੪॥

Liv Lagee More Pug En So. ॥ 434॥

My contemplation is on the feet of the following entity.

ਮਹਾਕਾਲ ਰਖਵਾਰ ਹਮਾਰੋ॥

Mahakaal Rakhvaar Hamaro

MAHAKAAL is my protector.

 ਮਹਾ ਲੋਹ ਮੈਂ ਕਿੰਕਰ ਥਾਰੋ ॥

Mahaloh Mein Kinker Tharo

It’s on Mahaloh (another name of Mahakaal) that I place my obeisance

ਅਪਨਾ ਜਾਨ ਕਰੋ ਰਖਵਾਰ ॥ 

Apna Jaan Karo Rakhvaar

Accept me as your own and protect me

ਬਾਹਿ ਗਹੇ ਕੀ ਲਾਜ ਬਿਚਾਰ ॥੪੩੫॥

Bah Gahe Kee Laaj Bichar. ॥ 435॥

Take my arm and protect my honor.

POINTS TO NOTE: Sikhs who believe that the above verses were composed by Guru Gobind Singh Ji may want to ponder on the following questions:

  1. By the time Guru Gobind Singh Ji became Guru, Guru Nanak’s Sikhi had already lived for some 200 years. In these two centuries Sikhi principles were abundantly clear on the fact that the God of Sikhi was Ek Oangkar, Satnam, Karta Purakh, Nirbhau, Nirvair, Akaal Moorat, Ajooni, Saibhang, Gurparsaad. It was also abundantly clear that Sikhi for those 200 years had NOTHING to do with any of the deities of Indian spiritualties.
  2. None of these deities or others were considered rivals to EK Oangkar – the God of SGGS. So what is the need for Guru Gobind Singh ji to be selectively and contemptuously REJECTING Ganesh, Kishen and Vishnu but NOT Shivji? All 33 crores of them were already rejected in the 200 years of Sikhi. Guru Nanakji had done so in Jap banee itself by submitting that the trinity of Hinduism was subject to One God. Furthermore, contempt is never the language of the SGGS.
  3. And why is obeisance being paid to Mahakaal? Mahakaal is not even mentioned ONCE in the SGGS as the God of Sikhi. The two words Maha and Kaal do appear separated in ONE SINGLE verse in the GGS as ‘ultimate’ (Maha) and ‘death’ (Kaal) meaning spiritual death.


ਰਾਮਕਲੀ ਮਹਲਾ ੫ ॥ ਜਪਿ ਗੋਬਿੰਦੁ ਗੋਪਾਲ ਲਾਲੁ ॥ ਰਾਮ ਨਾਮ ਸਿਮਰਿ ਤੂ ਜੀਵਹਿ ਫਿਰਿ ਨ ਖਾਈ ਮਹਾ ਕਾਲੁ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ GGS 885

Ramkli Mehla 5: Jup Gobind Gopal Lal. Ram Nam Simar Tu JEVEH Fir Na Khayee Maha Kaal. Rahao.

Realize God the Loving Protector. By remembering the Omnipresent’s Nam/virtues, you will obtain SPIRITUAL LIFE; and not ever be consumed by  (the fear of) ULTIMATE (spiritual) DEATH.

It is clear that in this one SINGLE instance where Mahakaal is used in the SGGS, it (i) comes as two words, not one; and (ii) refers NOT to God but to spiritual death. The word “Khayee” is feminine in gender and refers to death which is feminine.

The word “Jeeveh” means life and it appears as the antonym of the word “Kaal” which means death.

The word KAAL (death) has an aungkar below it. This means it is a noun. The word Maha (great) is therefore an adjective of this noun. There are different kinds of deaths – physical death is one, but it is the lesser death in Sikh parlance. The greater death is spiritual death, or death of one’s conscience.

God in the SGGS is gender free but referred to in the masculine tense. So if Mahakaal was referring to God, then the verse should be “Fir Na KHAYA Maha Kaal.”

IF indeed Mahakaal in this SGGS verse above was one word and refers to God, then what can we understand from “Fir Na Khaya Mahakaal”? That ‘Mahakaal the God” would NOT devour or consume or eat (Khaya/ Khayee) you? The God of SGGS is never the devouring kind.

If indeed Mahakaal was the God of SGGS shouldn’t this word be ALL OVER the SGGS, appearing hundreds or thousands of times, instead of just one single time?

The words EK OANGKAR SATNAM appear together a FULL 574 times across the SGGS. The word AKAAL appears 47 times as clear an unequivocal reference to God. Now this is the God of SGGS.

ਤੂ ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖੁ ਨਾਹੀ ਸਿਰਿ ਕਾਲਾ ॥

Tu AKAAL Purakh Nahi Ser Kaala. (GGS 1038)

You are AKAAL PURAKH, You are Beyond Kaal (Death).


The second para of the 55 para Durga Kee Vaar as contained within DG, written in obeisance to Durga captures the essence of subjugation of other deities and sects as follows:

ਤੈ ਹੀ ਦੁਰਗਾ ਸਾਜਿ ਕੈ ਦੈਤਾ ਦਾ ਨਾਸੁ ਕਰਾਇਆ ॥

Tain Hee Durga Saaj Key Dainta Daa Naas Kareya

It is you who created Dugra and had the demons killed

ਤੈਥੋਂ ਹੀ ਬਲੁ ਰਾਮ ਲੈ ਨਾਲ ਬਾਣਾ ਦਹਸਿਰੁ ਘਾਇਆ ॥

Taithon Hee Bul Raam Ley Naal Baana Dehsir Ghaiya

Ram too got his strength from you to kill Ravan through arrows

ਤੈਥੋਂ ਹੀ ਬਲੁ ਕ੍ਰਿਸਨ ਲੈ ਕੰਸੁ ਕੇਸੀ ਪਕੜਿ ਗਿਰਾਇਆ ॥

Taithon Hee Bul Kishen Ley Kans Kesin Pakar Giraiya

Krishen too got his strength from you to grab Kans from his hair and felled him.

The question of who is the “you” as referred to in the above para (and elsewhere) must be answered applying the following two principles:

  • It must be derived from within the text of DG.
  • It must be derived in conjunction with the principle of unconditional obeisance to the deity of the Sect as mentioned above.

There is no doubt that from within the text of DG, the God of DG is Mahakaal as Shivji’s male form.

The fact that Durga was born out of the lightning bolt out of the weapons of Mahakaal (as Raaj Kumari Dulha Devi/ Kalika), is captured in Chiritar 405 (verse 1 – 43) on page 1349 of DG. So the first verse “It is you who created Durga” must be understood in this context.

It is clear therefore that the above verses are one of subjugation. The essence of the verses is that Mahakaal / Shivji is portrayed as the ultimate God. The correct and contextual translation of the above verses is thus:

Mahakaal created Durga. Mahakaal is the source of spiritual strentgth of Raam Chander’s victory over Ravan ! Mahakaal is the source of Krishen ji’s triumph over his uncle Kans.!

This is subjugation, clear and present. It is also clearly revolting to the devotees of Raam and Krishenji. But that is how subjugation presents its ugly self.



The war that Durga fought is described repeatedly four times in four separate rachnas in DG. Chandee Chritar One, Chandee Two, Durga Kee Vaar and Triya Chritar 405. Chritar 405 explicitly states the objective of the war.

The purpose was to slay the evil Daent as condition for her to marry Mahakaal. This Chritar mentions the war to be 20 years long and horrific in which all the major devatas including Bhrama and Vishnu were involved.

What is interesting is the manner in which the fighting abilities of Bhrama and Vishun are described, as follows in verses 81-90

Bhrama Bishen Sabhey Dar Aaney, Mahakaal Kee Sharan Sidhaney.

Bhrama and Vishnu became consumed with fear (of the war). They both went to seek refuge of Mahakaal. 

This is what Bhrama and Vishun say to Mahakaal. thslst

Tum Ho Sakal log Sir Taja, Garab Na Raaje Gareeb Nivaza.

You are King of the entire kingdom. Please protect us because you are the protector of those who seek refuge.

These verses are clearly aimed at subjugating Bhrama and Vishnu to Mahakaal. The two deities are made to look fearful of the Durga war and are shown running to Mahakaal to seek refuge.

POINT TO NOTE: Sikh Ragis are often heard singing the above mentioned verses as Kirtan in the presence of SGGS. They are possibly under the misguided assumption that Guru Gobind Singh ji is the author of these verses and that the verse “Tum Ho Sagal Log Sir Taaja” means that the tenth master is praising Akaal Purakh.

Such wrong assumptions will be shattered if one looks at the context of the verses. They are contained within a composition that is describing a 20 year war in which Durga is fighting with the assistance of Mahakaal.

Bhrama and Vishu are also depicted as being in the same battle but become consumed with fear and go to Mahakaal for refuge. So the verse “Tum Ho Sagal Log Sir Taaja” is supposedly being uttered by Bhrama and Vishnu to Mahakaal.

The truth of the Durga war aside, and the truth of whether Bhrama and Vishu were part of the war and fled to Mahakaal aside; one thing is clear. Such a narrative is designed by the authors (Kavi Raam, Syam etc) of the Vaam Maragi Sect to subjugate the two deities to Mahakaal.



It is interesting to note that while major portions of DG that are in praise of Mahakaal/Shivji/Durga are lifted almost verbatim from Markandey Puran and Shiv Puran – the two purans that are written in obeisance of Shivji, there is one composition in DG – Chaubees Avtar (24 Incarnations) that is taken from Sri Mudh Bhagvat Puran.

The primary deity of Bhagavat Puran is Vishnu and the secondary deities of this puran are 24 of his incarnations/avtars.

So what is the purpose of including, into the DG, a narrative of a deity that RIVALS Shivji?

The answer to the question becomes clear when we note that the narratives of the 24 incarnations of Vishu are clearly RE-INTERPRETED from a selective and skewed perspective with a purposive agenda.

What is the NEED to REINTERPRET something that has been established and accepted by devotees of Vishu and his 24 Avtars for thousands of years is subject to debate and best left for the reader to decide.

Nevertheless, the elements of subjugation come out crystal clear as the following verses will show.

This suggests that the objective of rewriting and reinterpreting by the Vaam Maragi Sect  authors of DG does appear to be subjugation of the 24 Avtars to their own primary God of Mahakaal/Shivji.

That Vishnu is being subjugated to Shivji can further be seen from the following verses.

ਬਿਸਨ ਦੇਵ ਆਗਿਆ ਜਬ ਪਾਈ॥ ਕਾਲਪੁਰਖ ਕੀ ਕਰੀ ਬਡਾਈ॥ ਭੂਅ ਅਰਹੰਤ ਦੇਵ ਬਨ ਆਯੋ॥ ਆਨ ਅਉਰ ਹੀ ਪੰਥ ਚਲਾਯੋ॥ 8॥ DG 18

Bisen Dev Agiaya Jub Paiyee. Kaalpurakh Ke Karee Badayee. Bhu Arhant Dev Bun Aiyo. Aan Aur Hee Panth Chaleyo.

Vishu praised Mahakaal/Shivji in heaven to obtain his powers and come to earth as a devta. But he came on earth and started his own different spiritual path.

It goes without saying that the devotees of Vishnu (and their respective incarnations) would consider such narratives as DISTORTION of their spiritual truths, or even the creation of “new truths” or “previously non-existent realities.” At the very worst, they would consider such distortions as blasphemous.

Note: The word in the verses above is KAAL PURAKH – the Purakh (entity) of Death. The reference is therefore to Shivji / Mahakaal– the Deity of Death. This is NOT to be confused with AKAAL PURAKH – the God of SGGS who is BEYOND Death.



Valmeek the sage is accepted by devotees of Ram Chandar (one of the 24 Avtars of Vishnu) as the author of the most authentic version of the Ramayan.

In the following concluding verses of the composition Raam Avtar in the DG, this sage is shown to be a worshipper of Durga !!  Such an attempt of subjugation will probably turn the sage – a devout and staunch devotee of Ram Chander – in his grave.

ਮੁਨੀ ਬਾਲਮੀਕੰ ਸ੍ਰਤੰ ਦੀਨ ਬਾਨੀ॥ … ਸੀਆ (ਸੀਤਾ) ਸੰਗਿ ਲੀਨੇ ਗਯੋ ਧਾਮ ਆਪੰ॥ ਮਨੋ ਬਚ ਕਰਮੰ ‘ਦੁਰਗਾ ਜਾਪ’ ਜਾਪੰ॥ 724॥  ਇਤੀ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਬਚਿਤ੍ਰ ਨਾਟਕੇ ਰਾਮਅਵਤਾਰ ਦੁਇ ਪੁਤ੍ਰ ਊਤਪਨੇ ਧਿਆਉ ਸਮਾਪਤੰ॥ 21॥ DG 245

Munee Balmeekung Satrung Deen Banee. Sita Sang Leeney Gyo Dhaam Aapung. Mano Bach Karmung Durga Jaap Jaapung. 724. Et Sri Bachitar Natekey Ram Avtar Doe Putar Utpuney Dhiao Samaptung.

The sage Valmeek discovered (the wondering) Sita (Ram Chander ji’s consort) and brought her to his home. Therein Durga was mediated / chanted upon to fulfill the desires of their minds. 

Given that the desires of both Valmeek and Sita were to reunite with Ram Chander, it was Durga who fulfilled their wishes!

In essence therefore, what these verses are suggesting is that Rishi Valmeek and Sita (Ram’s wife) were Durga worshippers. As blasphemous as such may sound to devotees of Ram Chander and Sita ji – such is the outcome of Sect based subjugation.



The DG has a composition dedicated to the Gopis of Krihsen (also one of the 24 Avtars of Vishnu). It is titled Gopi Baach (Gopi prayers) as follows:

ਗੋਪੀ ਬਾਚ॥ ਅੜਿਲ॥ ਧੰਨਿ ਚੰਡਕਾ ਮਾਤ ਹਮੈ ਬਰ ਇਹ ਦਯੋ॥ ਧੰਨਿ ਦਯੋਸ ਹੈ ਆਜ ਕਾਨ ਹਮ ਮਿਤ ਭਯੋ॥’ਦੁਰਗਾ’ ਅਬ ਇਹ ਕਿਰਪਾ ਹਮ ਪਰ ਕੀਜੀਐ॥ ਹੋ ਕਾਨ੍ਹਨ ਕੌ ਬਹੁ ਦਿਵਸ ਸੁ ਦੇਖਨ ਦੀਜੀਐ॥ 283॥ DG 289

Gopi Baach. Arell. Dhan Chandika Maat Hamey Bar Eh Dayo. Ddhun Dyo Hai Aaj Kaan Hum Mit Byaho. Durga Ab Eh Kirpa Hum Pur Keejeay. Ho Kahnan Ko Bhu Divas So Dekhan Deejeay.

O Great Chadi Mother (we pray) give us this boon. Your grace blessed us with this day that we are able to meet with our beloved Krishen. Durga please bless us further so that we may be able to see our Krishen for a longer period (many days). 

In essence therefore, Krishenji’s devout Gopis are depicted as praying to Durga, and asking for her blessings that they may meet with their God Krishen! The depiction of the above verse is that the Gopis are only able to meet with Krishen upon receiving the blessings of Durga!

Why would the Gopis who are devotees of Krishen be praying to Durga when the whole Krishen world prays to Krishen as their Bhagwan is the million dollar question.

Again, as blesphemous as such a narrative may sound to the devotees of Krishenji, such is the nature of subjugation of rival deities.



Having attempted to subjugate just about every other spirituality, there wasn’t a reason to leave Sikhi alone.

But the DG writers would deploy the most novel, innovative and devious ways to subjugate Sikhi and Guru Gobind Singh ji to Shivji, Mahakaal, and Durga.

So devious is the subjugation that the Sikh spiritual world would be forever entangled in a quagmire of whether Guru Gobind Singh ji had anything to do with DG; and get caught in a vicious cycle of conflict and in some cases violence that threatens to split the panth into two.

The discussion of Subjugation of Sikhi will continue in PART 3 of this series.

Karminder-mugshot2Karminder Singh Dhillon, PhD (Boston) writes on Gurbani and Gurmat issues in The Sikh Bulletin, USA. He also conducts Gurbani Katha in local Gurdwaras. He is based in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.


  • This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of the Asia Samachar.


[ASIA SAMACHAR is an online newspaper for Sikhs in Southeast Asia and surrounding countries. We have a Facebook page, do give it a LIKE. Follow us on Twitter. Visit our website:]


The God of Dasam Granth is the God of Sri Guru Granth Sahib (Asia Samachar, 5 Sept 2016)

Let’s battle hate and ignorance instead (Asia Samachar, 5 Sept 2016)

The God of Dasam Granth – Part One (Asia Samachar, 9 Aug 2016)

Dasam Granth Debate: The double edged sword (Asia Samachar, 4 Aug 2016)

SGGS-DG Discourse: Another stumbling block towards Ekta of the Sikh panth? (Asia Samachar, 4 Aug 2016)

Sikh council tells Malaysian gurdwaras not to permit Dasam Granth preaching (Asia Samachar, 3 Aug 2016)

MGC: Dasam Granth video clips not a ‘directive’ (Asia Samachar, 3 Aug 2016)

Dasam Granth video directive ignites debate in Malaysia (Asia Samachar, 1 Aug 2016)

Dasam Granth: Twisting Bones Till They Snap (Asia Samachar, 30 June 2016)

‘One Granth One Panth’ call from Global Sikh Council – Asia Samachar (Asia Samachar, 11 April 2016)

Are our Gurdwaras Dysfunctional? The Assessment. (Asia Samachar, 9 Jan 2016)

One gurpurab, two dates. Why the confusion? (Asia Samachar, 5 Jan 2016)

Lessons for the Task Force (Asia Samachar, 14 Dec 2015)

JAGIR: MGC managing granthi entry, standardising maryada at gurdwaras  (Asia Samachar, 19 Nov 2015)

Sarbat Khalsa at Chabba historic, but may have been hijacked (Asia Samachar, 11 Nov 2015)

MGC passionately protects religious rights of Sikhs, others in Malaysia (Asia Samachar, 19 Nov 2015)

Lawyer challenges Akal Takht order on new gurdwaras (Asia Samachar, 27 Sept 2015)

The fallen amongst us (Asia Samachar, 22 Aug 2015)


  1. Jasmail Singh, where did you get your fraudulent information that Guru Nanak had “very few” followers? This is a derogatory and slanderous statement to make of our Guru. In the words of Bhai Gurdas ji Guru Nanak’s voice of truth was akin to a lion that roared in the wilderness of blind faith. Guru ji was able to convince everybody that he came in contact with including the worst elements of society such as the criminal Sajjan, Rakshash the cannibal and Walli Kandhari the egoist.

    Hope you didn’t pick out your fictitious statement of Guru Nanak having “few followers” from the DG. And Hope you are not comparing your DG peddler mumbo jumbo writer Harnaak to Guru Nanak as well.

    A better comparison is the delusional Don Quixote. He had “very few” followers indeed.

  2. Harnaak, I love what you have written. Keep sharing and reaching out. There is a chinese saying, no 5 fingers are the same. We all have our truth. There is place for everyone. Today, very few might even understand what you are writing. Ask yourself, how many followers do you think Guru Nanak had, very few, probably in terms of hundreds. Today we have Gurudwaras in all remote corners of the world, going as far as Chile, South America. Keep up your studies as what you writing is authentic and original. it will one day reach far and wide.

  3. Thank you for your wisdom laden and learned responses. As for the word NUL kindly refer to “The God of Dasam Granth is the God of Sri Guru Granth Sahib” Asia Samachar 5 Sept 2016. Please read and understand this document. The occurrence and meaning of NUL (also spelt Nal) is clearly spelt out in this document.

  4. Agree with you Koomar Singh ji.

    As for the lame critic commenting below he questions the “methodology” that is used by Dr Karminder Singh.

    The lame critic’s own methodology is to scream “false, untenable, fiction, untrue, fabrication” at every argument made by Dr Karminder. I counted him use the above words some 20 times in his writing. Is merely screaming false an accepted methodology?

    This lame critic then says it is “not an accepted methodology since the author (Dr Karminder) is not the writer of the DG, not an expert on Theology”

    Are you the author or DG lame critic? Are you an expert in theology? Dr Karminder has displayed in depth knowledge of the SGGS and a mastery of the DG’s contents.

    The lame critic then says “Dr Karminder should support every claim with sufficient evidence from other credible sources.

    I count the lame critic supporting his own claims by his own article. He cites and mentions his OWN miserable article a full NINE times in his comments.

    Dr Karminder cites DG verses (PRIMARY sources) and the critic cites HIMSELF over and over again for the SAME single article that he wrote.

    The lame critic then says “Guru Gobind is merely translating … writings of the avatars for the benefit of… Sikhs… since these avatars are referred to in SGGS.”

    Let me say this. Whatever is TRANSLATED from other sources CAN NEVER BE GURBANI. Please get this part right.

    If someone translated the Bible into Punjabi would that become “Gurbani”?

    The SGGS is 100% original (not a translation) and the DG is (by the critics own admission) 100% taken from elsewhere.

    Secondly, there is NO benefit whatsoever to Sikhs from the avtars or devi devatas. This includes the Machh (fishes) Kach (tortises), daddu (frog) avtars and all the rest.

    Thirdly these avtars are not “REFFERED TO” in the SGGS as suggested by the lame critic. They are MENTIONED with the purpose of TOSSING OUT and REJECTING them from Sikh spirituality. Their being MENTIONED in the SGGS is merely to make sure they are SPECIFICALLY REJECTED.

  5. I wonder if Harnaak actually believes in what he has written. Its a load of mumbo jumbo and completely contrary to the Gurmat philosophy contained within the SGGS ji. If Shyam and Ram are pseudonyms of Dasam Pita, what about Nul? How idiotic can one be. Shame on these unwitting slaves of RSS. Just take a step back and read your own web of lies. Hopefully some bibek budh might lead you to reflect upon the truth and you will re-evaluate your thoughts. Other than having completely missed the thrust of Dr Karminder’s articles, Harnaak is a victim of the brahmanical lie that our Gurus were all from lineage of Luv and Khush and that Dasam Pita “acknowledged” the Hindu “avtaars”. facepalm!!!

  6. Thank you Dr Karminder Singh ji for your effort in making it as clear as daylight what the DG is really all about. The Sikh Panth owes you a debt for your in-depth research and untiring efforts in exposing the truth about DG. You have cleared my doubts and I believe the doubts of countless others who are willing to hear the truth.

    To the lame critics – particularly the one commenting here. You have played your one broken record too many times. Keep defining, re-defining and twisting the words. Only a twisted mind will want to ask questions like “what is the meaning of the word “Durga”; what does “Mahakaal” really mean, what is the meaning of the word “Chandee”; what is “Kalika;” What is really meant by “Maa Shera Waleee:” What is the meaning of “Bhavani”; what is meant by the word Shiva etc etc etc.

    We all know what they mean so stop your twisting of giving them twisted meanings.

    If you really want to fool others more than yourself, I suggest you take the line that, Durga REALLY means “Akaal Purakh:; Chandee TRULY means “Nirbhau Nirvair”; “Kalika” ACTUALLY means Karta Purakh; “Maa Shera Walee” IN FACT means “Ajooni Saibhang; ” “Mahakaal REALLY means Satnam Waheguru; Shiva FACTUALLY means Gurparsaad. And “Bhavani” is short for Aaad Sacjh Jugaad Sach Hai Bhee Sach. And Ram, Syam and Nul are just other names for “Nanak.”
    Then BINGO. The God of DG “TRULY, FACTUALLY and ACTUALLY” becomes the God of SGGS.

    Please keep your hogwash to yourself.

    Dr Karminder ji – please keep up your good work.




    The word death is a noun so Maha Kaal is the Great Death. The explanation of this has been dealt with in previous article “The God of Dasam Granth is the God of Sri Guru Granth Sahib” Asia Samachar dated 5-Sept-2016. Mahakal (or Maha Kal) is the God as defined in SGGS and is the same in DG.

    There is no word that refers to “spiritual death” in the SGGS though reference is made to e.g. spiritual wisdom (ਗਿਆਨੁ), spiritual warrior (ਸੂਰ) (both in JapJi Sahib) etc. The word Kaal has been defined to mean “death” or “time” NOT “spiritual death” (see “The God of Dasam Granth is the God of Sri Guru Granth Sahib” Asia Samachar dated 5-Sept-2016). The author should state which word in SGGS he is referring to.

    The author’s statement about “Khaya” and “Khayee” is NOT TRUE showing lack of understanding of Gurbani Grammer. Professor Sahib Singh in his book Gurbani Viakaran 8th gives examples under section “Poolingg Nav”– masculine name (page 122 of 8th Edition). He says that the “biharee” is used for the masculine case as shown in the following verses for the words “santokheeyee” and “Gianee”

    ਸੇਵ ਕੀਤੀ ਸੰਤੋਖੀਈ ਜਿਨ੍ਹ੍ਹੀ ਸਚੋ ਸਚੁ ਧਿਆਇਆ ॥ SGGS 466
    Those who serve are content. They meditate on the Truest of the True.
    ਨਾਨਕ ਗਿਆਨੀ ਜਗੁ ਜੀਤਾ ਜਗਿ ਜੀਤਾ ਸਭੁ ਕੋਇ ॥ SGGS 548
    O Nanak, the spiritually wise one has conquered all others.
    If we were to go by what the author claims then the words should be “SANTOKHEEYAA” and “GIANAA”.



    The word Durga (Bhagauti) is used to signify the defending and destroying quality of the Sword on one hand or God/disciple on the other unless the context points to other meanings. The explanation of this has been dealt with in previous article “The God of Dasam Granth is the God of Sri Guru Granth Sahib” Asia Samachar dated 5-Sept-2016.



    Refer to comments on “PRINCIPLE: UNCONDITIONAL … CHOICE” above which also apply here.

    Devi-Devtaas and Demons signify certain characters, traits or qualities of human beings. The Devi-Devtaas/Demons are used metaphorically in our scriptures (SGGS and DG) to signify these traits. The explanation of this has been dealt with in previous article “The God of Dasam Granth is the God of Sri Guru Granth Sahib” Asia Samachar dated 5-Sept-2016.



    The following verse from SGGS implies likewise.
    ਗੋਤਮ ਨਾਰਿ ਉਮਾਪਤਿ ਸ੍ਵਾਮੀ ॥ ਇਨ ਦੂਤਨ ਖਲੁ ਬਧੁ ਕਰਿ ਮਾਰਿਓ ॥ SGGS 710
    Shiva cut off Brahma’s head, and Gautam’s wife and the Lord Indra mated; Brahma’s head got stuck to Shiva’s hand, and Indra came to bear the marks of a thousand female organs. ||4||

    BASED ON THE AUHOR’S LOGIC THE SGGS IS ALSO SUBJUGATING TO SHIVA! We hope the author is not leading in that direction.
    What about the following verse from SGGS.
    ਪਾਰਜਾਤੁ ਗੋਪੀ ਲੈ ਆਇਆ ਬਿੰਦ੍ਰਾਬਨ ਮਹਿ ਰੰਗੁ ਕੀਆ ॥
    He brought the Elysian Tree for his milk-maid, and revelled in Brindaaban.


    The conclusion derived by the author is due to his

    • misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the concepts in DG which have been dealt with in “The God of Dasam Granth is the God of Sri Guru Granth Sahib” Asia Samachar dated 5-Sept-2016.

    • His espoused UNTENABLE principles of subjugation.


    Our comments to your article are outlined according to “your sections” below. In the ensuing “the author” refers to the author of the article.


    The claims in this section are untenable and the author has missed the essence and concepts in the Dasam Granth and their synchronous relationship with the SGGS. It has been shown in article “The God of Dasam Granth is the God of Sri Guru Granth Sahib” Asia Samachar dated 5-Sept-2016 that ALL THE FIVE ARGUMENTS IN THE INTRODUCTION OF THIS ARTICLE ARE WITHOUT ANY

    The methodology used by the author is not an accepted methodology since the author of this paper is not the writer of the DG, nor is he an expert in Theology. Even experts cite credible sources to substantiate their claims. The author should support every claim with sufficient evidence from other credible sources. THE WHOLE ARTICLE APPEARS TO BE A FICTION STORY.


    The author of this paper is not the writer of, or an expert in Indian or Hindu Theology or Traditions. Credible experts cite credible sources to substantiate their claims. Every claim has to be supported with sufficient evidence from credible sources. Further it is pointed out that the word DEITISM does not exist in any dictionary or the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. This is a word FABRICATED by the author, and this proves the point about his lack of expertise to write on this topic.


    The God of DG is neither Mahakal nor Durga. Mahakaal means God, to whom the Hindu deity Shiv pays obeisance (see “The God of Dasam Granth is the God of Sri Guru Granth Sahib” Asia Samachar dated 5-Sept-2016). So any conclusions derived from the author’s unsubstantiated assumptions are false.

    The comment about the author’s lack of expertise is applicable here.

    Further the verse from Jaap Sahib
    ਕਰਤਾ ਕਰ ਹੈਂ ॥ ਹਰਤਾ ਹਰਿ ਹੈਂ ॥੧੮੩॥ JAAP Sahib
    O Lord! Thou art the Creator of the creators. O Lord! Thou art the Destroyer of the destroyers
    confirms that God of DG is neither the Hindu Gods “Mahakaal” nor the “Durga”.

    This verse states that the God of DG (same as God of SGGS) is the creator of creators (the creator of Hindu faith is Brahma) and also the destroyer of destroyers (the destroyer of Hindu faith is Shiva). So DG clearly rejects both Brahma and Shiva as Gods since they can be destroyed. This is further substantiated in Tav Parsaad Savaeeyay
    ਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਮਹੇਸਰ ਬਿਸਨ ਸਚੀਪਤਿ ਅੰਤ ਫਸੇ ਜਮ ਫਾਸਿ ਪਰੈਂਗੇ ॥ Tav Parsaad Savaeeyay
    Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu and Consort of Sachi (Indra) would ultimately fall in the noose of death.



    Based on the AUTHOR’S “PRINCIPLES” the following points are noted in ensuing analysis (though we do not agree with the author’s view that Mahakaal is Shivji).

    The author says that Ganesh is rejected because he is rival to the primary deity Shiva and pays obeisance to Shiva. This contradicts the author’s “Principle 2” because Ganesh is the son of Shiva and lies in the same primary Shiva deity group ( The author claims rejection only of different primary deities and their sub deities. THIS EXAMPLE THEREFORE CONTRADICTS THE VERY PRINCIPLES HE HAS LAID DOWN. ESSENTIALLY HIS PRINCIPLES ARE BROKEN DOWN BY THE EXAMPLE HE IS GIVING PROVING THE PRINCIPLES ARE UNTENABLE.

    Further we add that the DG translation at shown below does not concur with the definition of Mahakaal (see below).

    ਮਹਾਕਾਲ ਰਖਵਾਰ ਹਮਾਰੋ ॥ ਮਹਾ ਲੋਹ ਮੈਂ ਕਿੰਕਰ ਥਾਰੋ ॥ ਅਪਨਾ ਜਾਨ ਕਰੋ ਰਖਵਾਰ ॥ ਬਾਹਿ ਗਹੇ ਕੀ ਲਾਜ ਬਿਚਾਰ ॥੪੩੫॥
    The Supreme Kal (God) is my Protector and O Steel-Purusha Lord ! I am Thy slave; Protect me, considering me as Thy own and do me the honour of catching my arm.

    God refers to the same God as SGGS (see “The God of Dasam Granth is the God of Sri Guru Granth Sahib” Asia Samachar dated 5-Sept-2016).



    Why talk about 200 years even more that 500 years later many, as evidenced by this article, do not appreciate the teachings of our Gurus.

    The extracts are from the Krishna Avatar. Dr Trilochan (The History and Compilation of the Dasam Granth (Part 2) Sikh Review 1955) has this to say about this.

    “In this section of the Bachiter Natak Granth follows the lives of the 24 avatars of Vishnu. In a brief introduction Guru Gobind Singh said that out of these 24 alleged avatars he acknowledged only 10 of them as real manifestations of the light of God. Others were merely mythological conceptions. He acknowledged only the following: Machh, Kachh, Vehrah Narsingh, Bavan, Paras Ram, Rama Krishna, Buddha and Kalki.

    The lives of all the avatars are very brief, but are completely detached from the mythological and cosmological complexities of the Puranas.”

    So Guru Gobind is merely translating the Sanskrit (which were impossible to interpret by the people at large making them subservient to the pandits) writings of the avatars for the benefit of and in the language of the people at large and the Sikhs in particular since these avatars are referred to in SGGS.

    God refers to the same God as SGGS (see “The God of Dasam Granth is the God of Sri Guru Granth Sahib” Asia Samachar dated 5-Sept-2016) .

  9. Now that the truth is out GGS Academy and all their affiliates like the Niketan etc should put an immediate and total stop to all their rubbish preachings of Dasam Granth. Don’t mislead the Sangat. Don’t further confuse the Sangat. Please don’t split up the Sangat again. GGS Academy and their affiliates have caused a lot of damage and hatred within the Sangat by their fake claims and questionable propagandas. SikhInside please stop their live streamings when they speak on Dasam Granth. Enough is enough. No more excuses. No more ifs and buts. Please let Sikhs be fully focused on EK OANGKAR and not Mahakaal, Durga etc. GGS Academy you should be focusing more on Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji as your organisation name implies. What happened to you. The Sangat is totally appalled and could not take it anymore. Please don’t spoil our younger generation. If it is done all because of some funding received from RSS to spread their agenda to split our Sikh unity then you have indeed succeeded so far. May God bless you so that you can come back to the right track. For me you do not love Guru Gobind Singh ji at all for doing all this. You are the real Panth Dokhi. Even worst than that I would say.

  10. Gurbani appeals to the iliterates. Guru’s were cobbler & water carrier’s before attaing Guru gaddi. But when intelllectual’s behave holier than thou then we need scholarly people like Dr Karminder to put them in the place they rightfully belong. The debate is started by the so called intellectuals who have become overly scholars of Gurbani without doing in depth research as done by Dr Karminder Singh ji. Gurufateh.

  11. I wonder how many have read ‘DG’ and are knowledgeable enough to understand and evaluate the views being expressed by some readers.
    Personally I consider myself as ‘illiterate’ in matters pertaining to the many banis of our Gurus Ji and thus do not want to get into the debate. What I am sure about is that the debate is further dividing the already fragmented Sanggat and does not need any further such divisive debates.

  12. This is what I would consider facts beyond doubt. So well written and explained in simple language. No pussy footing and stretching of imaginations until bones break. Looking forward to the nail in the coffin part 3.

Comments are closed.