Nijhak
Singh – (getting up from the congregation after
eating ‘prashad’-consecrated food-) Hey,
brother Gurprasad Singh. Do you eat Mahaaparsaad now
and again?
Gurprasad Singh – Getting it would be a good
thing! What more consecrated food than meat then?
Mahaaparsaad is the real consecrated food. Being a
Sikh, what else could one consume.
Nijhak Singh – Great! You are truly on the right
track Gurprasad Singh; thinking of mahaa parshaad
as a consecrated food. There are plenty of Sikhs who
hate even the sight of mahaa parshaad and have nothing
to do with it.
Gurprasad Singh – What kind of Sikh is that
who hates mahaa parshaad and does not consume it?
A great majority of the people consume it.
Nijhak Singh – I thought you hated it also.
That is the reason I did not prepare it. Otherwise
I would have bought some at the market.
Gurprasad Singh – Oh no! What a mistake you
make. What kind of mahaa parshaad is that, which one
can get at the market? The true ,mahaa parshaad is
the one which a baptised (amrit shakia) Sikh prepares
with his own hands. Do you really think that the meat
on the market can ever get close to ‘real’
mahaa parshaad?
Nijhak Singh – Yes, you are completely right.
The real Mahaaparsaad is one which a Sikh prepares
with his own hands.
Gurprasad Singh – So that means you’ve
been consuming fake Mahaaparsaad, which you’ve
been buying at the market.
Nijhak Singh – No, No. I prepare it at home,
having bought it from the Mahaaparsaad shops which
Sikhs have opened in the market.
Gurprasad Singh – When it is readily available
at Sikh shops, why do you prepare it at home?
Nijhak Singh – One only gets it raw from the
shop, and has to prepare it at home.
Gurprasad Singh – Ahh, that means you are calling
meat Mahaaparsaad, which is a big mistake. True Mahaaparsaad
should be given charitably, and consumed briskly.
Mahaaparsaad is the consecrated food which superior
to all others. Like ‘krahh’ (consecrated
food) from God’s house, which is referred to
using respectable, well-known names. In the same way,
meat demands the same respect. You meat-eaters have
made out meat as Mahaaparsaad. That’s just an
act to fulfill you desire to eat meat. Within religion,
‘krahh’ is referred to as a consecrated
food, as in this verse by Bhai Gurdaas ji –
Awix
mhw prswdu vMif KuAwieAw ]
They bring sacred food (maha parshad), distribute
it among others and eat.
You have called any raw or cooked meat ‘Mahaaparsaad.
You meat eaters buy the meat prepared at the market,
or bring it home and prepare it. Which ever way you
look at it, you will always remain eaters of meat,
not Mahaaparsaad.
Nijhak Singh – (a little angrily) I don’t
eat regular meat from the market.
Gurprasad Singh – You eat a special meat from
the market? Which meat is that?
Nijhak Singh – What do you mean, ‘which
meat is that?’. Jhuttka, of course.
Gurprasad Singh – This jhuttka of yours, is
it readily available from shops?
Nijhak Singh – Yes. I consume jhuttka. Whether
I buy it at the market or whether I perform the task
at home. I will accept that calling meat a consecrated
food is perhaps a mistake, but you cannot deny the
fact that it is acceptable for Sikhs to eat jhuttka
and that the practice is wide-spread.
Gurprasad Singh – Well, the fact that many Sikhs
consume jhuttka is not real proof that it is religiously
acceptable. As in the case of many Muslims drinking
alcohol, it does not prove that it is acceptable for
them to drink it.
Nijhak Singh – Perhaps drinking alcohol is prohibited
for Muslims but, the eating of halal isn’t.
Therefore, it is acceptable for Sikhs to eat jhuttka.
Gurprasad Singh – You have adopted jhuttka in
competition to the halal of Muslims, do you have no
other proof for eating it?
Nijhak Singh – Yes. I don’t want to eat
halal meat.
Gurprasad Singh – Then what, do you want to
eat haraam? (something that is forbidden)
Nijhak Singh – Halal meat is haraam for us.
Gurprasad Singh – Is eating haraam, the same
as halal to you?
Nijhak Singh – When eating halal is haraam,
then haraam meat automatically becomes haraam. Haraam
meat is even more haraam.
Gurprasad Singh – Halal and haraam are both
haraam! So then, you do not distinguish between the
two.
Nijhak Singh – The distinction is that I see
the halal of the Muslims as haraam..... (then he stopped
unexpectedly)
Gurprasad Singh – Are all other meats halal
then? Then do you only oppose the Muslim word of ‘halal’?
On first reflection this word seems fine, and so does
the reasoning behind it. But you have an intolerance
for this word because it is about the meat of the
Muslims. What if a Hindu or a Christian were to use
this word, would you have any objections to it then?
Nijhak Singh – But Hindus don’t practice
halal and nor do they eat it.
Gurprasad Singh – Then what do they practice,
haraam? Yes, they eat haraam.
Nijhak Singh – What I mean is, that they do
not practice halal like the Muslims do and nor do
they eat it.
Gurprasad Singh – Then what is it that they
do? How do they eat meat?
Nijhak Singh – I’ve heard that they practice
jhuttka, and jhuttka is all they eat.
Gurprasad Singh – So, this means that the word
‘jhuttka’ belongs to the Hindus, and it
is them who started this trend. You have heard that
Hindus eat only jhuttka but, I have seen otherwise;
what comes before them, they eat. Have you seen Hindus
buying raw meat at Muslim shops in order to take home
and prepare it.
Nijhak Singh – Have you seen them eating it?
Gurprasad Singh – Even if I haven’t actually
seen them eating it, I have seen them buying it. I
doubt that they buy it just to look at it. It’s
not as if I have been sat on their table eating with
them! I perceive that they are not convinced by jhuttka.
Nijhak Singh – Orthodox Hindus only advocate
jhuttka.
Gurprasad Singh – Could it not be that with
Sikhs, there are few ‘orthodox’ Sikhs
like you who are advocates of jhuttka?
Nijhak Singh – Yes, yes. That you have guessed
correctly.
Gurprasad Singh – What about the rest, do they
eat meat?
Nijhak Singh – I don’t know about that.
But what I do know is that no Sikh would eat any meat
other than jhuttka. I do not eat any other meat than
jhuttka.
Gurprasad Singh – Have you learned to become
‘orthodox’ from the Hindus? Are you sure
that you haven’t just started to eat jhuttka
because the Hindus eat it?
Nijhak Singh – Why because of the Hindus? Jhuttka
is a food of Sikhs.
Gurprasad Singh – Then the Hindus copied the
Sikhs. They copied the Sikhs and began to practice
and consume jhuttka?
Nijhak Singh – That I do not know.
(a Hindu businessman, who until now had listened in
silence, spoke up)
Hindu Businessman – The Hindus have been practising
jhuttka for centuries, even before the Sikh panth
was formed. The Sikhs have copied the Hindus, not
the other way around. The ‘jhuttka’ is
of the Hindus. The Sikhs took this word from the Hindus
and adopted the practice of jhuttka, like the Hindus.
Gurprasad Singh – That is right. The Sikhs probably
did copy the Hindus, as they had practised jhuttka
long before that.
Nijhak Singh – What proof do you have of this?
Gurprasad Singh – The writings of Kabir sahib
which are not in the Guru Granth Sahib, which were
writing before the Gurbani, state the following about
the Hindus and the Muslims-
“aun
ibsml aun Jtkw kInw dieAw dohW qy BwgI ]”
(the Muslim calls his ritual “Bismal”
and the Hindu calls it “Jhattka” but compassion
has left both of them).
Kabir sahib has criticised the bismal (halal) of the
Muslims and the jhuttka of the Hindus and has said
that both practices are cruel. From this it is clear
that the trend of jhuttka was started by the Hindus
and was then copied by the Sikhs.
Nijhak Singh – (a little angrily) How have we
copied them? Jhuttka is the food of the Sikhs. The
Hindus don’t even know how to perform jhuttka.
Gurprasad Singh – By your thinking, only Sikhs
know how to perform jhuttka and no one else does.
But before you accepted and admitted that Hindus practice
and consume jhuttka. Do you actually establish anything
you say? I don’t see anything great about eating
jhuttka and nor do I see anything belittling in eating
it. I have only given the words of Kabir sahib and
established that jhuttka is the practice of the Hindus
which was widely criticised.
Nijhak Singh – Yeah, Kabir sahib may have criticised
the practice of the Hindus, but not of the Sikhs.
Gurprasad Singh – What, is the Sikh practice
of jhuttka different from the practice of the Hindus?
Nijhak Singh – When Kabir sahib wrote those
words, Sikhs did not even exist.
Gurprasad Singh – Then that establishes that
jhuttka is the practice of Hindus, and not of the
Sikhs.
Nijhak Singh – Yeah, but Kabir sahib criticised
the Hindus and not the Sikhs.
Gurprasad Singh – The criticism was of jhuttka,
and not of Hindus. Whether Sikhs existed at that time
or not, whether the exponents of jhuttka were from
the past or the future, whether they were Hindu or
Sikh, the criticism of Kabir sahib applied to all.
The verse is –
prQwie
swKI mhw purK boldy swJI sgl jhwnY ]
Great men speak the teachings by relating them
to individual situations, but the whole world shares
in them.
Nijhak Singh – It isn’t as if this verse
of Kabir sahib is a verse from the Gurbani. You yourself
have said that the verse is not from the Guru Granth
Sahib. The effect of this verse cannot fall upon Sikhs.
Gurprasad Singh – I myself will state that this
verse was addressed to the Hindus. However, the truth
behind the verse, falls upon each and every person.
The least I can understand from this verse is that
jhuttka is not an invention of the Sikhs.
Nijhak Singh – But there is no criticism of
jhuttka anywhere in the Gurbani.
Gurprasad Singh – Even if it is not condemned,
it certainly is not supported. The fact that there
is no support for jhuttka, shows that this trend has
been taken from the Hindus.
Nijhak Singh – Is there really no support for
it in the Gurbani?
Gurprasad Singh – How could there be support
for it, the word ‘jhuttka’ doesn’t
even appear in the Gurbani. Practising jhuttka or
consuming it is not endorsed anywhere in the Gurbani.
Nijhak Singh – That’s amazing! Even the
word ‘jhuttka’ doesn’t appear in
the Gurbani. Let me think. Yes, does the ‘foolish
squabbles over meat’ verse from the Gurbani
not support jhuttka?
Gurprasad Singh – You tell me, are you a meat-eater
or a jhuttka-eater?
Nijhak Singh – I’m a follower of jhuttka.
Gurprasad Singh – Then, there is no kind of
endorsement for jhuttka in any of the verses of the
Gurbani. The verse you have stated, does not even
refer to jhuttka but only to foolish squabbles over
meat.
Nijhak Singh – Yeah but it does endorse eating
meat, no?
Gurprasad Singh – Not in the slightest. But
even if there was, that shouldn’t benefit you.
You are a follower of jhuttka, or perhaps you eat
all kinds of meat?
Nijhak Singh – Yeah, but jhuttka is meat.
Gurprasad Singh – Jhuttka is meat, as is halal.
If that verse is to been seen as an endorsement for
meat, then it endorses both halal and jhuttka. That
testimony in no way authenticates this jhuttka of
yours. As in the verse, if you wish to argue like
a fool over this matter you can but, there is no room
for jhuttka in the Gurbani.
Nijhak Singh – In the history of our religion,
there are many references to jhuttka.
Gurprasad Singh – Well tell me then, exactly
where are these references to jhuttka. Have you actually
read this history, or are you just trying to pull
a fast one. You will not find any reference to the
preparation, or eating, of jhuttka anywhere in historical
religious texts.
Nijhak Singh – Of course one can find them!
Look in the history and you will see that, at the
time of initiating the Panj Piarey, Guru Gobind Singh
ji slaughtered five goats by practising jhuttka.
Gurprasad Singh – The truth is that Guru Gobind
Singh ji did no such thing. Those historians who have
recorded that serve to an agenda of their own, which
is contrary to the Guru’s. The Guru had no need
whatsoever to perform jhuttka on goats. Guru Gobind
Singh ji, ruler of the universe, was not a person
who did one thing and showed another. Whatever he
said, he did. In a full congregation he said ‘I
need one head. Come, one beloved of God give me your
head.’ To say that He asked for someone’s
head and then used a goat instead, is quite a ridiculous
suggestion. This would really be an act of deception.
Any historian who casts that image of Sri Guru Gobind
Singh ji, is completely incompetent. Believing in
such a deception
is left to Sikhs who live in their own strange little
world.
Nijhak Singh – Well what are your thoughts,
if Guru Gobind Singh ji didn’t kill the goats,
what else did he do?
Gurprasad Singh – It’s not just a thought
but, a solid belief of mine that instead of taking
the heads of goats, he took the heads of the Panj
Piarey and after taking them, He resuscitated all
five of them as a way of showing his wondrous miracles.
Nijhak Singh – This miracle was then shown as
wrath, why did the Guru need to show it then?
Gurprasad Singh – Sri Guru Gobind Singh ji did
not show the miracle, he kept it hidden. Not everyone
was made aware of the fact that the heads of the Panj
Piarey were removed, and that the five were then resuscitated.
Nijhak Singh – But, this removing of the heads
and then resuscitating of the Panj Piarey is only
one miracle. Are there other examples of these miracles
within religious history?
Gurprasad Singh – Everyone in the Panth knows
about the story of Saman and Moosan, as it he is mentioned
in the Gurbani. For the sake of benevolence, Moosan
had his head removed from his body. His father, believing
in the permanence of the Guru’s will, kept the
head and the body as an offering, placed it in his
chamber and went to serve at the temple. When the
ruling Guru failed to see Moosan serving the congregation
as usual, he asked where he was. His father, Saman,
pleaded that his son was asleep in his chamber. The
Guru then said, ‘go and wake him’, to
which Saman relied, ‘my lord I am not capable
of waking him, only you are’. Upon hearing this,
Sri Guru Arjun Dev ji with all his miraculous powers
resuscitated Moosan. When night came, the proof of
this miracle was shown to all. This account is famous
within the Panth.
Nijhak Singh – So, someone just made up that
nonsensical story about jhuttka being performed on
the five goats?
Gurprasad Singh – Yes, certainly. Nonsense.
One stupid historian made it up and then a few more
jumped on the band wagon. The Sikhs like you began
to believe it as the truth.
Nijhak Singh – Yeah, but if one believes the
story, then it gives permission perform jhuttka on
goats.
Gurprasad Singh – Please do one thing, on the
strength of this nonsensical story, do not think that
it gives permission to prepare meat or perform jhuttka.
Nijhak Singh – I suppose you’re right
there.
Gurprasad Singh – Bear in mind another thing;
even if the goats had been slaughtered, it wasn’t
done so that they could be consumed. No historical
reference can state such a thing.
Nijhak Singh – Yes, that point of yours is completely
right. But there are quite a few historical references
to Sri Guru Gobind Singh performing jhuttka, eating
and serving it, licking the bones clean and then throwing
them in the yard of the Kaazi (interpreter of Muslim
law). This happened in Machivaar.
Gurprasad Singh – This story is completely fabricated.
One historians account does not match the account
of another. Even from the tales told by the old folk
in Machivaar, which have been passed down over centuries,
one cannot find any link to what you have said. There
have been many corrupt historians who also stated
that the Guru allowed his Sikhs to eat halal meat
of the Muslims. One cannot even conceive the thought.
Nijhak Singh – Yes but this account appears
in historical records. The Guru permitted it, and
the Sikhs followed what the Guru had said and began
to eat.
Gurprasad Singh – Yes, but what did they eat!
Tell me that. All historians write that when then
followed the order and sat down to eat, they produced
krahh and other consecrated food, which they ate plenty
of. They consumed consecrated food, not meat.
Nijhak Singh – This account is contradictory.
Gurprasad Singh –Believing one part of the account
to be true but dismissing another accompanying part,
calling it contradictory. What kind of historical
referencing is that? If you believe on part to be
true, believe the other also. Otherwise, both parts
are contradictory, and neither is the truth.
Nijhak Singh – Yes, doing such a thing would
be unjust. I suppose historians write whatever comes
into their minds.
Gurprasad Singh – Not only that, but they write
things of interest to them. They then hide their deficiencies
under such veils. Those historians who are fond of
consuming opium, make up a little story about the
Guru consuming opium. Those historians who are fond
of cannabis, falsely record a tale about the Guru
using cannabis and then announce it at the top of
their voices. In the same way, historians who were
fond of meat, probably threw in a few tales to serve
their own interests.
Nijhak Singh – I’ve never seen any historical
reference to the Guru consuming opium.
Gurprasad Singh – Then you haven’t been
thorough enough in your historical research. These
historians are the ones who consume opium but, they
pass it off as the Guru. Can you believe that the
Guru would consume opium?
Nijhak Singh – Do you have any evidence to support
what you say?
Gurprasad Singh – Again, I’ll offer you
evidence. Do you know the scholar Gian Singh, who
wrote many books on religious history of the Sikhs?
Nijhak Singh – Yes, of course, everyone knows
him. I’ve heard his name but I don’t know
him in person.
Gurprasad Singh – I’ve seen him completely
laid out.
Nijhak Singh – Nothing has been laid out yet!
So what?
Gurprasad Singh – Not only laid out, but completely
off his head from using opium.
I’d only gone to visit him by chance really.
I didn’t even know he used opium. I had heard
that he lived in a small house in Moti Bagh, in Pattiala.
I was still rather naive but I had a great interest
in religion. In those day, a friend of mine from our
village, Joginder Singh, was the finance officer for
the region and had an office in Moti Bagh. I went
to visit him one. I asked him if he could introduce
me to Gian Singh. I will go with you he said happily.
It was early in the morning when we arrived at Gian
Singh’s house. Just by chance, he had a large
ball of opium in his hand. At that point we went in.
He greeted us warmly. He has very elderly. Even his
eyebrows were completely white. He was just about
to put the ball of opium into his mouth when I took
hold of his arm and said that I would only let him
consume it if he truthfully answered a question. He
didn’t mind at all, and said, ‘yes sire,
ask whatever you like. I will have the opium once
I have answered your question. I said, remember you
are in view of God when you answer. The historical
accounts that you wrote about Guru Gobind Singh ji
consuming opium, were they written as a way of concealing
this addiction of yours?
Bearing in mind what I had said to him, he answer
truthfully and said that I had guessed correctly.
Why did I make it up? Well you know us historians,
we don’t hesitate to agree with other historians.
Why do you make up false accounts or simply agree
with other historians? I said. When you come before
God, will you not be a sinner? It is sad that you
yourself are addicted to opium, but it is even sadder
that, by recording your false history, you are making
others addicted also. Do you not think that other
see your writings and use them as an excuse to use
opium? What bigger sin is there than making Sri Guru
Gobind Singh ji into a user of opium? It would be
for the best if you stopped using opium and you removed
the lies you have told from the next edition of your
publication. If you do not, then I will have no other
choice than to go to all the newspapers with connection
to the Panth and tell them what I have seen and heard
here today. At that point, Gian Singh promised that
he would correct his mistakes and would begin to reduce
his consumption of opium day by day.
The result of it all was that in his next edition
Gian Singh completely removed the material on opium.
I don’t know if he actually stopped consuming
opium, as I hadn’t seem him since. A short while
after we met, he passed away.
Nijhak Singh – Nice! That was a good thing.
But he never removed his material on jhuttka meat?
Gurprasad Singh – I never had the opportunity
to discuss the subject with him.
Nijhak Singh – But surely he ate it.
Gurprasad Singh – Anything's possible with opium
addicts! The reason why I told you of that little
encounter was to show you that historians, in order
to serve their own purpose, write that the Guru used
opium. In the same way, jhuttka-eating historians
have added the verses on jhuttka to their texts. I
will only believe the historian who writes with reference
to the Gurbani.
Nijhak Singh – Does not even a trace of jhuttka
appear in the Gurbani?
Gurprasad Singh – Certainly not. If there is,
you show me where?
Nijhak Singh – There are references to meat
in the Gurbani.
Gurprasad Singh – Yes, but you are an eater
of jhuttka, or is it all kinds of meat?
Nijhak Singh – No, I don’t eat all meat,
I only eat jhuttka. All jhuttka-eating Sikhs should
eat jhuttka alone, and no other meats.
Gurprasad Singh – Then your and other jhuttka
eaters’ claim to eat jhuttka is dismissed, as
you have not been able to find any support for eating
it in the Gurbani. If there is, then please tell me?
Nijhak Singh – No. There isn’t any support.
I do not have any doubts in accepting that.
But my friend, I have remembered another thing. When
a Sikh is about to become amrit shakia, and is made
aware of the codes of conduct, a considerable portion
of that is taken up by kuttha. It is clear that the
kuttha verse is used as a substitute for jhuttka.
Prohibition is of kuttha, and not jhuttka.
Gurprasad Singh – Have you made this up yourself?
Nijhak Singh – Why? What do you mean I made
it up. You tell me whether kuttha is mentioned in
the codes of conduct or not?
Gurprasad Singh – Yes, it is. So what?
Nijhak Singh – Do you accept that this use of
kuttha has been going on since our Tenth Guru?
Gurprasad Singh – Yes I do accept that. So what?
Nijhak Singh – Then it is clear that jhuttka
is accepted in our religion.
Gurprasad Singh – How do you manage that? Jhuttka
isn’t even mentioned, only kuttha is mentioned
in the codes of conduct.
Nijhak Singh – The opposite of kuttha, is jhuttka.
If kuttha is banned, then it is clear that jhuttka
isn’t.
Gurprasad Singh – So, according to your way
of thinking, if it is acceptable to consume jhuttka
then it is also acceptable to consume kuttha?
Nijhak Singh – Yes, that’s right. Look,
Muslims eat kuttha.
Gurprasad Singh – Do they eat it because, in
their minds, eating jhuttka is not acceptable? Is
there something in their minds against jhuttka, that
makes them eat kuttha?
Nijhak Singh – Perhaps not, but they view eating
jhuttka as shameful.
Gurprasad Singh – What is the reasoning behind
you thinking that they find jhuttka shameful and kuttha
not?
Nijhak Singh – They eat kuttha, and they don’t
eat jhuttka. That is reason enough.
Gurprasad Singh – Who says that they eat kuttha?
The meat that they eat, they have named halal, not
kuttha. Halal is a permitted within their religion.
If we go along with your way of thinking, that freedom
to eat halal was granted as competition to jhuttka,
then this verse on jhuttka would have been for Hindus
and not Sikhs. This is because at the time the Muslim
religion was conceived, it would have been Hindus
who practised jhuttka. The people of the Khalsa were
not even present at that time.
Nijhak Singh – OK, that point is clear. That
the jhuttka verse is of the Hindus and that halal
wasn’t given acceptance because of competition
from the Sikh’s jhuttka verse.
Gurprasad Singh – The jhuttka verse is not of
the Sikhs, it is of the Hindus. Do you think of one
jhuttka for Hindus and one for Sikhs? If that is what
you think, then it will become clear that in practising
jhuttka, the Sikhs have copied the Hindus and not
established jhuttka as competition for the halal of
Muslims. Kuttha isn’t even of the Muslims. They
call their meat halal. You have stuck this word ‘Kutthaa
into their interpretation of halal.
Nijhak Singh – Then why is the verse on kuttha
still being used in the code of conduct amrit shakna
takes place? Even you admit that it is in the code
of conduct.
Gurprasad Singh – But I do not accept that the
word ‘Kutthaa is used instead of the word ‘halal’.
Nor do I accept that kuttha was used in the codes
of conduct as a reaction to the halal meat of the
Muslims. I am also not ready to accept that the word
‘jhuttka’ has become acceptable amongst
Sikhs as result of Hindus permitting jhuttka. The
Khalsa Panth has its own principles and is different
from other groups of peoples.
Nijhak Singh – You don’t accept any of
my arguments. But tell me one thing; why is the word
‘Kutthaa used what amrit shakna takes place?
Up until now, I was always under the impression that
kuttha was a reference to halal. So halal musn’t
be eaten.
Gurprasad Singh – In which dictionary do you
find that kuttha and halal have the same meanings?
Nijhak Singh – That I do not know.
Gurprasad Singh – If you can show me an example
where the two terms have the same meaning, I will
be humbled by you.
Nijhak Singh – But I cannot establish that.
Gurprasad Singh – You cannot establish that
eating jhuttka is permitted in our religion, you cannot
establish from either a Muslim dictionary or other,
that the meanings of the the words ‘Kutthaa
and ‘halal’ are the same and nor can you
find a trace of the word ‘jhuttka’ within
the Gurbani. What have you got to whinge about? If
people want to persist in eating meat then what else
can stop them. Think about it, have you actually presented
any evidence?
Nijhak Singh – According to you, what is the
meaning of kuttha?
Gurprasad Singh – According to dictionaries,
the meaning of the the word kuttha is: that meat which
is derived from killing an animal. That means the
killing of animals in any way possible. That is the
true meaning derived from various dictionaries. So
when an animal is killed, the meat that one obtains,
is kuttha. The word kuttha doesn’t refer only
to the halal meat of the Muslims. Halal meat is the
meat which is derived by slicing the throat of the
animal and reading Muslims religious verses when preparing
it. Kuttha isn’t merely the same as halal. In
a way kuttha does cover halal, as the animal has been
killed. The word ‘Kutthaa comes from the Hindi
language, and not the language of the Muslims.
Nijhak Singh – From this it has been established
that the word ‘Kutthaa covers the meat of the
Hindus and of the Muslims as both kill the animal.
But it doesn’t cover jhuttka, so that makes
it acceptable.
Gurprasad Singh – What, when you perform jhuttka
do you not kill the animal? The underlying principle
is that the animal is killed. So that meat which is
derived from the killing of animals, is kuttha.
Nijhak Singh – Jhuttka is meat with is derived
by performing a single stroke.
Gurprasad Singh – Is the killing of the animal
not involved in that single stroke?
Nijhak Singh – Yes, it does involve killing.
But jhuttka isn’t the same as killing.
Gurprasad Singh – Why, what is the difference?
Nijhak Singh – The act of the stroke is the
wielding of a weapon, this way, jhuttka meat is derived
from the weapon.
Gurprasad Singh – Does the weapon operate by
itself when you rest it against the animal?
Nijhak Singh – No. Only by striking the weapon
firmly is the animal slaughtered.
Gurprasad Singh – Whether it is one stroke or
whether it is many, the animal suffers greatly. The
Guru states that to do harm to animals is a very cruel
act.
Nijhak Singh – But there is great cruelty when
the Muslims prepare their halal.
Gurprasad Singh – That is because they wield
the knife very very slowly.
Nijhak Singh – Yes, they do it with great suffering.
Gurprasad Singh – Not in a great hurry.
Nijhak Singh – What I mean to say is that the
single stroke doesn’t cause so much suffering.
Very little in fact.
Gurprasad Singh – But there is a great crime.
A crime in being forceful. The killing with great
force is awful.
Nijhak Singh – Yes, but to kill with a little
force takes a long time and causes a lot of suffering
to the animal.
Gurprasad Singh – The Guru’s ‘Bani
states that ‘using force is a crime’,
should we accept what you say or what the Guru says?
The truth of the matter is that whether you kill an
animal slowly and painfully or quickly with force,
both use force and both are considered a crime. The
butchers who slaughter the animal have no compassion
whatsoever. They are only fulfilling their greed by
eating and selling the meat. The words ‘jhuttka’
and ‘halal’ have been conceived as an
excuse to eat meat. According to religious writings,
only those who have been consumed by their own greed
eat meat and kill animals. They buy their meat meat
from butchers and practisers of jhuttka and consume
it. Those who consume it openly proclaim that they
eat jhuttka but they have never even performed jhuttka
in their lives! They probably haven’t even seen
it performed, let alone done it themselves. They don’t
even possess a sword, though even if they do, it’s
so blunt that it couldn’t even cut through paper.
Nijhak Singh – That’s a pointless argument.
I think jhuttka has to be performed by one’s
own hands in order to merit the name, and has to be
done with a single stroke.
Gurprasad Singh – Well done! But let me remind
you of one thing; normal Sikhs who claim to eat jhuttka,
buy ‘jhuttka’ meat from the shops and
in reality, are eating regular carcass meat.
Nijhak Singh – That’s true, that meat
on which one does not perform jhuttka, is regular
carcass meat. A lion (Singh) never eats meat which
is already dead, only meat which it has killed itself.
Gurprasad Singh – But meat-eating Sikhs (Singhs)
say that so long as another Singh has performed the
practice of jhuttka, there is no harm in eating the
meat. The meat is still jhuttka meat, no matter which
Singh performs the practice of jhuttka. The ones who
kill the animal themselves will be few and far between;
I have never seen one. Do you eat your own kills,
and do you use a single stroke? What if a goat shouldn’t
die with one stroke, do you then hit it with another?
Nijhak Singh – That would be normal meat, not
jhuttka. If you ask of me, I have never eaten jhuttka
before in my life nor have I performed it.
Gurprasad Singh – So you eat carcass meat then?
Nijhak Singh – No, No. Up to this day, I have
never eaten meat.
Gurprasad Singh – What, are you just messing
around with my head for nothing?
Nijhak Singh – I touched upon this topic so
we could discuss it. I have never eaten any kind of
meat. But one thing that I believe strongly in is
that he who does not perform jhuttka himself is, in
reality, eating regular carcass meat. How can one
actually believe that the shop keepers actually perform
the jhuttka or not. Their aim is only to make money
from selling it. Up to know, I hold the belief that
one should not eat meat unless the practice is perform
by oneself, and even then, it must be with one stroke.
Gurprasad Singh – But I wish you would show
me someone who does. Brother Nijhak Singh, someone
who hasn’t performed jhuttka, has never wielded
a sword, how are they going to perform jhuttka with
a single stroke?
Nijhak Singh – That is impossible. Swordsman
of such ability are few and far between.
Gurprasad Singh – Those who perform jhuttka
on goats, tie their limbs before doing so. Is that
not a crime, is that not force? To perform such an
act upon an animal, is that bravery?
It’s just to fulfill the desire to eat meat.
Nijhak Singh – The Guru also used to hunted
blood-thirsty animals.
Gurprasad Singh – Keeping animals from inflicting
their thirst of blood on others is not even an excuse
to eat meat. The Guru’s use of weapons was done
out of preserving faith, protecting the troubled and
weak, fighting oppression and protecting himself,
and not for any other reason.
Nijhak Singh – But sire, it is well known that
Sri Guru Gobind Singh hunted animals.
Gurprasad Singh – From the esteemed ‘Bani
of the Tenth Guru, it is clear that he only hunted
evil, blood-thirsty animals. He never hunted the animals
to inflict suffering, to make them extinct nor to
eat them. There aren’t any sources which can
establish that the Guru prepared meat. The proof of
this is that the free food (langar) which is served
at Sri Hazoor Sahib, never includes meat. The stupid
Hindu customs which have been adopted by many Sikhs
at Sri Hazoor Sahib are due to them following unsuitable
sources.
Nijhak Singh – But I have heard that in many
places of Sikh pilgrimage, jhuttka is performed on
a goat and a ‘ticka’ of blood is applied
to weapons.
Gurprasad Singh – This is another one of those
customs that corrupt, Hindu-minded historians have
introduced. These very same people also claim the
the Guru made it acceptable to worship Hindu deities.
In general, the esteemed teachings of the Gurbani
and Sri Guru Gobind Singh ji criticise worshipping
Hindu deities. But one thing is true, that the Guru
did preach about Sri Sahib and for the cause of religion,
displayed the shoulder-belts of Sri Sahib. He has
also talked of blessing weapons, but never said anything
of putting a ‘ticka’ of blood on them.
All these things are superstitions, which are slowly
but surely, working their way into our everyday lives.
Nijhak Singh – But I know sources which clearly
state that the Guru worshipped the Devi (Hindu Goddess).
Gurprasad Singh – I’m familiar with that
source, and know that it is put together by false
members of the Panth. It has been clearly stated in
the Gurbani that this reference has been written into
history by Hindu Brahmins, and since that time, no
one has removed it, as in the case of the Raag Mala
(which was introduced into the Guru Granth Sahib and
not taken out).
It is well known that, during the writing of that
reference, Maharaja Fareedkot employed a few Brahmin
pandits to help Santokh Singh compile it. It is possible
that one of these pandits took the opportunity to
force a piece of his own thinking into our history.
Nijhak Singh – That is fine by me, but there
are some references that keep popping up, time and
time again. If they appeared now and again, then one
could accept that they had been introduced falsely.
The regular appearance of such references can give
the impression that, the acts that are mention, are
acceptable. For instance, the Tenth Guru kept a hawk
(baaj) which killed other birds, and for him keeping
this hawk, he was called ‘baajan vala’.
Gurprasad Singh – If it has been written that
Sri Guru Gobind Singh ji’s hawk killed other
birds, it has also been written that he had little
birds kill the hawk too. It has been well documented
that the Guru carried out this act as a way of judgement
and of setting them into the cycle of reincarnation,
not to eat them. The animal that may have been killed
is, in fact, meat. But it cannot be seen as jhuttka.
There is no benefit to supporters of jhuttka from
this reference.
Nijhak Singh – Fair enough, it has been established
that the meat which was killed by the hawk, is not
jhuttka. But should the Guru have used his weapons
to kill an animal, surely that could be termed as
jhuttka? He must have performed the hunting for the
interest of meat-eaters, so there can be no objections
if this meat is called jhuttka as the Guru was used
to killing the animals with a single stroke; one aim,
one shot and the animal would be dead.
Gurprasad Singh – In the first place, no source
has ever established that the Guru hunted animals
for the sake of hunting, let alone for the interest
of meat-eaters.
Nijhak Singh – It has been recorded in history
that Guru Nakak ji prepared the meat of a dear that
had been hunted as the sun was setting.
Gurprasad Singh – It is established that he
ordered the preparation of it, but not the serving
and the eating of it. Nor is it proven that Guru Nanak
hunted the animal himself.
Nijhak Singh – It is said that the son of the
Raja hunted the animal.
Gurprasad Singh – Can this action be called
jhuttka then? In your own words jhuttka is that meat
which is prepared by other Sikhs or is prepared by
the Sikh himself. In that case, an animal hunted by
the Raja’s son cannot be called jhuttka. It
is a strict criteria that the animal be killed with
one stroke. We don’t know how many strokes the
Raja’s son took, and it is normal for an animal
who has been hit to die slowly and painfully. Again,
this does not fit the criteria for jhuttka.
Nijhak Singh – Yes, you are not wrong but, why
did Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji prepare the dear meat?
Gurprasad Singh – You should be asking that
question to those historians who have recorded such
a thing. The historians also state that Guru Nanak
did not prepare or serve the food; Raj Kumar did.
But do you know what the historians say was served?
Nijhak Singh – Yes, the historians say that
when it came to the serving, it turned out to be rice.
Gurprasad Singh – That doesn’t establish
the preparation and serving of meat. If the Guru had
been a supporter of meat, then he would have served
meat and let people eat meat.
Nijhak Singh – Yes, that does all make sense.
Gurprasad Singh – In any case, it cannot be
established that the Guru supported the eating of
meat. Like it cannot be established that, in the story
of the Ganga festival, when throwing water towards
the west, instead of the east, he was a believer in
ancestor worship.
Nijhak Singh – Who throws water to the west?
The Hindus don’t do it.
Gurprasad Singh – Then you should ask, who prepares
meat when the sun is setting? The Hindus don’t
prepare anything. From both stories, it is clear that
the Guru did what he did as a way of enlightening
those who had gathered around.
Nijhak Singh – But that kind of enlightenment
sides with eating meat.
Gurprasad Singh – Is it on the side of eating
jhuttka?
Nijhak Singh – That it isn’t but, it is
on the side of eating meat.
Gurprasad Singh – Then, those who eat meat should
use this story, not jhuttka eaters.
Nijhak Singh – (with a smile) For a few minutes,
think of me as a meat-eater.
Gurprasad Singh – Why, do you want to start
eating meat or are you doing this for the sake of
the discussion?
Nijhak Singh – No, no. Only for the discussion.
Gurprasad Singh – What do you get from such
a discussion? Do you want to resolve an argument with
someone?
Nijhak Singh – No sir, I only want to see if
this discussion can clear up whether meat is permitted
or not.
Gurprasad Singh – To this point, you know that
it has been established jhuttka is not permitted.
Nijhak Singh – Yes, it looks that way.
Gurprasad Singh – Do you see in the Guru’s
words, which states that the eating of meat is permitted?
Nijhak Singh – I have that suspicion. I would
appreciate it if you would rid me of that suspicion.
If eating meat is established, then people with find
a way of eating jhuttka too.
Gurprasad Singh – What gives you the impression
that eating meat is permitted. Please tell me.
Nijhak Singh – Nothing in particular, not that
I can recall anyway.
Gurprasad Singh – OK, I will explain things
further. But first, let me say that the eating of
meat is only one aspect of religious devotion; it
isn’t the be-all and end-all of it. As in the
case of followers adopting the task of washing as
a religion, the act of denouncing meat alone, does
not make a person a devotee of God. Nor does hating
the word ‘meat’, or proclaiming one’s
hate for meat in public. Our religion is multi-faceted.
I’m sure you understand what I mean.
Nijhak Singh – Yes, I understand.
Gurprasad Singh – Now lets take a closer look
at this matter and see if meat is permitted or not.
Nijhak Singh – Start from the beginning, I can’t
remember it too well.
Gurprasad Singh – OK, we will go over every
line.
First line
pihlW
mwshu inMimAw mwsY AMdir vwsu ]
First, the mortal is conceived in the flesh, and then
he dwells in the flesh.
Does this line establish that we should eat meat?
Is there permission to eat meat?
Nijhak Singh – No, permission cannot be assumed
from this line.
Gurprasad Singh – Here’s the second line
then-
jIau
pwie mwsu muih imilAw hfu cMmu qnu mwsu ]
When he comes alive, his mouth takes flesh; his bones,
skin and body are flesh.
Does this line establish that we should eat meat?
Nijhak Singh – No instruction exists to eat
meat, so therefore, it cannot be established.
Gurprasad Singh – Take a closer look. Make sure
you haven’t missed anything, otherwise all kinds
of meat will have to be made acceptable.
Nijhak Singh – No, no. Nothing establishes the
fact.
Gurprasad Singh – Fair enough, the next line
then –
mwshu
bwhir kiFAw mMmw mwsu igrwsu ]
He comes out of the womb of flesh, and takes a mouthful
of flesh at the breast.
Can you see anything in this 3rd line?
Nijhak Singh – No, nothing so far. Yes it is
clear from what you have presented that one should
not hate the word ‘meat’, and that one
should not fall prey to meat.
Gurprasad Singh – The word ‘meat’
or the eating of meat?
Nijhak Singh – From these lines, only the hate
of the word ‘meat’ has been criticised
and has been established. It is clear that if people
had the instinct to eat meat, then they would try
to eat the breast of the mother that feeds them. The
child only drinks milk from the breast, like it is
holy.
Gurprasad Singh – The next part is this –
muhu
mwsY kw jIB mwsY kI mwsY AMdir swsu ]
His mouth is flesh, his tongue is flesh; his breath
is in the flesh.
Now tell me, is there anything in this line that is
pro-meat? If there is, then you will have to eat the
tongue, face, stomach, everything, of a human as they
are all meat.
Nijhak Singh – No, not even from this verse
can one stablish permission to eat meat.
Gurprasad Singh – Here’s the fifth line
–
vfw
hoAw vIAwihAw Gir lY AwieAw mwsu ]
He grows up and is married, and brings his wife of
flesh into his home.
Do you see anything of note from this line?
Nijhak Singh – Certainly not. The child grows
and brings home a woman to start a life together,
not to eat her.
Gurprasad Singh – Here’s the sixth line
–
mwshu
hI mwsu aUpjY mwshu sBo swku ]
Flesh is produced from flesh; all relatives are made
of flesh.
Here the nutrients for a child to survive are mentioned
and doesn’t establish that eating meat is acceptable.
Nijhak Singh – That is true.
Gurprasad Singh – The seventh and the eighth
lines are
siqguir
imilAY hukmu buJIAY qW ko AwvY rwis ]
When the mortal meets the True Guru, and realizes
the Hukam of the Lord's Command, then he comes to
be reformed.
Awip
Cuty nh CUtIAY nwnk bcin ibxwsu ]1]
Releasing himself, the mortal does not find release;
O Nanak, through empty words, one is ruined. ||1||
Even from these lines that permission cannot be established.
If you think so, please tell me.
Nijhak Singh – I would if that were the case.
The go-ahead to eat meat cannot be gained from any
of these lines.
Gurprasad Singh – That’s the first stanza
covered. There is the second stanza; pay close attention
and tell me if the eating of meat has any support.
The first two extracts are –
mwsu
mwsu kir mUrKu JgVy igAwnu iDAwnu nhI jwxY ]
The fools argue about flesh and meat, but they know
nothing about meditation and spiritual wisdom.
kauxu
mwsu kauxu swgu khwvY iksu mih pwp smwxy ]
What is called meat, and what is called green vegetables?
What leads to sin?
The meaning behind these two extracts is that to have
continuous arguments, with people who are mistaken
about the religious stance on meat, is a foolish act.
These people cannot even differentiate between meat
and vegetables, and whether the eating of one of these
is a sinful act. There isn’t even a hint that
meat is acceptable, so it amazes me how some people
can find anything to support their evil acts. This
verse states that by uttering the vocabulary of meat
and by looking at meat, one isn’t punished,
one doesn’t become a saint by constantly denouncing
meat and that one doesn’t become a sinner if
one doesn’t “hate” meat. It can
also be concluded from these extracts that the killing
of animals is an evil act and is a great sin. Since
purchase and eating of vegetables through money which
was earned by committing sins is also a sin like eating
flesh. The distinction between “What is meat
and what is green vegetables” can only be determined
by those who have the Gurmat knowledge and the Gurmat
spirituality to do so. To just argue over meat without
these qualities is the act of a fool. But instruction
to eat meat cannot be gained from these two extracts
under any condition.
Nijhak Singh – Yes, that is how it actually
appears.
Gurprasad Singh – The next two extracts are
as follows –
gYNfw
mwir hom jg kIey dyviqAw kI bwxy ]
It was the habit of the gods to kill the rhinoceros,
and make a feast of the burnt offering.
mwsu
Coif bYis nku pkVih rwqI mwxs Kwxy ]
Those who renounce meat, and hold their noses when
sitting near it, devour men at night.
The first extract shows that the sacrificial acts
of Hindus are in accordance with the Vedas. The killing
of cattle, and then offering it as a sacrifice is
the act of Hindus. But their hypocrisy lies in the
fact that they publicly make a show of their disgust
of meat; they can’t even bear the smell of it.
This extract shows how false people can be. Permission
to eat meat, still cannot be established. Tell me
truthfully, is there any support for eating meat?
Nijhak Singh – No, there isn’t. Though
the falseness of people’s behaviour is clearly
evident.
Gurprasad Singh – The next two extracts are
as follows –
PVu
kir lokW no idKlwvih igAwnu iDAwnu nhI sUJY ]
They practice hypocrisy, and make a show before other
people, but they do not understand anything about
meditation or spiritual wisdom.
nwnk
AMDy isau ikAw khIAY khY n kihAw bUJY ]
O Nanak, what can be said to the blind people? They
cannot answer, or even understand what is said.
Again, this is more criticism of people’s hypocrisy
and not support for eating meat. What do you say?
Nijhak Singh – The go-ahead to eat meat still
hasn’t been found.
Gurprasad Singh – The next two extracts are
as follows
AMDw
soie ij AMDu kmwvY iqsu irdY is locn nwhI ]
They alone are blind, who act blindly. They have no
eyes in their hearts.
mwq
ipqw kI rkqu inpMny mCI mwsu n KWhI ]
They are produced from the blood of their mothers
and fathers, but they do not eat fish or meat.
Once again, here is more criticism of hypocrisy, and
still no trace of a positive word about meat.
Nijhak Singh – It is apparent that when a child
is born it doesn’t have a need to consume meat.
Gurprasad Singh – Then the child shouldn’t
need the food which came through blood in umbilical
cord either.
Nijhak Singh – That is the example they have
given. How can it be that the nutrients that come
through blood in the umbilical, cause a person to
desire meat? They should eat the umbilical cord then!
Gurprasad Singh – If they can claim that, then
what do they say about eating just fish? Why doesn’t
it show that all kinds of meat are needed? Why have
some people only taken this as permission to eat fish?
Fish doesn’t even have blood, and even if there
is, only very little.
Nijhak Singh – How do you interpret this extract?
Gurprasad Singh – Again it is more criticism
of hypocrisy. These people hold their noses when they
see meat but, they do not realise that they too are
made of flesh and blood which came from their parent’s
blood. To hate the word ‘meat’ doesn’t
make a person more religious. Throughout both extracts
the word ‘meat’ is used but, there isn’t
a single word in support of it.
Nijhak Singh – That’s true.
Gurprasad Singh – The 9th extract –
iesqRI
purKY jW inis mylw EQY mMDu kmwhI ]
But when men and women meet in the night, they come
together in the flesh.
Nijhak Singh – Here there are celebrations but
no one is eating each others flesh. What you say is
correct, please go further.
Gurprasad Singh – The next two extracts are
–
mwshu
inMmy mwshu jMmy hm mwsY ky BWfy ]
In the flesh we are conceived, and in the flesh we
are born; we are vessels of flesh.
igAwnu
iDAwnu kCu sUJY nwhI cquru khwvY pWfy ]
You know nothing of spiritual wisdom and meditation,
even though you call yourself clever, O religious
scholar.
Nijhak Singh – Is this the same criticism as
before; about hating meat?
Gurprasad Singh – Sure it isn’t permission
to consume it?
Nijhak Singh – Certainly not.
Gurprasad Singh – The next three extracts are
as follows –
bwhr
kw mwsu mMdw suAwmI Gr kw mwsu cMgyrw ]
O master, you believe that flesh on the outside is
bad, but the flesh of those in your own home is good.
jIA
jMq siB mwshu hoey jIie lieAw vwsyrw ]
All beings and creatures are flesh; the soul has taken
up its home in the flesh.
ABKu
BKih BKu qij Cofih AMDu gurU ijn kyrw ]
They eat the uneatable; they reject and abandon what
they could eat. They have a teacher who is blind.
Even after these three extracts, it cannot be established
that eating meat is permissable. If our meat-eating
brothers want to establish permission, then they should
tell me what they think of the 12th extract; the one
which mentions meat from home and from outside? If
they say that the meat at home is the meat of humans,
and the meat from outside is regular meat then they
are not even worthy of being called meat-eaters. If
they do not see eating human flesh as acceptable,
then they shouldn’t eat animal flesh either.
But these words fall upon deaf ears. If they prepared
and ate the meat of humans, then their argument would
make sense. What is the difference between these meats;
all beings on earth are merely statues of meat. Why
have a hatred towards beings made of meat? If there
is a hatred, then it should be for all meat, not selected
meat.
Nijhak Singh – From the way I see it, this verse
criticises those who eat meat at home but, when they
are outside, they say the can’t stand it. That
is why the Guru says, O’ Pandits, while sitting
secretly at home you eat meat but, to keep your face
in front of people outside, you put on an act.
Gurprasad Singh – OK, I accept that as the true
meaning. The meanings are virtually the same. The
13th extract (“All beings and creatures are
flesh...”) goes along with the others from before.
Nijhak Singh – But what connection does this
14th extract (“They eat the uneatable..”)
have with others?
Gurprasad Singh – This verse stands alone and
states that those people who have not adopted the
True Guru’s wisdom and who have no faith in
God, continue to eat all kinds of things. The food
that should be eaten is “avoided” and
that which should not be eaten is continually consumed.
Acceptable food (that which is obtained through an
honest living) is never consumed but unacceptable
food (that which is earned through deception) is forever
consumed. Whether meat eaters of meat avoiders, if
their thinking is not of a righteous nature then arguing
over this matter is merely foolish. Those God oriented
individuals who consider this matter with importance
implement the correct decision within their lives.
They are highly respectable individuals who only do
good and shun outward appearances. They do not get
involved in fruitless arguments. Those who abandon
meat for their spirituality are truly accepted. But
the efforts of those who abandon meat to be distinguished
as “meat avoiders” are nothing more than
hipocrisy. On the other hand, those individuals who
eat meat are not necessarily hipocrits but are just
mistakenly in the habit of eating it. But those people
who look for support from the Gurbani to justify their
greed for meat-eating, are merely frauds. Those people
who are intent on eating meat have instigated these
arguments over. Those who have not desire to consume
meat have not need to get into arguments. Their positive
efforts are not in any danger. The danger is for those
who consume meat.
Nijhak Singh – I think this thought of yours
is incorrect. These days, people who eat meat stand
proudly and claim that those who do not eat meat are
punishable and cowards, and that there is no wrong
in their consumption of meat. What arrogance. Some
people fight wars and some people farm their land,
both can become injured. But why would anyone want
to attack an individual who never even grasped the
weapon?
Gurprasad Singh – They make the innocent out
to be the guilty. Those who do not fight injustice
and do not fight for their country may be called cowards,
but not those who refrain from eating meat. Those
who don’t eat meat are in fact, braver then
those who do, and those who eat meat have been shown
to display greater cowardice. Those who never administer
fear, tyranny and injustice never fear the threats
of others either. By worshipping the Fearless Lord
they enter the world of fearlessness. The essence
of the warrior stems for fearlessness. Fear comes
to those who give or show fear to others. No meat
eater has been declared as a true warrior to this
day. Let alone being declared, none has been born
to date. The actions of a true warrior have been declared
in Gurbani by Guru Jee as follows
jw
kau hir rMgu lwgo iesu jug mih so khIAq hY sUrw ]
He alone is called a warrior, who is attached to the
Lord's Love in this age.
Awqm
ijxY sgl vis qw kY jw kw siqguru pUrw ]1]
Through the Perfect True Guru, he conquers his own
soul, and then everything comes under his control.
||1||
The Lord’s love does not attach itself to an
individual who eats meat and neither do they conquer
their soul. A fearless warrior is only created by
the conquering of the soul and this has been the case
in our history. Up to this day, all saints and warriors
recognised in the Khalsa Panth have been individuals
who avoided the consumption of meat. No meat eating
indivual has attained the true love of the Lord to
date either.
Nijhak Singh – What you say is completely true.
Now, I would appreciate it greatly if you would explain
the remaining extracts also. Though, I don’t
think it is necessary for you to do so. I think this
whole passage concentrates on making foolish people
realise their foolish actions. Permission to eat meat
is not going to be obtained. Even if it is, then it
doesn’t effect me as I’m not a meat-eater.
I only wanted to find out about the basis for some
Sikhs adopting jhuttka. I know that there isn’t
anything in the Gurbani which supports the eating
of jhuttka. I know there will be plenty of other sources
which criticise the eating of meat, and also know
that there will not be any that support it. I also
know that meat-eaters can never be peaceful to animals,
nor can renouncers of jhuttka.
Gurprasad Singh – Why is that? When they haven’t
even practised jhuttka and haven’t killed animals,
they cannot be accused of being violent. They are
innocent and are peaceful.
Nijhak Singh – But small insects and micro-bodies
are also animals. People trample on them every single
day, they swallow them when drinking fluids and taking
their last breaths, they die once inside.
Gurprasad Singh – They don’t kill them
themselves. Violence is when one kills animals. The
verse on cruelty to animals doesn’t apply in
this case, and can only be applied to those who make
the conscious decision to kill animals. People eat
to save their lives. They eat what is natural to them,
and it is normal for small micro-bodies to go inside
them at the same time.
Nijhak Singh – I will accept that there are
other acts which lead to animals being eaten. Perhaps
they don’t harm the animal themselves but the
animals do go inside them. Supporters of jhuttka can
say that, even having cast jhuttka aside, you are
still meat-eaters as the meat of animals still goes
inside you.
Gurprasad Singh – I am not stating this to the
extent that we should give up our food also! I accept
that small insects may come into what we eat but,
if I see a little creature in my food, I will take
it out. I will throw the food away and eat something
else. There are small creatures in the air but I will
not go the the extent of covering my mouth with a
cloth like Jains. I cannot abandon a diet which is
natural to me. I will not do this as it is against
my religion, as is eating meat and killing animals.
Religion doesn’t state that we should stop eating
our natural food, or stop drinking water. This is
not the case for eaters of jhuttka. They make a decision
to eat meat, and when they do, the animal goes inside
them. They do this with great stubbornness.
At this point a Giani (teacher) who was a supporter
of jhuttka, who had been there for quite a while and
had heard our discussion, interrupted.
Pro-jhuttka Giani – (looking at Nijhak Singh)
Why did you have to start this discussion; it has
backfired on us.
Gurprasad Singh – Then pro-jhuttka people like
yourself should not bother posing such questions.
You should not try to use
jyqy
dwxy AMn ky jIAw bwJu n koie ]
As many as are the grains of corn, none is without
life.
to argue your case that nobody can avoid “meat”.
You present your case, and it is that very same case
that disproves what you believe. If only you could
see the truth behind it in the first place. You are
responsible for it ‘backfiring on you’,
and have shot yourself in the foot.
Do one thing for me now Giani ji, please take a look
at the state of you teeth after eating all that meat.
Dogs and wolves have teeth like that from mother nature,
which can cut through raw flesh. First you must grow
teeth like a wolf, then you can present a case to
eat meat.
Upon hearing this, the Giani vanished quickly and
the rest of the congregation began to disperse.