Whilst the answer to your question concerns matters of aesthetics and hence subjective, as you allude to in the beginning of your post, the issue here (i.e. for the forum, composed of members who are Sikh and Non-Sikh, is the closing paragraph of the earlier post.

That said, whilst what someone likes and dislikes will be subjective, there are certain standards of what constitutes musical acceptance, simple things like keeping time and singing in tune – the latter in particular, which I think most will agree is essential to any form of music, is something where the AKJ frequently fail – why is this an issue, for what effective is their supposed cover (i.e. we are not a fundamentalist and/or terrorist supporting organisation, but a group of hymn singers), it should ring alarm bells for most, as to why the majority of their singing fails to be even that.

This is before we move onto more specific and/or theological issues with their approach, such as:

- The gross lack of skill (AKJ Tabla players for instance are about trained in the intrument as a 3 year old child – this is no exaggeration, search youtube and you’ll find literally 3 year old children playing with more control and musicality, again raising the above issue, i.e. why is a group that claims itself to be choir so appalling bad in every sense of the word when it comes to their chosen focus)

- AKJ claim to be the ‘backbone’ of the Khalsa Panth (Sikh community) as they supposedly fall what they consider orthodoxy and as the above quote seemed to suggest they follow and preach “the word of the Guru”, yet the Guru’s compositions (together with those of the Bhagats) in the SGGS are frequently recorded in specific musical measures and metres (raags and taals), yet we can find plenty of popular AKJ ‘kirtan’ sung to tunes such as “Jingle Bells” and “yankee doodle”, quite how these entail an ‘orthodoxy’ is beyond me.

- In short, leaving aside subjective matters of musical “taste”, the ‘Kirtan’ performed by the AKJ falls considerably short of being ‘musical’ by any sense of the imagination. As provided above, I would suggest listening to the ‘kirtan’ selections provided on the tapoban website and ask yourself, is this really the works of a group that prides itself on representing the orthodoxy of the a living tradition, which itself places large emphasis on ‘kirtan’ of which they consider themselves to be the foremost exponent.

As mentioned at the outset, this particular issues (the Kirtan)is very specific and/or theological issues, the purpose behind raising them here was to challenge the assertion that the AKJ are simply trying to “follow the word of the Guru” and more importantly raise the issue of their very close links to groups such as BKI and the manner in which their websites and members continue to support known terrorists such as the late Talwinder Singh Parmar – the figure behind the recent years of controversy at the Vaisakhi Nagar Kirtans in Vancouver, B.C.

p.s. Sunny, you are absolutely correct in challenging Nagar Kirtans – there is no “maryada” or orthodoxy supporting this practice.

While I agree with a lot of what you say re the AKJ, I’m perplexed as to why you have issues with their kirtan.

I’m not an Orthodox practicing Sikh by an stretch of the imagination but I do know good kirtan when I hear it.

The AKJ has its faults and theological inconsistencies, most jathebande and individuals do, but their kirtan rocks (IMHO).

So I was just wandering what you had against it specifically?

Many thanks.

This is the height of absurdity. The Akhand Kirtani Jatha (AKJ) despite their outward display of supposedly orthodoxy are actually far from following the ‘word of the Guru’.

Here’s why:

1. The AKJ are foremost amongst splinter groups that exist today and have their origins in late 19th century/early 20th century Colonial organisations seeking to deny the authenticity of the Sikh Scriptures – whilst they have chosen to focus their current attention solely on the “raagmala” (index of musical measures) at the end of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib (SGGS), they are nonetheless related to various individuals (indeed their origin begins with one such person) who went as far as to remove Bhagat Bani (hymns included by the Sikh Gurus within the SGGS by non-Sikh Saintly figures of Hindu and Muslim origin), so just how they are ‘following the word of the Guru’ when they consider themselves an authority to effectively silence their ‘Guru’ I fail to understand.

2. Even looking towards the living tradition of the Guru, i.e. the daily practice and lifestyle of the Khalsa Sikh, the AKJ have sought to argue using rather flawed ‘logic’ (rooted in their 20th century origins) to even change the 5Ks of the Khalsa that they seek to represent, forcing their fundamentalist outlook onto impressionable members of the Diaspora youth (in India, it is particularly well known that the AKJ are little more than a failed experiment, hence their increasing efforts to generate support and thus income in the UK and Canada).

3. Religion, contrary to the notion propagated by the Modern and Western forms Christianity and together with this Atheism, is not something that concerns ‘belief’ as much as it is does an indivisible combination of practice, tradition and aesthetics – the AKJ, like their fundamentalist counteparts in modern and western influenced religiousity have none of these factors, there is nothing aesthetically pleasing about any of their practices (and given their modern roots, they can hardly lay claim to tradition or orthodoxy!) – this is particularly revealing for an organisation that likes to present itself as a “kirtani” jatha (singers of divine praises), I would ask those who are unfamiliar this group to visit the ‘kirtan’ sections of websites like http://www.tapoban.org or http://www.akj.org and judge for yourselves if this ‘music’ even qualifies as ’singing’ let alone ‘kirtan’ (divine hymn singing).

That being said, aside from the above communal and theological issues, the item of particular relevance for this blog is the links that the AKJ have to terrorist groups like the Babbar Khalsa International (BKI) – whilst this group has been banned in the UK following 9/11 alongside ISYF, as you have covered previously on this site, several founding and leading members of these groups are the very same individuals who now ‘represent’ Sikhs through groups like the Sikh Federation.

The AKJ have been long trying to distance themselves from BKI post the events of 9/11 (for those unfamiliar the BKI have also had their fair share of involvement with plane hijacking), the underlying issue remains that the AKJ are little more than a recruiting nusery for organisations such as the BKI. Visit the above mentioned websites and one will find images of BKI terrorists and pages of articles and forum discussion singing praises of their actions, for those unfamiliar, look up a certain Talwinder Singh Parmar – that’s usually a good place to start.

Sunny, if groups like the AKJ are to be discussed on this forum, let’s focus on the issue that concerns all of us, are they as they claim to be, “a choir of hymn singers” or is there something underlying of this which requires further attention.

I just want to relate this to the following( please put me right if I am wrong, I have not read the SGGS, as my Punjabi is very poor and so is my English. After the Martyrdom of Guru Teg Bhadhur Ji, his decapitated head was brought back to Guru Gobind Singh Ji. The Guru asked how many of his followers gave Shaheedi with him, the disciple replied two, the Guru Ji replied in astonishment ‘just two’ (apparently the others fled) In response to this cowardly act the Guru Ji,is believed to have said the following Words ‘I would create a Khalsa that would be recognised amongst a million’ I strongly believe, it was this event that led to the creation of a Khalsa Panth, this is only logical conclusion that I can think of. Please shed more light on this matter.

Having said that though, ritualism is indeed creeping into the Sikh faith. One only has to visit Gurdwaras like Park Road and Havelock in Southall to see the number of Akhand Paths (readings of the Guru Granth Sahib) being read simultaneously, commissioned at quite high rates by families who are rarely in attendance. I am quite sure this is not quite the way it was meant to be. Correct me if I’m wrong but the Guru Granth Sahib should be read or listened to, and yes, discussed and debated. In my view, this is the most important aspect of the Sikh faith.

The caste system is alive as is much idol or image worshipping in many houses. On visits to the Golden Temple in Amritsar, I am always taken back when some people think bathing in the sarovar would cleanse their sins. Then there’s the practice of immersing ashes at Kiratpur Sahib and doing ‘pilgrimages’ before one dies. Much of this was frowned upon by the Gurus, yet sadly have reappeared. I can understand that this would mostly be prevalent in the Indian sub-continent as the day to day cultural scene revolves mainly around Hinduism, popular culture through films and tv but its such a shame it now is effecting the diaspora.

#8: ‘baptised Sikhs have a greater devotion towards the practice AND understanding of gurbani itself’.
- I would strongly disagree and believe me, I have met enough to say that many, not all go about their lives oblivion to what gurbani teaches.

#34: ‘I have close relatives who wear the 5ks and they lie out of their teeth.’
- there’s good baptised Sikhs and bad, there’s good non-baptised Sikhs and bad. Period.

Guru Nanak: ‘Truth is high, but higher still is truthful living’.

as for me Guru is god, theres no difference.

The Gurus consistently referred to God as ‘nirankar’ (formless); the Gurus had human form.

The Gurus exhorted the Sikhs to worship God not them.

What you have said about the Gurus being God is actually going against the very grain of their teachings.

I think the above line is misinterpreted in English, I have asked other sikhs about why would Guru Gobind Singh Ji say this? It makes more sense to me that Guru Ji is saying that whoever calls themself god will fall in hell, as for me Guru is god, theres no difference.

Johal, the words I think you mean are from Bachitar Natak and are as follows (note he was trying to stop people calling him a God):

ਇਹ ਕਾਰਨਿ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਮੋਹਿ ਪਠਾਯੋ ॥ ਤਬ ਮੈ ਜਗਤਿ ਜਨਮ ਧਰਿ ਆਯੋ ॥
For this reason the Lord sent me and I was born in this world.

ਜਿਮ ਤਿਨ ਕਹੀ ਇਨੈ ਤਿਮ ਕਹਿਹੋਂ ॥ ਅਉਰ ਕਿਸੂ ਤੇ ਬੈਰ ਨ ਗਹਿਹੋਂ ॥੩੧॥
Whatever the Lord said, I am repeating the same unto you, I do not bear enmity with anyone.31.

ਜੋ ਹਮ ਕੋ ਪਰਮੇਸਰ ਉਚਰਿ ਹੈਂ ॥ ਤੇ ਸਭ ਨਰਕਿ ਕੁੰਡ ਮਹਿ ਪਰਿਹੈਂ ॥
Whosoever shall call me the Lord, shall fall into hell.

Sunny – “There is also Sikh history and that has to be sometimes taken into account. why else do we read about the lives of the gurus? why else are there pictures of what the gurus did at Gurdwaras?”

the Gurus never wrote their own history for a perfect reason, because they wanted Sikhs to concentrate on Bani, not on the life stories of the Gurus. I’m not saying we should ignore the stories, but what we should do is always put our complete faith in Bani.

Sunny- “That’s great but I don’t think you realise that religion is also a personal journey about what feels right. I don’t like the idea of doing something that someone else did just because they liked it.”

So we can discard Bhai Manj, how about Guru Amar Das Ji. He used to collect water for Guru Angad Dev Ji’s morning bath, he did this without turning his back on his Guru. And here you are telling us how you find it a ritual the way Sikhs respect their eternal Guru (SGGS). Add to the Guru Angad Dev Ji and Bhai Manj saakhis the satkar that Guru Arjan Dev Ji bestowed upon the Adhi Granth. Are you telling me all these (two of whom are Gurus were wrong, and your ritual theory surrounding SGGS is correct). In that case why do you even want to be a Sikh of the Gurus – their ideas clearly do not align with yours.

If you want i can post you details of the significance of amrit for a Sikh.

Sunny – “There aren’t mistakes, there is you and others wilfully misreading what I’ve written.” – waah kya humility hai. tussi dhan ho.

‘So while the gurus asked that their adherents challenge orthodox ideas, question their faith
- This again is simply not true. please provide the Gurbani references where the Guru advises his Sikhs to challenge “orthodox Sikhi” and question their faith in God/Guru/Sikhi’

‘Well, if you didn’t say orthodox Sikhi, that’s still wrong as the Guru has never told his Sikhs to challenge other religions’

Thank you, Darshan, for giving me a great laugh. It downright delighted me to see you effortlessly prove Sunny and other commentators here right by misinterpreting what he said – or just plain failing to read it – not once, but TWICE SUCCESSIVELY!

Sunny said, in short, that the Gurus told us not to be mindless sheep who follow everything we are told or encouraged to do. NOT to ‘challenge orthodox Sikhi’ or ‘challenge other religions.’ That means, quite simply, being brave, open-minded and iconoclastic. Much like Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji was when he offered himself up to Aurangzeb so that the Kashmiri Pandits would not be forced to convert to Islam against their will.

I would say ‘Au revoir’ here, but I’d rather not, so – bye!

Dalbir – true!

Darshan:
We have already discussed above that the 5Ks are not merely symbols.

I didn’t say they were merely symbols. I said they are symbols and acknowledged they have deeper meaning. You cannot deny they are symbols.

The Nagar Kirtan is no way a ritual. It started off as a practical way to encourage people to sing Kirtan.

It is by definition a ritual. Bhakti is a ritual. Waking up in the morning and washing your face is a ritual. My point isn’t whether its a worthwhile ritual or not, but on the fact that it is a ritual and that we should be careful of letting in more ritualism into a faith that is broadly (thank god!) fairly ritual and superstition free! Stop arguing for its own sake.

but if we don’t base our interpretations on Gurbani, then how can one ever hope to come to the correct interpretation?

the Gurbani is not the be all and end all of Sikhism. There is also Sikh history and that has to be sometimes taken into account. why else do we read about the lives of the gurus? why else are there pictures of what the gurus did at Gurdwaras? Why else do we have stories on what the Gurus did? Again, you’re arguing for its own sake. I’m merely saying that historical context is also important. That doesn’t mean those symbols are less important now, but that history is important to understading how sikhism developed.

- Well, if you didn’t say orthodox Sikhi, that’s still wrong as the Guru has never told his Sikhs to challenge other religions, whether they are practised in an orthodox manner or not.

You’re being disingenuous here. The gurus challenged the caste system. the gurus challenged how Muslims and Hindus lived there lives. They wanted them to do away with rituals and focus on being good and on god. Sikhism is actually a highly revolutionary religion and its beauty is the fact that it constantly asks people to challenge the orthodoxy and question the establishment. Its sad you don’t see that. Its even sadder you think that the Gurus did not challenge other orthodoxies and how other people lived their lives.

This type of seize mentality won’t get anyone far, as Sikhi requires us to abandon our own ideas and adopt the Guru’s teachings afresh.

Sikhi requires us to think for ourselves and offers us a path to a higher consciousness. My problem is partly that many people who see themselves as Sikh are driven away from learning more about their faith, through discussion, by holier-than-though fundamentalists like the AKJ crew.

see the story of Bhai Manjh who was so in love with Guru Ji he didn’t turn his back on Him even when fetching wood from the jungle. Just read up on how much the Guru loved Bhai Manjh.

That’s great but I don’t think you realise that religion is also a personal journey about what feels right. I don’t like the idea of doing something that someone else did just because they liked it. I know many hardcore Sikhs don’t like the idea of a diverse Sikh faith with people interpreting it in different ways but you’ll one day have to get to grips with it. A faith that has little hierarchy is being stifled by people who want uniformity and rigidity, when its not necessary.
Sure, the SGPC is not right in the way it manages Harmandir Sahib and who it allows to do Seva there, but that has nothing to do with what Sikhi is all about. They have chosen to make mistakes, we can only highlight those to them.

So let me get this straight. for over 300 years since the last Guru passed away, not a single proper Sikh decided to be intelligent enough to raise a voice in favour of gender equality and ask why women are not allowed to clean the inner sanctum. You’re right – it has nothing to do with Sikhi. but it has everything to do with spineless adherents who aren’t willing to challenge (sexist) ideas within their own community and intepret the Gurbani in the radical way it was meant to be.

But, Sikhi is totally against ANY ritualism and has hardly any, possibly no symbolism.

Depends how you define both.

The Khanda is often seen as a symbol, but in fact it is a teaching, just done in the form of a drawing as opposed to words.

I don’t think you understand the definition of the word symbol.

Seeya!

> What? There’s no symbolism or ritual in Sikhism? What are the 5 Ks? What is the nagar kirtan if not a ritual?

- We have already discussed above that the 5Ks are not merely symbols. there are often practical and spiritual use. Sikhi is not about symbolising anything to anyone. Sikhi is all about travelling a spiritual path for oneself – not for show. The Nagar Kirtan is no way a ritual. It started off as a practical way to encourage people to sing Kirtan. It’s like me coming around to your house and talking to you about Sikhi – how is that a ritual? There are real benefits of a Nagar Kirtan, it ’s not a meaningless ritual of which there is no tangible benefit. There may well be people who derive zero benefit from a Nagar Kirtan, but that does not make it a ritual per se.

> This is a matter of interpretation. There are plenty of Sikhs who discuss the development of the faith as being partly shaped by the situation that the Gurus found themselves in.

I agree this may be about interpretation, but if we don’t base our interpretations on Gurbani, then how can one ever hope to come to the correct interpretation? An historical event can be interpreted in a thousand different ways, but if were to read the writings those involved in those historical events, we suddenly get their perspective on the whole matter. It is vitally important to not ignore Gurbani and it’s teachings.

> I didn’t say challenge orthodox Sikhi, but challenge orthodox and traditional ideas. That may relate to Sikhism, or they may not. But certainly, they always wanted people to find and discover Sikhi for themselves rather than take other people’s word for it. Isn’t that true?

- Well, if you didn’t say orthodox Sikhi, that’s still wrong as the Guru has never told his Sikhs to challenge other religions, whether they are practised in an orthodox manner or not. In fact, the Guru actually told people to be more orthodox, more true to their faith.

I agree that we ought to only take the Guru’s word for it, and not other people’s, but equally we mustn’t be so closed off from other people’s views that we see them as orthodox, holier-than-thou and therefore wrong! This type of seize mentality won’t get anyone far, as Sikhi requires us to abandon our own ideas and adopt the Guru’s teachings afresh.

> I interpret it in a different way. That is my prerogative. You don’t like it, fine. But I still think its excessive symbolism.

- You think that not turning your back on Guru Ji is excessive symbolism? Well, you may actually be right, but that is only true for you. There are others who see it as deep respect for Guru Ji, see the story of Bhai Manjh who was so in love with Guru Ji he didn’t turn his back on Him even when fetching wood from the jungle. Just read up on how much the Guru loved Bhai Manjh.

> You sound like someone from Hizb ut-Tahrir…. You’re naive if you think ideas and times don’t change.

- Your ideas are simply out of touch with Gurbani, so you resort to name calling, how intelligent! Of course ideas change with time, but if you think that Sikhi is simply an idea, then you are way off the mark. Have you actually ever read Gurbani? It can takes years of research on Gurbani to fully understand these key concepts, and yet you are making such rash statements about Sikhi without any shred of evidence that your views are in line with Gurbani.

Sure, the SGPC is not right in the way it manages Harmandir Sahib and who it allows to do Seva there, but that has nothing to do with what Sikhi is all about. They have chosen to make mistakes, we can only highlight those to them.

> I’m warning against MORE symbolism and ritualism…

But, Sikhi is totally against ANY ritualism and has hardly any, possibly no symbolism. The Khanda is often seen as a symbol, but in fact it is a teaching, just done in the form of a drawing as opposed to words. As explained numerous times above, those thigns which you have highlighted as mere symbols are not symbols at all, but rather practical items.

> There aren’t mistakes, there is you and others wilfully misreading what I’ve written.

- Oh please! Do you really believe that I have nothing better to do than wilfully misread your articles! If only I had so much spare time. I’m trying my best to explain why there are elements of your article which are not correct. Surely you must be able to take constructive criticism.

I may not have time to respond again, but I beg that you learn more about Gurbani and what it really says. It seems to be some distance away from what you think it says.

Humility takes some real character to adopt, but without it we can never be in the right frame of mind to properly understand what Sikhi is all about, as we simply will not let go of our own ideas. First we must learn that we are completely fallible then we can start learning from the Guru.

Good luck in your journey.

D

Related to the theme of vasakhi, that energy would do wonders if it were directed towards a unified purpose.

309 years against the odds.

Completely expected. This is one of the reasons why ‘normal’ Sikhs don’t want to express or talk about their religion because they feel they’ll be judged by more holier-than-thou Sikhs. Lo and behold, we have them. I never expect everyone to agree with what I say, but I do expect people to read what I’m saying. It seems many haven’t. That’s not my fault.

You say:
> The paradox is that Vaisakhi is rich with symbolism and ritual.
- This is simply not true. Please explain how you came to this conclusion?

What? There’s no symbolism or ritual in Sikhism? What are the 5 Ks? What is the nagar kirtan if not a ritual? These are just basic examples. The point isn’t that they’re bad per se, the point is whether we go further down that line or not.

- Again, not true. The Sikh faith has nothing to do with history, but everything to do with spirituality. Sikhi is not based on actions of others. Sikhi is based solely on the command of God which came via the Guru. Gurani explains this multiple times.

This is a matter of interpretation. There are plenty of Sikhs who discuss the development of the faith as being partly shaped by the situation that the Gurus found themselves in. They had to defend freedom of religion, and yet they wanted Sikhs to stand out, be fearless in their own identity and stand up for others. The symbols they adopted feed into those ideals. To say it had nothing at all to do with the historical context is absurd. That isn’t to say that those symbols should only be looked at through a historical context.

- This again is simply not true. please provide the Gurbani references where the Guru advises his Sikhs to challenge “orthodox Sikhi” and question their faith in God/Guru/Sikhi.

I didn’t say challenge orthodox Sikhi, but challenge orthodox and traditional ideas. That may relate to Sikhism, or they may not. But certainly, they always wanted people to find and discover Sikhi for themselves rather than take other people’s word for it. Isn’t that true?

- This has been explained by Gurvinder Singh above. You are clearly misunderstanding the whole teaching of the Mecca story.

I interpret it in a different way. That is my prerogative. You don’t like it, fine. But I still think its excessive symbolism.

- Simply not true. Sikhi does not change over time. The command of God is timeless, as written in Gurbani. The Guru has specifically told his Sikhs to not flinch from His path despite the changes the rest of the world may blindly bring to bear on the rest of us. Fashions comes and go, btu the truth never changes.

You sound like someone from Hizb ut-Tahrir. The Truth never changes but times do change and interpretation of those ideas will change over time. Now women want to walk ahead of the men during the Lavan ceremony because they believe in equality. Are you going to say thats forbidden? How long has it been since women were allowed to clean the inner sanctum of Harminder Sahib. You’re naive if you think ideas and times don’t change.

Secondly, my point was that guru gobind felt it was necessary to develop Sikhism further by introducing symbols. I said that was fine. I’m warning against MORE symbolism and ritualism, not saying that because times have changed those symbols are now unnecessary. Please READ CAREFULLY WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN.

but there are some glaring mistakes in your article.

There aren’t mistakes, there is you and others wilfully misreading what I’ve written.

I find it astonishing that you do not recognise the errors in your article. Is it normal to receive so much criticism for an article you write?

You stated in your article:

> The paradox is that Vaisakhi is rich with symbolism and ritual.
- This is simply not true. Please explain how you came to this conclusion?

> For historical reasons the gurus felt creating a strong Sikh sense of identity and symbolism was important and necessary.
- Again, not true. The Sikh faith has nothing to do with history, but everything to do with spirituality. Sikhi is not based on actions of others. Sikhi is based solely on the command of God which came via the Guru. Gurani explains this multiple times.

> But its particular emphasis on outward signs of faith, each with specific reasoning, creates a tension that isn’t necessarily explored by adherents today.
- Again, not true. There is some emphasis on external appearance etc, but most of Sikhi is about internal development.

> So while the gurus asked that their adherents challenge orthodox ideas, question their faith
- This again is simply not true. please provide the Gurbani references where the Guru advises his Sikhs to challenge “orthodox Sikhi” and question their faith in God/Guru/Sikhi.

> I was once told off in a gurdwara for kneeling down with my back towards the Guru Granth Sahib….
- This has been explained by Gurvinder Singh above. You are clearly misunderstanding the whole teaching of the Mecca story.

> However, because of the symbolism bestowed by Guru Gobind – which was necessary at the time…
- Simply not true. Sikhi does not change over time. The command of God is timeless, as written in Gurbani. The Guru has specifically told his Sikhs to not flinch from His path despite the changes the rest of the world may blindly bring to bear on the rest of us. Fashions comes and go, btu the truth never changes.

I’m not trying to be unnecessarily critical, but there are some glaring mistakes in your article. If you at least acknowledge the possibility that you may be wrong, that itself would be a useful start.

It is very important that the Sikh faith is not portrayed inaccurately. It’s beauty must not be mixed in with our own closely-held ideals. The Guru requires us to abandon our own beliefs and ideals and then receive the pure truth. How else can we possibly fully understand what the Guru teaches?

I hope this makes sense.

D

The Guru has the power to change the requirements for a Sikh. prior to Vaisakhi 1699, Sikhs were not required to keep the 5Ks officially. Hence, they were still Sikhs as they did what the Guru asked. the Guru now requires us to keep the 5Ks, so it is a must.

“Is it true that the bani of Guru Gobind Singh ji is not included in the SGGS if not why? What other reason was there for the creation of Khalsa Path the then ending of Guru Ship and bringing in of democracy (which is a good thing).”

The Guru is still here: Guru Granth Sahib. The concept of democracy does not exist in Sikhi. Instead, Sikhi has a selection of 5 Sikhs from within the Sangat in the presence of Guru Granth Sahib.