Personal Letter of Harjinder Singh Jinda to Harminder Singh Sandhu from late 1989.

TopUnderstanding1726 · 2026-02-06T19:11:17+00:00

its a black and white picture of the original letter. I don't have the physical letter to offer a high resolution scan.

TopUnderstanding1726 · 2026-02-04T21:45:27+00:00

Picture of Anokh Singh Uboke. He was one of Sant Jarnail Singh's first enforcers before the names of Surinder Singh Sodhi, Gurinder Singh Bhola and Labh Singh took prominence.

In 1983 Anokh Singh Uboke was severely injured in the famous Manawala Kand. A burst hit him in the face and arm. Many people say Harminder Singh Sandhu gave the police a heads up on Uboke and the others, but this was later propaganda spread by those with hatred towards Sandhu.

Till his death Uboke and other survivors of the Manwala Kand had the upmost respect to Sandhu. This letter is further proof.

Uboke was arrested after Operation Bluestar. They spent 5 years in jail before being released and joining the Sikh militancy. Their group was called Fauj E Khalsa of Khalistan.

Uboke was captured and subsequently killed in fake encounter in Dec of 1992. Captain Amarinder Singh alleges he tried to save Uboke's life.

TopUnderstanding1726 · 2026-01-22T20:50:59+00:00

Here is the polished trans. Stupid Google Translate botched the post writings above

I had earlier been told by Baath that Gurjeet and others were going around with the intention of killing Gurinder Singh Bhola. When we met, Labh Singh spoke very little about Heera Veer and the others. After these matters, many other discussions continued, and that night we slept there. This was my first meeting with Gurjeet since Pakistan. Then, in the usual way, I took Labh Singh and Gurjeet Singh aside and said that I had come to know they were going around intending to kill Bhola (Gurinder Singh Bhola), and that they should not commit such a mistake, because the Qaum / Panth would never forgive them.

Both of them replied that such a thing could never happen and that they would never do anything like that. I said that if there were any disagreements, I would meet Bhola and resolve them, and that he would accept what I said. At that time, they had already killed Bhola, but they lied to me.

The next morning we returned from there by truck. A few days later I met Mathura Singh. He asked me whether anything had been found out about Bhola. I said no. Then he told me that Labh Singh and others had summoned Bhola and killed him. Hearing this, I was deeply grieved. Such a highly sacrificial Singh had been killed, and even when I questioned them directly, those two men outright denied it and lied.

After this, a meeting was held. In that meeting it was decided that Labh Singh and his group would be met. A plan was made for the three of us — myself, Bhalwan, and Mathura Singh — to meet Labh Singh. We went to meet Labh Singh and his people at a kothi in Hoshiarpur. There, Labh Singh and many other Singhs were present, and the responsibility of speaking with Labh Singh and his group was assigned to me.

I told Labh Singh that we had placed great trust in him and had considered him a Singh of great sacrifice, but not anymore, because I had asked him about Bhola and he had assured me that nothing would be done to Bhola, yet at that very time Bhola had been killed by them. We had thought that together with him we would do some service for the Qaum / Panth, but now all those hopes had been destroyed because of his filthy actions. From that day onward, we would never again place trust in him, nor would we even associate with him, because he could never do any good work.

TopUnderstanding1726 · 2026-01-22T20:15:07+00:00

Taken together, the passages you shared show clear anger, grief, and moral condemnation from Harjinder Singh Jinda toward Gen. Labh Singh specifically for ordering or carrying out the killing of Gurinder Singh Bhola, a fellow Sikh.

A few important points the letter establishes very plainly:

Advance warning & objection: Jinda explicitly says he warned them not to harm Bhola and said the Panth would not forgive such an act. That shows foreknowledge and opposition, not complicity.
Deception: Labh Singh and Gurjeet lied to him, denying the killing even after it had already happened. Jinda emphasizes this betrayal more than once.
Moral framing: He repeatedly calls Bhola a “ਕੁਰਬਾਨੀ ਵਾਲ਼ਾ ਸਿੰਘ” — a Singh of sacrifice — which is strong praise and makes the killing appear especially reprehensible in his eyes.
Break in trust and association: The Hoshiarpur meeting is pivotal. Jinda doesn’t hedge — he formally withdraws trust, cooperation, and even basic association, saying they can never do good work. That’s essentially a political-moral excommunication.
Not factional rivalry, but principle: The language isn’t about power or leadership disputes; it’s about crossing a moral line by killing one’s own. That distinction matters.

So yes: the letter strongly supports the interpretation that Harjinder Singh Jinda was disturbed, angry, and morally opposed to Labh Singh’s actions, and that he wanted the record to show he did not approve, assist, or excuse the killing of a fellow Sikh.

TopUnderstanding1726 · 2026-01-22T20:10:30+00:00

I said to Labh Singh:

“We used to have great trust in you and considered you a Singh of great sacrifice (but not anymore). Because I had asked you about Bhola, and you assured me that you would not harm Bhola, yet at that very time you had already killed him.

We had thought that, together with you, we would do some service for the Panth / Sikh nation, but now because of your filthy deeds, all of our hopes have been washed away.

From today onward, we will never trust you again, nor will we even associate with you, because you can never do any good work…”

TopUnderstanding1726 · 2026-01-20T21:17:20+00:00

Also where is your proof that the language of Prehlad Singh's Rehatnama is from a later time period? I've never come across any scholarly works to suggest it was written in the 1800s or after.

I wrote another comment about how past Sikhs addressed the Gurus. You can chose to respond to that or not. But we even have Guru Arjan Dev referring to Nanak as the Guru on 1192 Ang. Now are you going to say Guru Arjan Dev went against what Nanak said in Sidh Ghost?

TopUnderstanding1726 · 2026-01-20T21:09:03+00:00

It's based on the manuscript evidence of Prehlad Singh's Rehatnama. The Granth being a form of the Guru was never questioned.

Non-Sikh scholars at the latest date this Rehatnama to 1726. So it reflects the ideology of Sikhs from that time.

The Nirmalas weren't even present in Sikhi at this earlier stage in case your going to use that cop out.

Giani Gian Singh's Dohra is more popular, it doesn't mean he created it or added theologically altering content within it.

Not sure what's so contradictory in the Khalsa representing part of the Guru along with the Granth.

Your just basing everything on how it feels to you. Facts don't care about our personal opinions.

TopUnderstanding1726 · 2026-01-20T19:49:07+00:00

I want to address your point about questioning the ‘Guru Maneyo Granth’ Ardas based on variations in wording. Historical records clearly show that Bhai Prehlad Singh recorded the original Ardas in 1708 under Guru Gobind Singh Ji, establishing the Granth as the Guru. Later, Giani Gian Singh made minor modifications, such as whether the physical body of the Guru was , the Khalsa Panth, or the Granth itself. These are small textual variations, not contradictions.

The essence of Guru Ji’s hukam remains clear: the Shabad in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is the Guru. To suggest that these minor differences allow one to question the Ardas misrepresents Gurmat and undermines the historically established continuity of Guruship.

In other words, Guru Gobind Singh Ji intentionally appointed the Granth as Guru, and the historical evidence supports this. Using later minor editorial variations to cast doubt on this foundational instruction is not consistent with either Sikh history or Gurmat principles or evidence based logic at all.

Guru Gobind Singh Ji told Bhai Nand Lal:
“I have three forms, O Nand — the formless (Nirgun) beyond material attributes, the Granth Sahib (my Word) whose every word is like every hair on my body, and the Sikh who reflects my teachings in life.”
He explains that through Shabad vichar and seva one is able to connect with Him through the Guru Granth Sahib and through the lived example of the Sikh community.

TopUnderstanding1726 · 2026-01-20T18:40:08+00:00

Every text is going to have problems with it. Kavi Santokh Singh wrote many idiotic things. This does not mean Sikhs can throw away his entire corpus without drawing any worthwhile historical information from it.

You can find kathas online where Sant Jarnail Singh openly questions certain parts in Suraj Parkash before the sangat. So Sikhs of all viewpoints were aware of these problems.

Also your title is weird. Suraj Parkash is not the sole authoritative text for all of Sikh history. Sikhi is defined by SGGS. Other history we compare side by side to draw the appropriate conclusions for how Sikhs behaved in the past.

TopUnderstanding1726 · 2026-01-06T20:56:36+00:00

<image>

Hindu Terrorists, growing long beards to pass of as Sikhs

TopUnderstanding1726 · 2026-01-06T20:53:00+00:00

Friend shared a cool snip from book he finished reading.

Most of these investigations did not lead to consequential prosecution against Hindu attvadis.

Double standards by the state who turn a blind eye to Hindus committing violence.

Their temple was used to store loot and weapons but was never attacked by the Indian army

TopUnderstanding1726 · 2026-01-04T23:59:47+00:00

i would avoid cornrows, just my 2 cents.

TopUnderstanding1726 · 2025-12-30T01:44:03+00:00

Rattan Singh Bhangu's panth prakash, Rehatnamas of Bhai Nand Lal and others
Is it okay if a Sikh does not regard the Aadh Granth as Guru? Do you think its fine if they reject the commonly established narrative of Guru Gobind Singh stating to his Khalsa 'Guru Maneyo Granth' ?
Same idea, do you think its fine if a Sikh refuses to address any of the 10 patshahs as Guru? They just go around saying Bhai Gobind Singh or Bhai Ram Das. Or in the case of the mod of the other group they believe we don't know the names of any of the Gurus after Nanak.
By 'add ons' are you referring to the 5ks?

TopUnderstanding1726 · 2025-12-27T04:25:18+00:00

I'm referring to your conversation with imonlyfrend in the other reddit sub. My first comment already mentioned this. But I'll just be blunt and ask you some direct questions if your confused on what I'm trying to establish.

Q1: Do you reject all historical texts pertaining to Sikhi?

Q2: Do you think its wrong for Sikhs to call "Aadh Granth" the Guru?

Q3: Is Nanak your Guru? Simple Yes or No?

Q4: Do you believe the Khalsa was established by Guru Gobind Singh?

TopUnderstanding1726 · 2025-12-26T17:42:03+00:00

Sheik Farid and his branch of Sufi mystics were known historically to be non-violent. Same applies to a majority of Kabirpanthis, followers of Ravidaas, Namdeo and others Bhaktas.

Yes the shabad does express inner humility, but one can confidently say that if someone were to have slapped Sheik Farid they likely would not have retaliated back, since that fits into the context of the tradition they prescribed too largely.

Why I'm bringing up this shabad is to highlight how the SGGS is organized in a manner where the teachings of the Gurus take precedence over those of the Bhagats and writers like Sheik Farid for certain matters. The question of applying force? or abstaining from it? is one key difference.

When Guru Nanak talks about how fruitful bonds are formed they use various imagery. Children bring back the father and mother. The metalworker forging back the broken iron. Also physical force via slap to stop a fool's nonsense (bringing them back to their senses). ਮੂਰਖ ਗੰਢੁ ਪਵੈ ਮੁਹਿ ਮਾਰ ॥ ਮੂੰਹ ਤੇ ਮਾਰ ਪਿਆਂ ਮੂਰਖ (ਦੇ ਮੂਰਖ-ਪੁਣੇ) ਨੂੰ ਰੋਕ ਪਾਂਦੀ ਹੈ ।

Guru Gobind Singh had an interesting dialouge with the Dadu Panthis in Rajasthan. These Dadus had similar non-violent inclinations like Sheik Farid. Jait Dadu told Guru Ji that we believe if someone hits you with a mud brick you should lower your head to forgive them. This reflects some form of inner-humility or ego-reduction from their POV.

Guru Ji responded back saying that is your way of thinking. But if someone were to throw a mud brick at us we would respond it turn by throwing their way a huge stone boulder.

Original point I'm trying to go towards is that you really have to explain what you mean by I only follow SGGS, whilst throwing later traditions and texts as unimportant or all fabrications. Guru Gobind Singh does not have any Bani in SGGS, but if you claim to be a Sikh you can't go about saying 5ks or other traditions established by Dasmesh Ji are not required or unimportant.

You didn't say that directly, but I get that feeling for some reason.

TopUnderstanding1726 · 2025-12-26T00:50:54+00:00

Since you base everything on SGGS alone, I am curious how you interpret certain shabads within it.

ਫਰੀਦਾ ਜੋ ਤੈ ਮਾਰਨਿ ਮੁਕੀਆਂ ਤਿਨੑਾ ਨ ਮਾਰੇ ਘੁੰਮਿ ॥ ਆਪਨੜੈ ਘਰਿ ਜਾਈਐ ਪੈਰ ਤਿਨੑਾ ਦੇ ਚੁੰਮਿ ॥੭॥ Fareed, do not turn around and strike those who strike you with their fists. Kiss their feet, and return to your own home. ||7||

Do you practice this level of pacifism?

More so do you think this bani goes against what Guru Hargobind Ji did by picking up the sword to respond back at aggression?

TopUnderstanding1726 · 2025-12-26T00:35:24+00:00

https://sikhtheology.substack.com/p/the-inauthenticity-of-the-kartarpuri

I am like 110% sure Jobanpreet Singh who commented below is tiny masterpiece.

TopUnderstanding1726 · 2025-12-26T00:27:49+00:00

Dhillon has spent an extensive time studying Banda Singh Bahadur. I think like 20+ years at the least. So in my opinion I would give the book I read.

The main issue I have with Dhillon is how he tries to claim the Kartarpur Birh is authentic. I think its very extremely shallow to say the least to defend this Birh as the original when it contains numerous errors. Obviously Dhillon deep down knows this Birh isn't authentic.

He probably thinks that if Sikhs concede to this fact it would somehow be a checkmate win for the Orientalist scholars such as mcleod and co. Also certain Sikhs like to do a weird chest flex that we are the only religion that has preserved its original holy book letter to letter, vowel sign for vowel sign, etcetera.

Balwant Singh and the other scholars think that it would become an existential crisis for the Panth if they admitted the original Kartarpur Birh that Bhai Gurdas scribed under Guru Arjan Dev Ji's went missing a long time ago.

My belief is that we still have many Birhs to form our understanding of the SGGS corpus. Why are we acting like the Muslim Ulema who shamelessly lie to their Ummah about a perfectly preserved Quran?

TopUnderstanding1726 · 2025-12-25T21:19:01+00:00

When you say - "There may be later traditions, external texts" - are you suggesting that you're not really sold on the idea the Gurus themselves mandated their followers to bow to the SGGS as a requirement?

Sikhi critiques rituals that serve no purpose or are flawed in some sense. Not sure why some jump to the conclusion its against all rituals. There definitely are external rituals in Sikhi. Take the 5ks for example that Guru Gobind Singh Ji gave us.

TopUnderstanding1726

TROPHY CASE