It is said in Sri Dasam granth, authored by Guru Gobind Singh, that the Bedi and Sodhi clan of Punjab are descendants of Kush and Lav respectively, the sons of SriRama.

It is said the Bedis got their name so because they studied the vedas for a long time , and hence came to know as 'Vedis' , or 'Bedis' (as 'B' = 'V' in many north indian accents)

I know hindus will not consider Sri Dasam as an authentic source, but i wanna know what they think of this subject as certain hindu authors have quoted Sri Dasam granth.

  • I edited the title to match the body of the question. Commented Feb 4, 2018 at 13:52
  • By the way, you may be interested in my question here, concerning a sect which seems to follow both Hinduism and Sikhism: hinduism.stackexchange.com/q/17757/36 I'm not sure if they consider themselves part of Sanatan Sikhs or if they consider themselves different. Commented Feb 4, 2018 at 14:13

1 Answer 1


Title of your question is "How do Hindus view Sikhism and Sikh gurus ?" but body of your question is about bedi and sodhi clan. Regarding body text of your question, i dont think there will be any text/view regarding bedi or sodhi being or not being vedi will be available. neither there will be any affirmation available, nor any objection available.

But regarding the title of your question "How do Hindus view Sikhism and Sikh gurus ?"

1) within hinduism, vedas, gita etc are common canonical text. But there are many sects in hinduism, each sect has its additional canonical text.

Now, There are many sects in hinduism which consider sikh gurus as canonical . For example: Sanatani sikh , nanakpanthi , udasi





2) Among non-deminational hindus, there are many who rever sikh gurus as canonical as any other medeival age great saints or bhakti saints (kabir,haridas,chaitanya..) . For example: myself. But there will not be any text mentioning this, because by definition they are non-denominational hindus.

  • There's no such thing as "Sanatan Sikh" . The entire article and content of it is invalid . Commented Feb 4, 2018 at 14:00
  • @Sikhandyeshallfind Are you saying that there is no one who calls themselves a Sanatan Sikh? Then what are Khem Singh Bedi and the Singh Saba? Commented Feb 4, 2018 at 14:05
  • 2
    @Sikhandyeshallfind Before 1870s sikh term was used for "khalsa sikh" and "sanatani sikh". Both followed same teachings, except that some sanatani sikh do not followed 5Ks. Main difference was that Khalsa sikh beleived that Sikhism is separate religion evolved from hinduism, and sanatani sikhs beleived that their sikhism is a sect within hinduism. Finally both had separate followings. But during 1920s finally Khalsas could get control on gurudwaras. Shankaracharya, Gandhiji all supported Khalsas on this issue.. Now 'currently' term 'sikhism' is mostly used as synonym only for 'Khalsa sikhs'.
    – zaxebo1
    Commented Feb 4, 2018 at 14:08
  • @KeshavSrinivasan , Udasis are a sect created by Sri Chand , one of the two sons of Guru Nanak. Sri Chand and Lakhmi Chand both did not obey their father and he instead chose to pass his guruship to his obedient disciple who became second guru of sikhs. Sri Chand is not spoken of in nice terms in Sikh scriptures. Commented Feb 4, 2018 at 14:18
  • 1
    sikhnet.com/news/sindhi-hindus-nanakpanthis-pakistan shows that even "in pakistan" also currently still there are nanakpanthis and udasis. and this article explains a lot of detail about this sect even in pakistan.
    – zaxebo1
    Commented Feb 4, 2018 at 14:23

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .